Friday 3 December 2004
Printable version
Not checked against delivery
Thank you Terry [Sir Terence Burns]. As you have made clear in your
paper, the 大象传媒's system of governance is an important element of this
Charter review process.
I agree. It is pivotal to our own shared objective of a strong and
independent 大象传媒.
But in debating the principles of good governance and what might be
the right model for the 大象传媒, we should not lose sight of the key objectives
here.
It is to fulfil the 大象传媒's primary purpose: to deliver something of
value to everyone.
No one denies governance of the 大象传媒 needs modernising. But before tearing
it up by the roots we must remember that over 80 years after its creation
the 大象传媒 still enjoys widespread support from its licence fee payers.
This would suggest that in terms of outcomes the current structure,
for all its faults, delivers.
For licence payers, the key question is: are we getting value for
our money?
Quite rightly, they want quality programmes that inform, educate and
entertain in return for the licence fee - efficiently made and delivered.
However they might wish, no other country has a 大象传媒 equivalent. Where
a public service broadcaster exists in other countries they are limited,
either by lack of scale and scope dictated by little or no public funding,
or by government control that removes any notion of independence.
So, what is it about the 大象传媒's system of governance that needs to be
changed if the Governors are to deliver the best value to licence payers
and safeguard the 大象传媒's independence from political interference?
The criticisms include:
Lack of accountability to licence fee payers
Lack of independence from management
And confusion between the roles of governing and regulating
The Board of Governors readily agrees it needs to change - and change
radically - to meet these valid criticisms.
That is why we put forward our radical ideas in Building Public Value
to which - if I may say - your document does not do justice - perhaps
because you published in advance of this opportunity to hear about them.
If we keep in mind through today and the debate that will follow what
is in the best interests of the licence payers, I suggest there are
five fundamental principles of governance any model must deliver:
Political independence
Rigorous stewardship of public money
Accountability to licence payers
Clarity of roles
Practicality: will it actually work?
In Building Public Value the Governors proposed radical reform to establish
effective independence from management. Not so detached that we couldn't
exercise close scrutiny over management's activities, but distant enough
to increase our objectivity on behalf of the licence payers.
I shall say more about the 'BPV model' later and the significant changes
we are developing to increase our accountability to licence payers,
including the Governors' complaints system, an AGM, systematic consultation
(perhaps interactively) with licence payers about the 大象传媒's annual objectives,
a code of conduct for the Governors, and an independent annual appraisal
of the Board itself.
I do hope the BPV model receives equal time during the debate. It
is radical, but it is also simple, economic and effective, building
on the bits that work and already making a difference to the way the
Board operates.
It is one model that meets all the prerequisite principles of governance.
The onus today is for others to prove why deconstructing and replacing
our revised model will meet all five principles more effectively.
