BBC Mutual?

Mutuo Managing Partner Peter Hunt reflects on the relationship between the public and the BBC

The public has a curious relationship with the BBC. Obliged to pay for TV licences, every household will contribute £169.50 this year to the running costs of the Corporation, but that is really where it ends. On our behalf, the BBC Board governs the organisation and holds management to account. Through its Charter, the BBC is ultimately responsible to Parliament, but regular controversies have shown how important it is to ensure a separation between the Corporation and politicians.

In reality, it is the Directors who represent the interests of the licence paying public – a number are appointed for this specific purpose. But who are the Board members, and how can they be held accountable for their actions? I would guess that some people could name Samir Shah as the Chair of the Board, but that is where recognition ends. In all there are 9 non-executive Directors, each of whom is appointed by the King on advice from Ministers.

I have no doubt that the current Directors are all suitably qualified and capable people. But they owe their position to a public appointments procedure and have no direct relationship with the public they represent. In short, they are accountable to no-one.

Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, has re-opened the debate on the relationship between the public and the BBC. Could it function better as a mutual organisation?

As far back as 2012, her predecessor, Dame Tessa Jowell MP argued it was time to reconsider the relationship between the public and the BBC. By changing the way that Directors (then called Trustees) are chosen, she suggested, the BBC could be made directly accountable to the licence fee payers, in effect turning the BBC into a mutual.

How could this work? Some or all of the Directors could be elected by the public, perhaps on a regional basis. Alternatively, a separate representative council could be created that the Board could engage with on strategic planning and service issues.

Such a move would ensure that the representatives act in the interests of the public and that in return, they will be the recipients of public trust.

It would be a straightforward process to hold ballots for (non-party political) candidates who could set out their vision for making the BBC work for the public, and licence fee payers would then elect them. We already know who the electorate is through the licence database, and it would be straightforward to convert licence fee payers into the members of the BBC. It would create a new large and dynamic mutual relationship between the Corporation and the public.

The BBC will survive the odd crisis. It always has so far. But maintaining trust from the public is an essential ingredient in ensuring that it continues as the cherished independent national institution for which people are prepared to pay.