Alternatives to a Charter
238. We received relatively few submissions that
examined arrangements for establishing the BBC other than by Royal
Charter. Although the DCMS consultation explicitly raised the
question as to whether a Royal Charter continued to be the most
appropriate basis for the establishment of the BBC, this point
does not appear to have been considered to any great degree.
The Secretary of State told us: "I would mislead you, however,
if I said that we had given detailed consideration to a structure
for the BBC that moved it out of its constitution by Royal Charter."[199]
In Building public value, the BBC Governors note that the
Charter might seem "old-fashioned" and welcomed debate.
239. 3WE, the Third World and Environment Broadcasting
Project, has recommended that "the statutory basis of the
BBC should be modernised, with the Agreement radically rewritten,
to become a publicly comprehensible statute which enshrines the
public service purposes and social roles of the BBC and its various
services."
240. Carole Tongue and David Ward did comment that
the Charter "is ill suited to set out the duties and responsibilities
of the contemporary BBC and we would suggest it is not renewed
and is replaced with a more suitable instrument. We would like
to see something far more permanent both in terms of reviews of
the BBC's services and its legal standing and obligations."[200]
In evidence submitted to the DCMS,[201]
they explicitly recommend replacing the Royal Charter with a permanent
BBC statute setting out the obligations and responsibilities of
the Corporation.
241. Artsworld recommended that the "anachronistic"
Royal Charter and Agreement should be abolished entirely, and
replaced with an Ofcom licence similar to those held by other
public service and commercial broadcasters.[202]
242. Lord Currie acknowledged that placing the BBC
on a statutory basis was "certainly a possibility."
He added: "We are also sensitive to the points that are
made about state broadcasters, as it were. We have a rather different
tradition in the UK and it would be a significant step to make
that change."[203]
243. Were the BBC to be established by Act of Parliament,
we believe that the statute should also explicitly provide protections
for the Corporation. An Act would be more than a simple transposition
of the Charter and Agreement, and would have to enshrine more
explicitly the BBC's editorial independence. An Act could also
make provision for periodic review of the BBC's services, involving
public consultation and, we would suggest, tied in with Ofcom's
quinquennial reviews of public service broadcasting.
244. Placing the BBC on a permanent statutory basis
would provide for long term certainty, and transparency over the
Corporation's basic terms of reference. Under the present arrangements
the Charter is granted for a specified period, judged "expedient".
Once so granted, fundamental change, abolition even, could arguably
be effected more readily than if the establishment of the BBC
were by Act of Parliament.
245. Parliament is a more transparent and democratic
agency through which to establish the BBC, and effect changes,
than the Privy Council and the "rather private process"
to which the Secretary of State referred. An Act could, and should,
provide for regular public input into and comment upon the BBC's
services. Under such an Act, the BBC's governing body would be
required to conduct its proceedings and deliberations in a far
more open manner than hitherto. The Corporation itself has been
promulgating the concept of building public value. It should,
in short, be a public BBC.
246. Our recommendation, therefore, is that the
BBC should be placed on a statutory basis by Act of Parliament
at the earliest opportunity. However, this legislation should
not be rushed and should be published in draft for pre-legislative
scrutiny by a joint committee of both Houses. Given the current
Charter expires at the end of 2006—which may not leave sufficient
time for these pre-legislative and legislative processes to take
place—we recommend a five year Charter to cover this interim
period. In the event that, at the end of this five year Charter,
no Act has been passed then the Charter should be subject to expedient
extension, as it has in the past, until the legislation we recommend
is in place.
188 
