BBC chairman Michael Grade confessed that the first thing he made clear upon being appointed to the chairmanship was that the BBC system of governance needed radical reform.

He went to some length to give a detailed explanation of what he actually meant by “governance”. He started by distinguishing between governance and regulation. “Regulations,” he said, “is about rules – about quotes, guidelines, producer codes and so on”.

On the other hand, governance deals with stewardship; stewardship of the corporation’s funds and stewardship of the public interest. Because of these

obligations, BBC governors establish a clear separation from management. Grade also confessed that the governors’ separation from management has not always been achieved.

While he accepts that the governors are the champions of the

corporation, he says that they should not be expected to be also the champions of BBC management, for management is another matter. He assured his listeners that he would not allow the distinction between the accountability of governing and that of managing, ever to become blurred.

He emphasised that some of the measures that demonstrate the governors’ determination to ensure this distinction include, among others, the rigorous application of public value test, the large-scale public survey, and the new approach to performance-measurement.

It is also anticipated that a distinct and properly resourced governance unit will be set-up. This unit will be a resource of wholly independent advice and expertise.

The changes anticipated will no longer leave the governors at the mercy of management for information. The annual report is also expected to change. It will no longer be drawn up, jointly, by management and governors, but solely by the governors. In this manner, governors will be able to hold management to account on behalf of the public. He assured his listeners that if conditions are not met, it will not be a case where assistant heads will role, but it will be the top jobs that will be on the line.

Mr Grade invited listeners to come forward with issues for discussion about the nature of the constitutional arrangement in their review of the current charter. Whatever the outcome of the debate, the new arrangements must guarantee the same degree of independence as does the existing charter.

The governors’ task must be to scrutinise the BBC, Grade said, and if they do not do their job properly and independently from management, then government should step in.

The BBC chairman insists that the independence of the corporation is a key element in the value the general public derive from the license fee. He says that it is not by coincidence that, for more than three-quarters of a century, public service broadcasting in the UK has survived sometimes ferocious political pressures. The BBC’s governance system has given the corporation the necessary strength and independence.

Mr Grade also spoke of accountability within the BBC, which he referred to as being patchy. He accused his corporation as having been rather closed, in the past, as an institution and that its record in listening to criticism and responding candidly, has been inconsistent. Here he made reference to the Neil report that had recently been published, regarding the editorial lessons of Hutton. He insisted that his organisation will be open and transparent, and the real test of openness and transparency depends on how an organisation deals with complaints from the public. He also announced that they will be shortly publishing a new system for dealing with

complaints from the public.

He has in mind the introduction of much tougher controls to ensure objectivity, fairness and transparency. “In building public value,” he said, “we are setting out a programme of very significant change right across the BBC”. Of the many changes, he picked on what he describes as the most important, namely, that he wants to wipe out any perception that could have existed that the BBC is the sole judge and jury of its own performance.

As a publicly-owned institution, Mr Grade believes that there must be no room for doubt that public service broadcasting’s agenda is seen to be dictated by the public interest. He also says that the most important principle of a public station is accountability, and that it is available to everyone, delivering value to everyone, and open to everyone.

“The BBC does not have a monopoly on wisdom about its future,” Mr Grade reiterated. “All reforms are worthless if the BBC doesn’t continue to attract and train the best and brightest talent and makes the BBC the place where the best talent wants to work” he said.

The BBC chairman concluded his very interesting speech on building public values, by saying that “to keep the rest of broadcasting honest, we must be honest with ourselves, and about

ourselves”.

As I said at the beginning of this article, the foregoing is only a synopsis of the BBC chairman’s speech. It is no doubt a very enlightening lesson on public broadcasting, particularly in the case of our national station, which, since its inception, in my opinion has never actually met its obligations as a public service broadcaster.

I am sure that the people at Guardamangia know all about the BBC chairman’s address, but it may not pay them to take heed of Mr Grade’s philosophy on public service broadcasting. This, I fear, makes our national station’s issue even more serious, for it seems that those entrusted with the reform of our public broadcasting prefer the status quo.

The local broadcasting service has been in a mess for years on end, and does not seem likely that it will get out of the rut, unless the government’s mentality on what constitutes a truly public service broadcaster changes.

The first part of this article was published last Monday