BBC Purpose Remits Consultation 

A response from mediawatch-uk 4/4/2007 

mediawatch-uk welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on 
the six Purpose Remits set out in the BBC’s new Royal Charter. We also 
welcome the explanation of the changed nature of the BBC Trust compared to 
the BBC Governors. Much more should be done by the BBC to acquaint the 
public with the new Trust and its role in representing licence fee payers. We 
note the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and 
Sport, The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, MP, in an article published in The Times 
newspaper 5/1/2007 about the role of the BBC Trust. 

mediawatch-uk welcomes the six new public purposes for the Corporation and 
we can appreciate that these could provide a very helpful mechanism by 
which the BBC can be made more accountable to licence fee payers. 
However, we believe that they would be enhanced by more precision in 
definition and a clearer explanation in how they are to be applied. It is not 
enough to have these ‘Purpose Remits’ as paper commitments. There must 
be a way that the licence fee payer understands how they will affect 
programmes transmitted by the BBC. 

Accordingly, mediawatch-uk welcomes the fact that the Purpose Remits will 
be kept under review but as they are a new innovation we wonder whether a 
“major review” should not be undertaken before five years have elapsed. We 
suggest a review should take place after two years. The review should 
include how well licence fee payers understand them and how well the BBC 
has complied and performed. This applies equally to the BBC’s so-called 
‘Public Value Test’. This has largely escaped the notice of licence fee payers, 
the majority of whom, we suggest, have no real idea of what this means in 
terms of programmes and services provided by the BBC. 

We continue to welcome and appreciate statements of programme policy 
which also are a good indication of performance. Much more should be done 
in news, current affairs and special programmes on TV and radio to acquaint 
licence fee payers with BBC aspirations and public service commitments. 

The proposal to issue service licences is also welcome although, again, it is 
essential that the licence fee payers know what they are and what will cause 
them to be changed or revised. It is not good enough for such important 
decisions to be “internal” matters for management or the Trust. 

mediawatch-uk is aware that the former chairman of the BBC Governors 
undertook to ensure that licence fee payers were consulted on what they think 
about the BBC and how well it is performing according to the Purpose Remits. 
A figure of 10,000 people was mentioned. So far as this consultation is 
concerned there is no commitment to this level of regular enquiry. We have 
recommended in the past that the licence fee renewal system could be 
harnessed to ascertain what the public thinks about the BBC and the 
programmes it provides. We remain of the view that programme content is a 


vital concern to many many people whose concerns about the portrayal of 
violence, sexual conduct and obscene or “strong” language have their 
concerns overlooked or dismissed. 

mediawatch-uk suggests that the six Purpose Remits should inform all who 
work at the BBC as well as those independent companies who are 
commissioned to produce programmes. We emphasise especially the remit 
to “sustain citizenship and civil society”. There is a very great deal of 
evidence that television, in particular, is a huge influence in our society. 
Consequently antisocial behaviour portrayed on television encourages the 
idea that such behaviour is acceptable in society. We believe that everything 
that the BBC does should be set against this Purpose Remit. 

It is not, in our opinion, an unreasonable public expectation for the BBC, 
because of its worldwide reputation, to set high standards and good positive 
role models disregarding what other broadcasters may do. Accordingly it is 
not enough for the BBC to promise coverage of local and national elections as 
fulfilment of this Purpose Remit. Sustaining citizenship and civil society ought 
to be taken into account for all output. If the BBC is to assume the onerous 
role of “setting standards for the rest of the industry” then it should make sure 
that those standards are high in every respect and properly reflect the 
concerns of the viewing public rather than the desire for high ratings and 
audience share. Social responsibility should be the watch words for the BBC. 

It would be helpful to know how the BBC Trust is to perform “the task of 
representing the interests of licence fee payers and ensuring their voice is 
properly heard”. The present system of monitoring complaints from the public 
simply does not inspire confidence that public opinion expressed in this way is 
being heard or listened to. Replies from BBC staff are characteristically 
patronising and dismissive and evidently not much has changed since the late 
Marmaduke Hussey’s assessment that complaints are “treated with disdain”. 
The BBC Trust must, in future, do much more to take action over complaints 
from the public and to let it be known more widely that public opinion matters 
and, indeed, is sought to inform the Trust’s judgements. 

The BBC Trust is currently failing to provide adequate information about itself. 
We know of only one BBC Radio 4 programme, You and Yours, since the 
BBC Trust started work officially, where members of the Trust have been 
interviewed and provided answers to selected questions about the BBC. 

We also believe that regional and religious output should be greatly 
enhanced. The BBC’s evening schedules have become too predictable with 
certain immovable programmes that hinder creativity. 

The central weakness in the Purpose Remits is the failure to recognise the 
power and influence of television to affect behaviour, and attitudes in ways 
that are not always good. Perhaps “social responsibility” should be added in 
somewhere. 

Please note we have no objection to the whole of this submission being made 
public.