´óÏó´«Ã½

The Voice of the Listener and Viewer has been a staunch friend of public service broadcasting down the years. A good friend, but a critical friend.

I thank you for that.

A critical friend can often be the best friend. Although whether I shall continue to think that after the question-and-answer session following these remarks remains to be seen…

The role of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust

A few weeks ago I gave a lecture entitled What the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is for. Today I'd like to explore with you a connected but different topic: not what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is for, but what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust is for.

There's a short answer to this question. And – as I'm afraid you're about to discover – a rather longer one.

The short answer is this:

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust has two key roles. The first is to protect the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. The second is to represent the interests of the public.

Now for the longer version…

Protecting the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½

As far as the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ goes, this is non-negotiable. It does not matter from where the attack may come – from the government of the day, from lobbying groups, from commercial interests, or from any other quarter – our job is to stand in front of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and protect it from inappropriate pressure.

In our relatively short life, the Trust has not yet had to fend off a concerted attack on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s independence. But my reading of ´óÏó´«Ã½ history leads me to expect that, at some time, we will. And when that time comes, I am confident that you will not find us wanting.

A ´óÏó´«Ã½ that is not independent is, frankly, not worth having. It certainly would not be able to meet the demanding public purposes laid out in the new Charter, nor would it long continue to enjoy the public's affection and trust.

But, having said that, let me make something clear.

Our duty to defend the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should not be interpreted as a duty to defend the ´óÏó´«Ã½, or the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive, come what may. The effectiveness of the Trust in defending the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s independence lies in its own independence.

This is a point of fundamental importance.

There is a school of thought that believes the new governance arrangements have short-changed the ´óÏó´«Ã½. I don't agree.

The new Charter provides greater independence for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in two ways:

• a new, independent governing body equipped to make decisions previously taken by the Government; and
• greater influence for the public – those who own and pay for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ – and who must be consulted by the Trust before any big decisions are made.

Indeed, the notion that, in the 21st century, the job of the chairman of a public body is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his chief executive, come what may, is not, in my view, a recipe for a governance system that works in the public interest. My job, and the job of the Trust, is to support, yes, but to challenge too.

During the summer, for example, when questions were being raised about the trustworthiness of some ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes there were some who argued that the Trust should be out on the front line defending the ´óÏó´«Ã½ from attack. But external criticism of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not, of itself, a threat to the integrity of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. What would pose such a threat would be the ´óÏó´«Ã½, having had its attention drawn to problems in its operations, failing to move rapidly to put its house in order. That, rightly, was what the Trust concentrated on.

In this case the Director-General and his team moved swiftly and effectively to acknowledge the problem and to start to put things right. And they were encouraged and supported in that by the Trust.

The most recent sign of our steps to do things differently is reflected in the new Code of Conduct for competitions and voting, published just last week. This new code underlines the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s commitment to treat its audiences with respect, honesty and fairness, and never to compromise its editorial integrity.

But because I do not believe that my job is to defend the ´óÏó´«Ã½ come what may, that should not be taken to mean that I do not feel immensely privileged to be Chairman of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not right to be proud of its immense achievements.

This week ´óÏó´«Ã½ One alone is offering an outstanding schedule: Strictly Come Dancing, Cranford, The Blair Years, Monarchy, The Street.

And last week the same Jimmy McGovern drama was amongst the outstanding group of ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes awarded international Emmys. All six Emmys demonstrating not just the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s continuing creative strength, but also the leadership it provides for the whole UK broadcasting industry.

It's in focusing on how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can generate widespread pride amongst the British public that I approach my job as chairman. This means that I and my fellow Trustees must always challenge the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to do better. Challenge it on behalf of the public, whose ongoing support is essential to safeguard the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s future.

Representing the public interest

This brings me to the second part of our role as ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trustees – to represent the interests of the public and ensure that we take their views, your views, fully into account (diverse and complex as they will often be) before we exercise our judgement and make the decisions that set the course for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Two questions arise from this.

The first is: how do we identify what the public want?

The second is: having found out what the public thinks, what do we do with that knowledge?

The answer to the first question is fairly simple: we ask them. But in practice, as the Trust is learning, this requires a great deal of effort on our part and I'll say more about that in a moment.

As to the second question – what do we do once we know what the public thinks – the answer is that those views rightly command a very strong influence over our judgements about the future course of the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Although the Trust has not been in business for very long we can already show clear evidence of how our judgements have been influenced by the views of the public.

For example, earlier this year our research uncovered a disturbing decline in loyalty to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ the farther away people live from London. In the South East, 83% agree that they would miss the ´óÏó´«Ã½ if it wasn't there. But that figure drops to 64% in the north of England, and 63% in Scotland.

This is a pretty clear message that audiences feel the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is still too London-centric in its outlook. And that message isn't just coming from research.

The Audience Councils, the Trust's advisers in each of the four nations who work energetically to understand and feed back public opinion about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have told the Trust exactly the same: ´óÏó´«Ã½ audiences want to see their lives represented on their ´óÏó´«Ã½ – and they don't think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is responding adequately to that demand.

Our view as Trustees is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has to deliver value to all its licence fee payers, wherever they live. And before we approved the Executive's strategic plans for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in October, we pressed for a clear momentum towards moving more services out of London and commissioning more programmes from all parts of the UK.

The Trust's next review of impartiality was inspired by the same research. It will focus on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s network coverage of the four nations – to see how well the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is now reflecting the reality of devolution in Scotland, Wales and now Northern Ireland.

The principle of public consultation before important decisions are taken is built into the new ´óÏó´«Ã½ constitution.

We will always consult publicly as part of our regular series of formal reviews of ´óÏó´«Ã½ services, like that on bbc.co.uk now underway. We will always consult as part of the Public Value Test that we carry out whenever the Executive proposes a new ´óÏó´«Ã½ service, or wants to make a significant change to an existing service. And we will always consult before deciding on the priorities for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in terms of its Public Purposes. It is the Trust's consultation on the priorities to deliver each of the Purposes – including the research I've just mentioned – which had the biggest impact on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s six year strategic and investment plans and I'll return to this later.

In less than a year, we have already seen the benefits of greater ´óÏó´«Ã½ independence and a greater voice for the public introduced by the new Royal Charter. They are reflected in the major decisions taken by the Trust on Freesat, the new ´óÏó´«Ã½ HD Channel, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½iPlayer – which alone attracted over 10,000 responses from the public.

Decisions were reached within a sensible timeframe, following a robust and transparent process, and the Trust made changes reflecting the feedback we received from the public, industry and representative bodies – like yourselves.

Trust publishes its Promise to Audiences

Even though we've made real progress in giving a greater voice to the public and can demonstrate its influence, we know from the public's feedback that we need to do more. The public want to know when they can get involved, but more importantly, they want to know what action has been taken by the Trust as a result, so they can assess whether it's worth their time and effort.

Today we are publishing a new document setting out in some detail how we will engage with audiences. This is a requirement of the Charter, but our document goes well beyond any formal commitment and embodies our desire to build a lasting relationship with all our audiences.

It is called Our Promise to You and its contents have been informed by our dialogue with the public. I am very grateful to those VLV members who contributed and there are hard copies available here for you.

We have established a set of key principles that will underpin all our audience engagement activities and they include such things as:

• using methods of engagement the public believes will work and will choose to make use of
• taking an approach that reaches out to all members of the public, including those who may feel alienated from the ´óÏó´«Ã½, while resisting capture by vested interests and those with the loudest voice; and
• being open and transparent, including reporting the outcomes of our engagement.

In drawing up the promise, one message we picked up – and will act on – is that the language of many of our consultation documents could be more straightforward. The public wants documents written in plain language using the minimum of technical jargon, that are honest and direct in the way they present the issues.

We know that the public is made up of many diverse groups, and therefore we need to use a wide range of channels to reach as many different groups as possible.

Typically our formal consultations involve a document and questionnaire – available online and in hard-copy – and extensive research. We hold discussions with relevant interest groups and we hear from the Audience Councils.

We want to do more in the way of online consultation. It's quick, convenient and can be relatively economical. It opens up the possibility of establishing a valuable direct two-way communication channel with the public.

For example, we are investigating ways to ensure that anyone who contacts the Trust is offered the chance to be kept up to date with our work and to receive invitations to be involved in our future work.

But we have to remember that many people in the UK are not yet on line. And some will choose never to take that step. We have heard quite widespread concern – amongst younger as well as older audiences – about the dangers of becoming too reliant on online methods. They are seen, by some, as privileging the online community and disadvantaging those without online access.

We will continue to look for ways to reach and involve as many people as possible. For example, we are examining the option of trails on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own networks – similar to those about digital switchover – to highlight the opportunity to give us your opinion, or to tell you what's happened as a result.

Right now, we are consulting on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s complaints' processes, and some respondents are asking why we don't make it more widely known just how people can complain, including how to appeal to the Trust. Again we might want to look at how we can use the airwaves to better inform licence fee payers about their rights and how they can engage with their ´óÏó´«Ã½: whether that be to complain or to say how much they enjoyed a programme.

As I have already said, for people to believe it's worth responding, they don't just need to know the opportunity is there, they need to be confident that engaging with the Trust is worth the effort.

Of course, the Trust will always have to use its judgement not least because our large and complex audience has many different views and preferences – but we will always explain the reasons for the decisions we make and how we used the information provided by the public in reaching our decisions.

Taking account of what the public says

This year the Trust's most important job has been to shape and decide the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s budget for the next 6 years. The public made a strong impact on the Trust's decisions and I'll explain how.

For the first time ever, the public was invited by the Trust to help set the strategic direction of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. In addition to online consultation, over 4,500 people across the UK were interviewed about what priorities we should set the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was performing now in meeting those priorities.

The results showed that the public have extraordinarily high expectations of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and value a lot of what it already provides – but that, in some areas, they don't think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is always living up to those expectations.

I've already described how the public want to be better represented. But the biggest single issue where expectations fell short was the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s delivery on fresh and new ideas. The public want the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to demonstrate quality, value, and something that's a bit special and bit different to what else is on offer.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s six-year plan, developed by the Director-General Mark Thompson in response to requirements set by the Trust, is a first step to towards putting that right.

Armed with detailed information about the public's priorities – your feedback – the Trust tested and challenged the ´óÏó´«Ã½ management team until we were satisfied that we had a strategy which would best serve the public, and address their concerns.

The result: fewer but better programmes combined with greater efficiency so that what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can meet expectations of quality and distinctiveness delivered when and where most convenient to audiences.

I won't tire of saying that if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is to justify the enormous privilege of the licence fee it must concentrate on the things that build its reputation as a great public service broadcaster. That means distinctive output – the sort that takes creative risks, or sets standards for the whole industry, or that you simply won't ever get from commercial broadcasters. And that is where The Trust insisted investment must be made.

Value for money and efficiency is also something we take very seriously. The Trust has set the ´óÏó´«Ã½ testing efficiency targets over the six year period to ensure that management keep costs under tight control and release money for new investment that will benefit licence fee payers. To describe this simply as about cuts misses the crucial point that money is being reinvested.

Genuine efficiency does not affect quality. It maintains or increases quality, while reducing costs through, for example, better use of technology, or new ways of working.

Take News as one example.

For the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to meet its public purposes it must contribute to an informed democracy. This requires an informed electorate, not just an informed elite. News is a key priority for the ´óÏó´«Ã½, but we have nonetheless approved efficiency savings by the amalgamation of news gathering for TV, Radio and on-line services, and new ways of working.

In the first week after reorganisation of the department began, more people saw or heard Jim Naughtie's exclusive interview with President Musharraf of Pakistan because the various teams worked together to make it available in different formats to suit the different audiences of News 24, the 10 o'clock News and the website. The Today Programme still got the credit for the interview, ran it in longer form to suit its audience and combined it with more analysis. Crucially, the same quality journalism from licence fee investment achieved greater impact as a result of the new arrangements.

The real test of whether the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s strategy is working will come from people like you, the people who pay for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ – and the Trust won't reach its judgement on performance before understanding the public's reaction.

Let me take one, very important area to illustrate this point which I know is of real concern to VLV members: children's television.

Ofcom's review has highlighted the startling decline of investment by the commercial PSBs in original, home-grown children's programmes. The decline is clearly driven by commercial pressures:

• Reduced general advertising revenues
• Limitations on what can be advertised alongside children's programmes

The result is that ´óÏó´«Ã½ One is now the only analogue channel in the UK to broadcast children's programmes after school.

But the ´óÏó´«Ã½ isn't just broadcasting when others are not. The children's department, which includes the very successful television channels and all children's programming across television, radio and online, is led by some of the most dynamic and innovative people at the ´óÏó´«Ã½. The children's team have been trail-blazers in enhancing the value of their programmes by using technology and new ways of working to strengthen impact.

It is not by accident that they won 10 Children's Baftas this week, including Channel of the Year for CBeebies. Children's programming at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not just in safe hands, it is in very creative and inspiring hands.

Like all parts of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, the department has not been immune from efficiencies. But just like in News, this process is about removing waste or introducing new ways of working with the very purpose of ensuring the money saved can go back into programme-making.

But let me give you this guarantee:

The Trust will be tracking performance carefully in the months and years ahead to ensure that the efficiency savings we have set do not affect quality. Any sign that this is happening and we will require management to take corrective action.

For the first time, you and all licence fee payers really can hold the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust to account. Through the Purpose Remits and the Service Licences you can see what commitments have been made and the conditions we have set. Right now we are finalising the remits and reviewing the licences, taking account of all we've heard this year about the public's expectations.

The Trust is clear that for the Service Licences to be effective in helping us do our job, we need to set the right conditions and commitments for the channels and networks. This applies to the provision of children's services just as it does to any other core part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s public service remit.

Conclusion

At the start of these remarks I raised the question: what is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust for?

My answer is we are there to protect the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and to represent the public interest.

These two roles are, of course, intimately connected. It would clearly not be in the public interest to have a ´óÏó´«Ã½ that caved in to external pressure. It would also not be in the public interest to have a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust that simply rubber-stamped whatever the Executive decided to do without taking independent advice and taking time to make up its own mind.

I believe that by strongly challenging the Executive on a range of issues that we know the public feel very strongly about – such things as value for money, quality, impartiality and trustworthiness – we not only keep the ´óÏó´«Ã½ up to the mark, we also demonstrate our own independence, and this demonstration of the Trust's independence validates our constitutional right to defend the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

We will draw our strength from being clear who we serve. The constituency we have to satisfy is not the government, or the industry, or the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Executive. The only constituency we have to satisfy is the public, people like you.