´óÏó´«Ã½

This is the last big speech I'm going to make as ´óÏó´«Ã½ Chairman, so I'd like to use it to reflect on the past four years. To reflect on the record of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in general, and also of the Trust in particular. And I'd also like to say something about the challenges the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the Trust will face in the years ahead.

I'd like to start with what might seem a controversial statement. And it's this: when the history comes to be written, these last few years will be seen as one of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s strong periods.

You might think, I would say that wouldn't I?

And of course there have been some memorable cock-ups, which I'll also talk about tonight.

But when you draw up the score-sheet there are many more ticks on the positive side than crosses on the negative.

And what does the score sheet tell us?

• Public affection for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues strongly and research shows that trust in the corporation is higher than it was six years ago.
• The overall quality of ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes and online content continues to improve.
• The ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues to reach pretty much every household in the land every week.
• The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is demonstrably offering better value for money overall as year-on-year efficiencies free more cash to put into content.
• And the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues its tradition of helping audiences make the transition to new technologies that enrich their lives, for example:
  • Digital switchover, a project of immense complexity involving the whole UK, is being achieved smoothly and without disruption.
  • The ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer – probably the best catch-up service anywhere in the world – and soon to be piloted on the iPad across the world - goes from strength to strength.

And I could go on.

Now of course there must be no room for complacency here. To use the permanent Trust refrain: the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can always do better.

But I think the narrative I've begun to sketch out here is pretty compelling.

So, given all those positives: why have the last four years seemed so tempestuous?

Well, perhaps it was ever thus with the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

There is a particular sound that everyone who has ever led the ´óÏó´«Ã½ becomes accustomed to - the sound of incoming fire.

And once at the top of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, you very quickly learn to empathise with Harold MacMillan's diagnosis as to where the next set of problems will come from: "Events, dear boy, events".

So perhaps it just goes with the territory.

But I think this recent period has been particularly turbulent for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

This may be because we are still close to the greatest existential threat the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has faced in recent times – the events that led to the Hutton report.

This was something that tested the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s leadership. It tested the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s governance model. And it tested the standards of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s journalism.

Above all, it demonstrated that it is never enough to be on to a great story. You also have to have robust, professional practices at all levels if you are to land your story successfully.

Making absolutely sure that those professional practices are in place, underpinned by sound governance, has been a recurring theme ever since.

But Hutton makes up only part of the storms that have been blowing ‘round the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in recent years.

I think it's true to say that there are two events that will always indicate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is likely to be heading for choppy waters. One is a recession. The other is a general election. And we've had both.

The recession caused advertising revenues to shrink dramatically. This, in turn, seriously weakened the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s advertising-funded competitors.

Suddenly the ´óÏó´«Ã½, with its guaranteed income, and its ability to maintain its scale and levels of investment, started to look like a dangerously tall poppy, ripe for cutting down to size.

At the same time, the Government, with an election approaching, was losing public support. And it remains a sad truth that governments of whatever stripe will, when under pressure, always tend to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as the architect rather than the messenger of change.

Election periods usually mean pressure on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ from all parties as they tussle to get their messages across and become hypersensitive to issues of balance and editorial choice.

And while the recession and the election were changing the ´óÏó´«Ã½ weather, tornadoes were also blowing up elsewhere.

The digital revolution, itself one of the defining aspects of this period, brought structural change. Advertising-funded media, particularly newspapers, already weakened by the economic downturn, were subject to extreme stress as advertisers shifted their spend online.

And the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own prescient investment in online content intensified the sense of grievance.

Google emerged as a muscular new player in media markets. And there was heavyweight muscle elsewhere too, with Sky having the financial clout to easily outspend its competitors – including the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

And during all of this externally-induced change, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was pushing through its ownhuge change-programme too:

• Ambitious efficiency targets;
• Big investments in new technology;
• The pressing need to improve editorial standards and strengthen compliance systems;
• And there was also the drive to increase very significantly the share of ´óÏó´«Ã½ production made in the Nations and Regions.

These were all absolutely necessary. But they undoubtedly caused – and in some cases continue to cause - internal stresses and strains.

Indeed, while there have been plenty of external critics during this period, it has sometimes seemed they have been outnumbered by the internal ones, some of them with direct access to primetime airspace…

So, as I say, plenty of incoming fire – from all directions.

And every now and again the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would decide to add to the mix - by shooting itself in the foot.

To the amazement of supporters both within and without the ´óÏó´«Ã½ it allowed itself to become caught up in the serious scandal of bogus competitions that swept so damagingly through commercial broadcasting.

Then there was the trailer for a documentary about the Queen which wrongly implied she walked out of a portrait session.

And then, of course, there was Ross-Brand.

I've sometimes wondered if any ´óÏó´«Ã½ scriptwriter would ever have had the nerve to invent Ross-Brand, with its uniquely toxic combination of profanity, misogyny, bullying and black humour.

Ross-Brand exposed an unforgivably cavalier attitude to editorial standards in some parts of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and seemed, for some, to suggest that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had lost its moral compass.

I don't distance myself from these problems and I don't distance the Trust. A problem for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a problem for the Trust and we don't shrink from that. All the evidence is that when the Trust and management are working together to tackle problems jointly, we are at our best.

Those serious failings have now been addressed of course and although there may have been doubts about some of the medicine it seems to have worked.

And let me be clear, the Trust hasn't got everything right as we have grown into our role and responsibilities.

For example, we could have been clearer in demonstrating that we were actively tackling some issues of public concern, while acknowledging that it would take time to deliver on them.

In particular I'm thinking of the challenge of cutting the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s senior manager pay bill. This is not something that can be done overnight, and the Trust has been onto it since early in 2008. We could have made that clearer.

So, externally and internally, this has been a turbulent period for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

And there is one other contributory factor to consider– the revised governance arrangements that came in with the new Charter.

Change here was inevitable.

The old system, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors, which had, broadly speaking, served the ´óÏó´«Ã½ well for more than seventy years, had some serious weaknesses exposed by the Hutton process.

But even without Hutton, times had changed and with them public expectations of what should be expected from modern corporate governance, whether in the private or the public sector. Not least in terms of transparency and public accountability.

In the run-up to Charter renewal, there was a vigorous and wide-ranging debate as to the best model to apply when replacing the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors.

Lord Burns headed a committee that came out strongly in favour of a completely separate regulator for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

And the Burns Committee view found support from some powerful voices -

• some of whom saw a straightforward competitive advantage for themselves in a more tightly-regulated ´óÏó´«Ã½;
• some of whom who saw potential for improved value for money;
• and some of whom saw a separate regulator as the best route to improved editorial standards and higher quality programmes.

Others, however, saw a big problem lurking at the heart of the Burns proposal for an external regulator with the power to distribute the licence fee.

The problem was the potential threat to the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and therefore, ultimately, to its impartiality.

The fear was that the ´óÏó´«Ã½, under permanent threat of losing its income, would inevitably be in thrall to its regulator.

Opponents of Burns argued instead for a solution that would maintain the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s integrity and independence while also delivering the benefits of stronger scrutiny and challenge.

And ultimately it was their voices that weighed with the then Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell – and so too, with the then Labour government.

That government had, no doubt, also taken account of deep public disquiet at the Hutton verdict and the apparent prospect of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - their ´óÏó´«Ã½ – having, in future, to kowtow to Downing Street.

Indeed you may recall the title that Tessa Jowell gave to her 2005 green paper setting out, among other things, her approach to ´óÏó´«Ã½ governance. She called the green paper "A strong ´óÏó´«Ã½, independent of Government." The clue was in the title.

And so the Trust came into being. The Trust would be part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and therefore able to guard its independence, but with much greater separation from the Executive than had been the case with the Governors.

Not a traditional regulator, in fact not really a regulator at all, but with significant powers and the resources to challenge ´óÏó´«Ã½ management and to shape the ´óÏó´«Ã½ on behalf of the public who own it.

However, if Tessa Jowell thought her decision would bring an end to the arguments over the right structure for the governance of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, she was sadly mistaken. The controversy did not go away.

Now to some extent this was predictable.

Even inside the ´óÏó´«Ã½, the Trust idea was not well-understood. Even now you can find some within the corporation who don't fully understand the Trust's parental powers and responsibilities. The situation was not helped when the key ´óÏó´«Ã½ champion of the Trust model, the then chairman Michael Grade, who had put commendable energy into negotiating the small print, surprised everyone by leaving the ´óÏó´«Ã½ before the Trust was fully operational.

So we have to admit the Trust did have a less than perfect birth.

And some of those who opposed its very conception have maintained their opposition to what they see as an uneasy hybrid: characterised, in the sometimes Manichean universe of abstract governance theory, as neither fish nor fowl, not quite a regulator, not quite a cheerleader. That's something I'll return to in a moment.

This continuing controversy over the structure of the Trust has made its own contribution to the general turbulence surrounding the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

However, I came into this job with a very clear vision of the Trust's role as something much more than a regulator, and concentrating on this has enabled us to ride out the surrounding squalls.

What we've concentrated on is the key job of representing the interests of the British public.

Representing the interests of licence fee payers. That's the thread that runs through everything we've done. That's the real focus of what we do. That's what the Trust is really about.

I'll give you an example: Our public offer to freeze the licence fee for the remaining two years of the current settlement. This was, I believe unprecedented in the ninety year history of the licence fee.

The Trust made that offer because we felt it was clearly in licence fee payers' interests at a time when many were experiencing intense pressures on their household budgets.

It's clear evidence that the Trust exists to represent the public.

And that's why I always feel that the frequently asked question as to whether the Trust is a regulator or a cheerleader simply misses the point.

It's the wrong question.

The Trust is not here to be a cheerleader, or even a regulator in the traditional sense. It exists to represent the interest of the public.

So, after our first four years, the right question to ask is: "How have we done in representing that public interest?"

In answering the question, let me briefly describe the Trust as it is – the reality, not the fiction:

• Fundamentally it is a supervisory board with some regulatory functions. Most notably the oversight of accuracy and impartiality, just like the Governors before us.
• It is markedly more separate from the Executive than was the case with the Governors and has its own professional support staff.
• It approves strategy and headline budgets; the Executive manages the day-to-day functions of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the Director-General is both chief executive and Editor-in-Chief, with the Trust there to protect the independence of that latter role in particular.
• The Trust has one significantly different power compared with the Governors – it has the authority to approve new ´óÏó´«Ã½ services, a power that used to lie with the Secretary of State.
• The charter defines these roles and focuses the Trust on the fundamental duty of representing the public interest in its governance of the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
  • This translates, first of all, into guarding the independence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, for on that independence hangs the high level of public trust that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ enjoys and is critical to fulfilling its public functions.
  • But it also translates into a consistent challenge from the Trust to the Executive to do better in terms of value for money, impartiality, distinctiveness, and better serving the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s many different audiences across the UK.

As you can see, this is quite a meaty set of functions. The Trust is a serious institution with a serious job to do.

As to our record in doing that job, let me begin with the programmes the ´óÏó´«Ã½ commissions and broadcasts.

The Trust's challenge to the Executive here has been to increase the qualityÌý²¹²Ô»ådistinctiveness of ´óÏó´«Ã½ output. This is at the top of our agenda because our work with the public suggests that it's the area where they feel the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has furthest to travel.

Now, I recognise that distinctiveness is one of those motherhood words.

Everyone in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ signs up to it. Every ´óÏó´«Ã½ commissioner and programme maker claims that their own output demonstrates it.

And it is very much a "´óÏó´«Ã½ word". What the public are really thinking about when they cite this as an area for improvement is their interest in "fresh and new" content, which brings with it an expectation of both quality and ambition.

This has been a core part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s mission under the Trust because we believe that by focussing on distinctiveness the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will produce genuinely innovative content that delights and surprises its audiences with new programme concepts, formats and talent.

In our view that is a critical part of the quid pro quo for the privilege of the licence fee and substantial guaranteed income.

And the Trust is clear that gauging the impact of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ isn't just a numbers game. Audience size and share do matter, but our emphasis has been much more on audience appreciation.

That's why the Trust has been working with programme makers and commissioners to develop a clearer understanding of distinctiveness and how it can be achieved.

Together we have agreed four key values:

• high editorial standards;
• creative and editorial ambition - the public expects the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to take some considered risks, to do new things, and not to be afraid sometimes to challenge its audiences;
• range and depth - taking all audiences seriously;
• and finally, there's a Britishness component. The public wants to see their lives and experiences reflected in their world.

Through its ongoing focus on the quality of ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes, the Trust's work is already having an impact.

At station level, recommendations from our service review of Radio 2 have led to changes including new arts programming in peak time and a series of social action campaigns. On ´óÏó´«Ã½ Two, new documentary, drama and comedy output is having a tangible impact on audience approval levels.

And at individual programme level, here's a recent example of what distinctiveness can mean in practice – a ´óÏó´«Ã½ documentary called Women, Weddings, War and Me.

It tells the story of a young woman called Nel, who fled to Britain from Afghanistan with her family at the age of six.

Now, aged 21 and having grown up in London, she makes her first journey back to Kabul to meet her extended family, explore her culture – and begin to negotiate her own identity as a British Afghan.

It's a wonderful piece - fresh, vivid, eye-opening, brave, ambitious, moving.

Two interesting things about it. It was a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Three commission. And ´óÏó´«Ã½ Three's audience absolutely loved it. The AI – Appreciation Index – score was 95. That's almost off the scale.

It's a textbook example of how to bring a young audience to a difficult subject and utterly delight them. And do it without the slightest hint of dumbing down.

It shows what can be done.

And it would be remiss of me not to mention ´óÏó´«Ã½ Four here, which has a great track record of producing the kind of fresh and new programmes that time and again earn high appreciation scores from audiences. The next step is for ´óÏó´«Ã½ Four to share its riches with a wider audience.

The main challenge, of course, is to get more of this high quality and distinctive material onto ´óÏó´«Ã½ One and ´óÏó´«Ã½ Two, in ways that work for those audiences.

Let me underline that we do recognise real progress against this challenge but we also know that the public have very high expectations and there is further still to go.

Distinctiveness cannot just be devolved to the digital channels.

There's one other thing to be said about distinctiveness, and that concerns the way it plays out in terms of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s competitive impact.

Of course the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should not just be about making programmes that others don't, however, the more the ´óÏó´«Ã½ concentrates on truly distinctive output, the less likely it is to stray into areas best left to commercial broadcasters, and the more likely it is to provide creative leadership to the whole sector.

The more the ´óÏó´«Ã½ uses the privilege of the licence fee to test boundaries, create new approaches, discover fresh talent, reveal treasures and mysteries hidden from view, the more it will both delight audiences - and also break new ground, where commercial broadcasters may – or may not – choose to follow.

After quality and distinctiveness comes the objective of serving all audiences.

I start here with an obvious truth – although some people still seem to find it hard to come to grips with it. Modern Britain has an astonishingly diverse population, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has to respond to that diversity.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't yet adequately serve all its audiences in all parts of the UK, and this explains, I believe, the figures which show that affection for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ generally reduces the farther away you live from London and the South East.

There is a clear deficit here – and the problem has been made worse by the decay of the once-vibrant regional ITV structures.

The imperative to serve all audiences is not a recipe for dumbing down.

It's a challenge to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to embrace every member of the public, wherever they live, whatever their background, with programmes of high quality and distinctiveness. It boils down to the simple principle, everybody pays so everybody should get value for their contribution.

And progress is being made on a number of different fronts.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has taken the strategic decision to spread much more of its investment across the whole of the UK rather than concentrating it in London and the South East as the commercial broadcasters now do.

It means investing in new ´óÏó´«Ã½ production centres such as Salford and in new creative clusters such as the very successful ´óÏó´«Ã½ drama centre in Cardiff.

It also means putting more energy into investing in new partnerships.

For example in Salford the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has just signed a partnership with Conker Media to create the so-called Digital Fiction Factory.

This will be a new kind of production centre creating content not just for TV, but for mobiles and digital devices too, a real pointer to the future.

In addition to the economic benefits this "Out of London" policy produces for the Nations and Regions, it also brings the ´óÏó´«Ã½ closer to all its audiences – and brings those audiences closer to the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

And that is the real driving force behind the policy. Our primary goal is to ensure that audiences, wherever they live, see their lives reflected in ´óÏó´«Ã½ output - and see their lives reflected by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to other audiences across the UK.

In other words, this ideal of serving all audiences has a strong editorial edge.

Indeed, just one of the Trust achievements of which I am proud is our decision to require ´óÏó´«Ã½ News to dramatically improve its performance in reporting the devolved nations of the UK both to themselves and to one another.

We now take it for granted that when a new piece of legislation is announced, ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists will make clear which parts of the UK it applies to, and which parts it does not.

We now take it for granted that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will make regular comparisons in its reporting between the way big social issues – university tuition fees, say, or prescription charges - are dealt with in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland as compared to England.

We now take it for granted that ´óÏó´«Ã½ news adopts a much less London-centred view of the UK.

This was not always the case.

Our 2008 report into the impartiality of coverage of the Nations, with illuminating analysis by Prof King, which the Trust has regularly followed up on since then, marked a real turning point here. And public trust in the authority of ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalism has been strengthened as a result.

Serving all audiences is, of course, also partly about access, about technology, about distribution.

We are seeking to ensure that every household in the UK has convenient access to each relevant ´óÏó´«Ã½ service, free at the point of use. And we have detailed plans in place to make this happen in television, radio and online – and also in the new generation of digital devices.

As I acknowledged earlier, one of the great overarching themes of these past four years has been the sheer scale of the digital transformation. And we know there is more to come as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues its digital journey.

We are heading to a world where people will have many devices capable of receiving digital content.

The concept of separate platforms may become redundant, perhaps leaving space to concentrate investment on great content.

But technology will still matter, especially the technology to enable us to navigate the potentially infinite riches on offer to find the content we want.

The task of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is both to bring to everyone in the UK the benefits of these new communications technologies, but also to ensure we safeguard the public space and ensure convenient access to all ´óÏó´«Ã½ content for all licence fee payers. I'll say a little more about that in a moment.

Next on the list of Trust priorities comes value for money.

This is really important. The Trust has ultimate responsibility for the good stewardship of the money the public give the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and it's a responsibility we take very seriously.

We've also insisted that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues to become significantly more efficient year on year, continues to bear down on its costs, continues to free up cash to put into programmes.

We've taken decisive action to ensure the ´óÏó´«Ã½ spends much less on top salaries and on the fees it pays its big stars.

And we've successfully kept the pressure up on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to continue to reduce its overheads – even at a time when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been investing heavily in new production centres and in modernising and reshaping its estate to make it fit for the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s digital journey.

Another key area where we have made good progress is in openness and transparency.

Now in part this is about making more information public – figures for top salaries and so on, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has begun to make decent progress here.

But much more important as far as the Trust is concerned, is that in our own actions we model the open and accountable behaviour we expect the rest of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to exhibit. And I think the evidence shows that we have done just that.

A good example is the process we go through before we approve any new ´óÏó´«Ã½ service or a significant change in an existing service.

As you know, the process involves a Public Value Test designed to establish the public value created by a proposed new service and to compare it with any potential negative impact on the wider market.

The key point here is to ensure that we take the widest possible view of the public interest, weighing not only the strength of support for a new service, but also taking account of what the public might lose in terms of displaced market provision. Clear evidence of the Trust acting as guardians of the public interest rather than narrow defenders of ´óÏó´«Ã½ corporate interests.

The point of the public value approach is not to shove the ´óÏó´«Ã½ into a cul-de-sac signed market failure, making only those programmes the market would never provide.

The point of public value is to emphasise the aspects of quality and distinctiveness that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should concentrate on.

It's worth noting, incidentally, that the public value test, or PVT, pioneered by the Trust, is now held up as a model for other European public service broadcasters by the European Commission.

The PVT is a rigorous evidence-based investigation. We consult widely. We report openly. We share the evidence we have used as well as our reasoning and conclusions. And at the end of the process sometimes we say yes – but sometimes we have said no.

We said no to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ proposals for an ultra-local video news service delivered over the internet – because we judged the proposals did not create sufficient public value. Audiences who want local news told us clearly they want to get it via television and radio, not over the web.

And we closed down the online education service, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Jam, even though it was rather good, because the market was already providing something similar and it was not in the public interest to weaken that provision.

This open, objective, evidence-based process has given the Trust's PVT rulings a quality of robustness and resistance to further challenge.

This robustness is, if you like, the return on the Trust's significant investment in openness and transparency

That same investment is bearing fruit in other areas too – for example, the growing ability of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to use complaints as a chance to learn and raise its game, rather than, as was once the case, to retreat into a detailed defence.

And there's the openness to new partnerships, and the much greater sensitivity on the part of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to the impact it has on other players in the media marketplace.

This is all evidence of the way the Trust has, over its first four years, been reshaping the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to make it much more responsive to the broad interests of the public who pay for it.

But, of course, none of it matters very much if at the end of the day the reshaped ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not also produce the programmes that delight, and that inform, educate and entertain.

And though, as I've said, there is more to do here in the area of content that audiences recognise as being full of fresh and new ideas, our constant challenge to improve programme quality is bearing fruit.

Look at the schedules over the last few years and it's not hard to find programmes of the range, depth and quality that only the ´óÏó´«Ã½ could commission or make.

Some of my personal favourites, the ones I might take with me to that mythical desert island:

A History of the World in 100 Objects: an absolutely enthralling series, not just informing and educating, but wearing its learning so lightly that it counted as entertainment too.

Behind the series is a story of a fruitful new web of partnerships forged between the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the British Museum but extended to embrace museums and other bodies across the UK. Behind the series, too, is a story of digital innovation in the way the material was presented, not just for broadcast, but in a lasting presence on the web.

There has been some truly outstanding drama, including consistently great work from Jimmy McGovern and his colleagues and some very shrewd imports, including the impressive Forbrydelsen, currently on our screens. But let me pick out just one memorable piece.ÌýFive Minutes of Heaven: a powerful and sensitive feature film quarried from the sectarian violence of Northern Ireland.

It was commissioned by the ´óÏó´«Ã½, made in Northern Ireland, and put together with international funding and international talent including the distinguished German director Oliver Hirschbiegel, an indication of the reach, ambition and willingness to take creative risks that characterises the ´óÏó´«Ã½ at its best.

An indication, too, of the rich seam of talent and creativity that exists right across the UK. Like the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s drama centre in Cardiff, a standing rebuke to those who appear to believe that if you can't get to it on the London Tube it can't be capable of producing world-class work.

There has been some great UK comedy too – and let's acknowledge, comedy is one of the toughest and riskiest genres to get right.

Outnumbered,ÌýGavin and Stacey,ÌýMiranda – these are special not just because they are very funny, but because they show the great tradition of ´óÏó´«Ã½ comedy that the whole family can enjoy together is still thriving.

There has been great knowledge television as well – this is an area where the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has responded well to Trust promptings.ÌýHuman Planet.ÌýThe Beauty of Maps.ÌýWonders of the Solar System. And there have been many more.

´óÏó´«Ã½ News has much to be proud of during this period too. To give just a few examples:

• its coverage of the global financial crisis, both in the succession of scoops it delivered and in the quality of the analysis it brought to bear throughout;
• its first-rate coverage of the general election: the campaign, the results, and the subsequent birth of the coalition;
• and as I speak now, the unfolding revolutions sweeping through the Arab world are being covered by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ with exemplary range and authority on television, radio and online – underscoring the importance of the World Service's relatively new Arabic and Farsi television channels.

As you can see, the set of ´óÏó´«Ã½ DVDs on its way to my new atoll home is going to fill a pretty substantial packing case and I still have to find room on my desert island for much more of Radio 4.

Where else can you find the range and quality offered by what constitutes to be my very favourite ´óÏó´«Ã½ service?

Now I do understand the fears of loyal listeners who fear that change will mean the dilution of this great ´óÏó´«Ã½ offering and some of the media reporting of the recent Trust review into Radio 4 has given the impression that we somehow want to throw it away and start again. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Radio 4 has been well led over the last four years and Gwyneth Williams continues that. It is constantly being refreshed with new ideas and new personalities. I am confident that still more will be done to fully reflect life in all parts of the UK, but most of all what we want is to share this national treasure with more people. And I'm confident that this can be achieved without alienating Radio Four's fanatically at times loyal supporters.

So, what lies ahead?

Now I suspect that some of the journalists here tonight are expecting me to deliver some kind of handover note to Lord Patten. Well, sorry to disappoint you. But Chris Patten, should he be confirmed as Trust Chairman, is I'm sure quite capable of shaping his own agenda without any help from me. I will nonetheless if he arrives welcome him most warmly to both the delights and the challenges of this role.

What I do want to do tonight is end by summarising some of the areas where work begun under my chairmanship will bear fruit under the next, and also sketch out some of the issues that will always be at or near the top of the Trust in-tray. With limited time tonight I identify just five.

We are currently finalising a new three year strategy for ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s commercial arm, in the context of our recently published statements of commercial behaviour and global purpose. The Trust's central thrust on Worldwide has been to strike the right balance.

On the one hand Worldwide produces much-needed revenue to make the licence fee go further, with some £170m returned to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ through dividends, programming investment and rights last year. On the other, it must never act in a way that might damage the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s brand or reputation, and must take care not to have so profound an impact on competitors that they in turn challenge the very existence of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself.

However appealing the potential returns, Worldwide must resist the temptation to invest in programmes or enterprises that are not a good fit with the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s public purposes.

Most of all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ must never find itself in a position where raising extra revenue, obviously a temptation in difficult times, takes precedence over maintaining the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s editorial integrity. The commercial tail must never wag the editorial dog.

Nor should Worldwide ever be tempted to work to different values abroad than it does here in the UK. There is only one ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Worldwide is part of it.

Another big issue in the years ahead will be implementing the recent licence fee settlement.

The Trust anticipated that it would be a tough settlement and we prepared for it with the Strategic Review with extensive public consultation, the results of which we published recently. So there is a route map.

One of the good things about the settlement is that it gives the ´óÏó´«Ã½ a welcome degree of financial stability over the next five years and the government has undertaken clearly not to come back for a second bite.

On the other hand, the full impact on ´óÏó´«Ã½ services depends very much on the level of cost inflation over the next five years and no-one knows what will happen there.

So there will undoubtedly be tough choices to be made and we are clear that a focus on quality and serving all audiences with distinctive content will be our message throughout that exercise.

My third strand relates to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s duty under the Charter to, I quote: "sustain citizenship through the enrichment of the public realm" – a duty with clear implications for the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s digital journey.

The Trust has consistently argued that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a special responsibility to protect and enrich the public space in which citizens can exchange views, challenge the powerful, explore and learn. It does that by striving to reach all households through the range of its services. But here too there are profound challenges ahead.

I spoke earlier of the prospects for convergence across platforms but there are other trends too. What we might call the digital equivalent of the Enclosure Acts, whereby there is an increasing tendency to fill the digital space with walled gardens of one sort or another to maximise commercial returns.

The danger is that public space is enclosed and the public themselves are segmented by ability to pay and by where they live – with some getting notably poorer services than the rest.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ must act as a counterweight here, continuing to develop not walled gardens but the digital equivalent of those great Victorian public parks, open to all, enhancing and enriching the lives of every citizen.

Your view will play its part in this and that is why the Trust has emphasised the importance of it being an open partnership, open to all comers. So will developments like ensuring that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website encourages visitors to click to other sites which offer additional information.

My fourth continuing priority for the Trust will be ensuring the authority, impartiality and accuracy of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s journalism.

Strong leadership, investment in specialist editors, strengthened cross-platform working and the School of Journalism have all served to enrich the public offering. But this is still work in progress and there is always more to do to meet the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own aspirations and especially the aspirations of our best journalists.

So much of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s mission and reputation rests on the quality and public standing of its news services - that this must always be a major preoccupation for the Trust.

And, of course, ´óÏó´«Ã½ impartiality goes hand in hand with ´óÏó´«Ã½ independence. They are two sides of the same coin. So, continuing to guard the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s independence will also remain a permanent pre-occupation for the Trust.

Where the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s independence is concerned, we can never take it for granted that the battle has been fought and won.

The struggle, sometimes with commercial interests, more often with political ones, is permanent. It will always need to be fought with vigour and tenacity.

Now, I began by saying that history will record this as rather a strong period for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Yes, these have been turbulent years. But the fact that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has come through them in good shape to face the future is evidence of its fundamental resilience, and, if I may say so, evidence of the effectiveness of the Trust in reshaping it so that it better represents the interests of the public.

There is a pervasive myth in British public life. The myth of the Fall, of the Golden Age long gone, of the best now always behind us.

But this is not a narrative into which you can easily slot the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Of course it's not perfect. Of course there is more to be done.

But I believe the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is an institution that's becoming markedly more responsive to the public who own it – and that's something to celebrate.

And let me also say this: with all its failings, with all its lapses from grace, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues to be the greatest cultural institution the UK has ever produced, and we should not be shy about celebrating that too.

Thank you for listening.