Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-203)
MR ANDY
DUNCAN AND
MS ANNE
BULFORD
13 MARCH 2007
Q200 Paul Farrelly: In a nutshell,
would it be fair to say that the ownership structure which confers
stability is important in allowing you to fulfil that role?
Mr Duncan: I think the Channel
4 model has been highly successful for the last 25 years and the
fact that we are publicly owned with a public purpose has been
absolutely at the core of that and this very inspiring remit to
innovate has been at the core of that. Essentially, we have had
a business model that was an analogue business model, which is
Channel 4 can do all of that through analogue spectrum subsidy.
It is a fairly simple issue in a way. It is saying as we now move
to a fully digital world what the policymakers and Government
need to now find is a suitable adjusted business model which can
continue that going forward so Channel 4 can carry on over hopefully
the next 25 years playing an equally valuable and powerful role.
Q201 Chairman: The BBC has to go
through Charter renewal, licence fee negotiations and ITV has
to have its own licence renewal process, it has shareholders to
answer to. What would you say to the criticism which has been
made by some of your competitors that basically Channel 4 has
a pretty loose remit which allows them to do what they like and
are answerable to nobody?
Mr Duncan: I simply do not agree
with that. First of all, the remit is a very clear and inspiring
remit which has been shown to work very effectively over our recent
past and, indeed, over our whole history. Tessa Jowell herself
made the remark in London last autumn that she thought the remit
was essentially very sound. I think in terms of governance we
have very clear structures which have been shown to work well.
We have an independent board of non-executives outnumbering executives
and the board itself takes its responsibilities very seriously
in terms of the Statements of Programme Policy and reviewing the
delivery against the remit. We also have a number of quotas, so
we have specific numbers of hours that we are required to do in
terms of news, current affairs, religion and, of course, we have
a separate independent regulator who is heavily involved in our
business and we are a very heavily regulated business. I think
the combination of an independent board and a regulator—and
bear in mind this is not like the old BBC structure, the board
itself has nothing to do in terms of regulation, so it is more
of a mixed role in the way the BBC governors were before—means
we are very rigorously regulated and we are very rigorously overseen
by the board. As I said, the track record speaks for itself. Going
forward, the governance system in place is very strong and continues
to work well. At the same time, very importantly, it allows us
to be independent of government and I think that is very, very
important as a broadcaster, not least with some of the topics
we cover.
Q202 Philip Davies: Can I come back
to The Great Climate Change Swindle because, unlike Adam,
I think you should be congratulated wholeheartedly for that programme
because in a free country we are in danger of having a subject
where you are only allowed one particular view and any other view
is not even allowed to be aired, so I think you should be congratulated
wholeheartedly for that. Is it your contention that only Channel
4 would have shown that programme, that perhaps the BBC would
not have had the guts to show a programme like that?
Mr Duncan: If you look at the
evidence of the last 25 years, the evidence of the last couple
of years, I would say that Channel 4 has this particular remit
and it is deep in the culture of the organisation in terms of
the commissioning capability. It is certainly something which
we work very closely with independent production companies on
and the sorts of ideas that they bring to Channel 4 and it is
something that the brand stands for with our audience. We do tend
to be very innovative in the programmes we do. We have many more
new one-off programmes than any other broadcaster and we do tend
to push the boundaries, yes. I think it is probably easier for
us. The BBC does a great number of very good programmes but I
would say that more often Channel 4 will push a controversial
view or push a contrary view or push an alternative view, that
is part of what we are there to do.
Philip Davies: Just to clarify, I understand
all that, but do you think that the BBC specifically would not
have had the guts to show The Great Climate Change Swindle
or any other broadcaster would not have had the guts to show that
particular programme?
Q203 Adam Price: Fox News, maybe!
Mr Duncan: I cannot comment on
whether they would or they would not, but I would say it is very
typical of what Channel 4 does and has done very well over a number
of years. If you take our audience tracking research, we tend
to come off the scale compared with other broadcasters, including
the BBC, on issues like risk-taking, innovation and pushing the
boundaries.
Philip Davies: I will take that then
as they would not have had the guts.
Chairman: I will merely observe that
Channel 4 did have the guts to show The Deal which was
turned down by the BBC and I just hope you do not suffer for it
in the next few months. Thank you very much.
| 
