The Board of Governors is responsible for ensuring the BBC delivers value for money in return for the Licence Fee. They want to hear what you think about the programmes and services you get from the BBC.
On Wednesday 23 November around 160 members of the public had the opportunity of questioning members of the BBC's Board of Governors and representatives of Senior Management at a public meeting held at the BBC's Broadcasting House in Glasgow. A panel, consisting of the following Governors - Michael Grade (Chairman); Jeremy Peat (National Governor of Scotland); Andrew Burns; Dermot Gleeson and Angela Sarkis - took questions on a wide variety of subjects. These ranged from the value for money of the Licence Fee to the BBC's impartiality and independence. You can read a detailed account of the questions asked and the responses below. Alternatively you can watch the debate as it happened using the webstreams links.
Watch the web-cast Watch the web-cast with sub-titles and sign language interpretation
Please use the links below to read the specific questions and answers raised on various subjects.
Repeats
Programme quality
Licence fee/Value for money
Audience share
Governance
Scottish programming
Complaints
Scottish culture
Impartiality
Independence
Repeats
Why there are so many repeats? This is not value for money.
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
We agree. The rule should be we repeat from choice not necessity. There is a cost - as the cost of making programmes rises, because audiences' expectations get higher, and the creative imagination requires more and more facilities. The cost of programmes goes up. And to save money, sometimes repeats get into the schedule. In the licence fee bid, there is provision in the bid to replace 'cheap repeats' with new programming. It's quite clear that the message we're getting from the licence fee payers is there are too many repeats.
How do you quantify cheap repeats?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
An hour of comedy to repeat is £15,000 an hour, an average of cost of low-end drama is £500,000 an hour. That would give you a sense of the economics of why there are too many repeats. We have to do something about it, there's no question.
Programme quality
The BBC says it's committed to quality programming. Do the Governors think programmes like East Enders and River City in peak times is quality?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
I think that soap opera, the highest quality soap opera, as it is kind of labelled, is an intrinsic part of what people expect as part of the diet of programming on television. And I think if you look at the whole history of soap opera across commercial and the BBC television, East Enders is a pretty, pretty good example of the genre. It's high quality. There are a limited number of episodes a week. The BBC has rightly resisted the risk of the quality of East Enders; you could put it on every night, six, seven days a week that would reduce the quality. The quality has been maintained. Not only is it exceptionally popular but the appreciation of the programme is high indeed. I think it's a good example of the genre - I think the BBC is justly proud of a very, very high quality soap.
Jeremy Peat (National Governor for Scotland) adds:
River City has come on in leaps and bounds over the last years. It has improved substantially. And the audience appreciation figures and reach have improved dramatically. It's now a positive contributor to BBC Scotland. I think it reaches certain categories of audience who really do value it and maybe are introduced to other programmes through River City . It was not the best of programmes initially but it has really changed and I think it has really developed substantially.
These shows are on at a time when everybody has a video recorder. Why do you have to have omnibus editions taking up half of the Sunday?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
There are a large number of viewers who appreciate the chance to catch up. I think if BBC Management were to remove the omnibus edition, a lot of licence fee payers would be very, very angry indeed that a service they rely on to help them catch up - people who work shifts, commute a long distance and can't get home in time to watch it etc - would feel disenfranchised. I know it's boring for people who have avidly watched it in the week. But I think it's a service and there will be howls of rage if we were to remove that.
Isn't it all about ratings?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
The remit of BBC One in particular is to be an entertainment, information, education channel for everybody. And it is there to get large audiences. The question is how you get large audiences, do you do it with quality or do you earn the ratings or do you buy the ratings with cheap programmes, with million pound give-aways, and the kinds of ways you can stimulate audiences in the short-term. I don't think that David Attenborough, Spooks, East Enders, Strictly Come Dancing, or any of these things which are hugely popular and attract millions of viewers, are anything other than absolutely what the BBC does best, which is high quality entertainment, intelligent and very high quality.
Licence fee/Value for money
Can the Governors justify the level of the Licence Fee when they also have programmes that must make hundreds of thousands of pounds from phone-ins such as Strictly Come Dancing in the way commercial Television does?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
The premium phone-line policy of the BBC is unique to the BBC. We don't do it to make money. The cost of the calls is cheaper than anywhere else on the commercial networks. Any profits made on the phone-lines go to charity. Nobody on the BBC is 'getting rich' on the back of phone lines. They are premium lines, and people enjoy using them and having the connection with programmes. We're not in it to make money. If there's an incidental profit, that goes straight to charity. There are other organisations - some broadcasters, some newspapers - that do make a lot of money out of premium phone-lines. That's fine. Everybody knows what they're getting themselves into and know what the costs are. The BBC has a very strict policy in respect to premium phone-lines.
Is the continuation of the BBC licence fee justified in the 21st century given the competition from other areas, such as Sky?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
£126.50 is a considerable sum of money to a lot of people, we understand that. But if you were to fund the BBC in any other way, let's say through advertising, you would impoverish the whole of broadcasting. You would not add up to £3billion of advertising revenues to the overall pot. You would impoverish ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and all the cable channels. Advertising is not a solution. Subscription would put the cost of the BBC up, although it would become voluntary, you would subscribe. The temptation for the BBC to look for the richest subscribers would be great. The schedule would suddenly be full of wonderful things for a short period of the year while we got you to sign another subscription form. You would change the nature of the BBC.
Having said that, how do you justify £3 billion of public intervention into a market that is it well supplied by the private sector? The answer is the BBC has to do things differently. What it does differently on your behalf, and tonight is part of that process, is to make every decision about programming, whether it's radio, television or online, with the public interest in mind. That is not shared with the interests of shareholders. It's not shared with the interests of advertisers. Everything comes to you under a strategy set by the Governors that the BBC's giving you programmes of a sustained quality and entertainment.
Audience Share
You're asking for more money when the BBC share of audience is in decline. How do you justify that?
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
People still have only the same amount of time to devote to a growing number of channels. People are exercising their right to choose what they watch from a greater choice. All audiences are fragmenting. Inevitably the BBC's share will come down over time. At the end of the day, what we have to be certain is we're providing services that you value. Each year we look at the Reach figure, and we hope well over 95% of the country are using our services on a measurable and sustained and regular basis. That's the basis upon which we continue
Governance
It's our BBC. We pay the licence fee, why isn't there a mechanism for the Governors to be appointed by the viewers and not the Government?
Dermot Gleeson (BBC Governor) responds:
A Governor is appointed on the basis of a very open, transparent, competitive process in accordance with the Nolan principles. The vacancies are advertised widely in the press. A panel interviews a shortlist. The panel consists of the Chairman of the BBC, and two members of the general public, typically figures of industry, and broadcasting or the City.
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
Just to say, it's open to anybody to apply to be a Governor of the BBC or a Trustee, so watch out for the ads.
Why not a viewers' panel which would help you select it from ordinary viewers, rather than having a meritocracy? The merit you're picking is not how representative you are of the viewer.
Jeremy Peat (National Governor for Scotland) responds:
It's important that the Governors (who will be replaced by Trustees) and the Broadcasting Councils be as representative as possible. We've been through a process of adding two or three new members to the Broadcasting Council for Scotland and we've tried to follow the Nolan principles of being transparent, open and accountable and we've used the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland to make sure we are doing it in the right manner and we were delighted we had over 100 people apply. We had a massive quality as well as quantity of applications. We try hard on the Broadcasting Council to have diversity in terms of age, gender, location in terms of interest and it is very important that that council, as effectively the first line representatives of licence-fee payers in Scotland , is as representative as possible.
There's a difference of perception between people inside the BBC and the viewers and listeners. You'll find most of your viewers and listeners are assessing the BBC just on its terrestrial channels. They're not seeing the whole range that the BBC offers. You're getting huge repeats in radio and on television within the terrestrial system and people are feeling the BBC isn't doing what it should be in terms of filling the gap in the type of programming that's not being provided by the other channels and particularly on an informative basis, on investigative journalism, on child-friendly children's programmes and entertainment programmes, and that is where people are wanting to see more being put in.
Dermot Gleeson (BBC Governor) responds:
This is a fundamental issue. The Governors are here amongst other things to maintain standards of quality and what you're implying is that a large section of the audience is currently inclined to think that we are not consistently achieving the standards that we ought. To be frank there is, and we published this in the annual report two years ago, a lot of evidence to suggest that over the last few years, the audience in general does feel that the standards of quality on BBC television have declined. They don't think they've declined very much and they don't think they've declined as much as standards have with respect to all our competitors. Nonetheless it's a real cause of concern and if we're going to justify the licence-fee we have to respond to it. Against that background we commissioned some research to find out more about why people feel as they do. What we found, and we've talked about some of this already, is that people don't like repeats in peak time. They also don't like derivative or copycat programmes, particularly derivative or copycat lifestyle or makeover programmes. Instead they want to see more intelligent comedy, they want to see high quality drama, and they want educational or factual programmes with real take-away value that teach them something that interests them and that they didn't know before.
Is the BBC achieving that?
Dermot Gleeson continues:
Yes and we'll do even better in the longer term. My own view is that our output at the moment is extraordinarily good, Strictly Come Dancing, Bleak House, Bodies , innovations like the Cameron/Davis debate on Question Time, the Shakespeare Re-told project. The Director General deserves a lot of credit for this, it's a really good phase but the important point is can we sustain it and what the Governors have asked the Executive to do is to put together a five to seven year editorial strategy which ensures that we maintain the sort of standards we're achieving at the moment.
Michael Grade adds:
On the commercial point, the BBC has a very successful international distribution business called BBC Worldwide which sells our programmes overseas profitability. The profits from those programmes, gets returned to you the licence-fee payers as investment in more new programming.
Scottish Programming
I'm a bit concerned about the Scottish National news at the moment because I feel as if they don't cover international issues and in light of the recent research that shows that only 1% of Scottish issues are covered in national news whereas Scottish people make up 8% of the population. I wonder if the Governors can respond to that.
Jeremy Peat (National Governor for Scotland) responds:
It's an interesting question about the international slant. I had a question similar to that, earlier today [on a phone-in] and it's a point I've taken away. BBC Scotland does tend to rely on the main UK news to cover the international slant through BBC One, BBC Two and News 24 whereas Radio Scotland will be covering through its own programmes. We'll have to think about whether that is adequate.
The point about 1% of Scottish issues on the news, I think the BBC has a way to go to properly reflect the devolved society in which we now live in its national programming and it's something I've been talking with Mark Byford and Mark Thompson about. Members of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland get as aggrieved as I do about the headline of an "Education Policy" which may or may not refer to the fact that it only applies in England and Wales and doesn't bring to bear lessons from Scotland , about how we're dealing with primary education.
Do you think England and Wales are interested?
Jeremy Peat added:
They are! This is something the Mark Thompson and Mark Byford have taken on board and when we came to the last UK general election the editorial guidelines were utterly clear about making this issue transparent and reflecting it. There's going to be to be a proper induction of all people going into BBC news and working in BBC news about devolution. We've got to get that right. There's a real opportunity for us to get more Scottish stories into the main news programmes. But also, where there are different policies in different nations to reflect that and that would be so much more enriching.
Why has the BBC not created a dedicated news programme or a digital channel in its own right?
Jeremy Peat (National Governor for Scotland) responds:
First of all there was a thorough investigation of the concept of Scottish Six or a Scottish news programme and there was a huge amount of consultation and more people wanted to retain something like the present structure than wanted to move to a devolved Scottish news programme on television. This consultation was undertaken through the Broadcasting Council and it was intense. It was the most thorough consultation exercise that's taken place but it was something like 45% wanted to maintain the present structure, 30% preferred an opt-out of Scottish news and the rest weren't sure. So clearly people we're going to dissatisfy a significant group under either eventuality. My view for the moment is we have to make the most of the opportunities we have through Reporting Scotland , through Newsnight Scotland to get really good reporting of Scottish events. We have to develop regional news issues so we're telling across Scotland the stories of Tayside or the Borders. There's lot more that can be done under the new structure and we have to get the correct reporting and fullest reporting of key Scottish issues in the national news.
I get annoyed when on the international section of the Six o'clock News in particular, extended coverage is give to items which should be in the English regional news. Education, cricket, they go on and on and on. When we have a Scottish item on the main news you have a reporter from London come up. When the same item is on the regional news, you have a Scottish reporter. Why not one reporter?
Mark Thompson (Director-General) responds:
I think the point of having strong reporters we can use in both contexts is right. The number of outlets we're currently trying to service with news in radio and television means sometimes we're using different reporters for different bulletins and different outlets. I think the idea of sharing when we can is a good one.
Ken MacQuarrie (Controller, BBC Scotland) adds:
I think we should share where we can and we are trying to eradicate doubling up where we can. It happens sometimes because of the number of outlets that the reporters are asked to contribute to. This can range from a big story on Radio Four, to Radio Five, to News 24, through to network news, and Scottish news, and Radio Scotland . Is it an issue of trust? Does London not trust? It's not trust. It's an issue of practicality. But it does irritate the audience. And we have to ensure when we do have two reporters it is absolutely necessary.
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) adds:
There seems to be an issue over the BBC's news in Scotland I think our role as governors is to hear the managers respond to that and think if their response is adequate.
Mark Thompson adds:
The first thing I want to say on behalf of the BBC not just for audiences here in Scotland but audiences across the UK, is that we want to cover the politics of Scotland well and we want to do it extensively, on TV, radio and the web. The debate about the future of Scotland , and the arguments about what the right future for Scotland is an essential part of the way we should cover Scotland . I think our record doing all of that has been extremely good. The debate about the future of your country is something absolutely we think we have to bring to licence payers here and across the UK . We try and do that. If you benchmark what we do, against other broadcasters, and across the Scottish press I think we do a good job and take it seriously. And if you ask licence payers will our coverage they believe it's good. Although as Dermot Gleeson says in recent years there's been a decline in the quality of programmes, in recent months it's reversed and reversed in Scotland more than anywhere else. In recent months the viewers in Scotland are telling us they believe the quality of our programmes is increasing. The news hour is very successful here. It's more successful relative to what we're doing elsewhere in the UK than it has ever been. As we ask Scottish licence payers whether they want to keep with that or go to a different model the majority want to stick with that. We make sure between it refers to England and Wales , there's a different policy. If you have examples of where we're getting it wrong, tell us about them. We want to be right. We want to be accurate.
Jeremy Peat adds:
The Broadcasting Council for Scotland members know they have got an open door to report any examples where this is happening. If any licence fee payers want us to know where there's inaccurate reporting, please let us know. We will pass it on. I know Mark Byford and Mark Thompson are receptive to getting it right.
Complaints
I send every letter to the BBC via recorded delivery otherwise the letter goes 'missing'. I still wait weeks for response. You don't get a direct answer to the any of the questions you pose or the organisation defends the indefensible.
Angela Sarkis (BBC Governor) responds:
I'm disappointed to hear you say that. In the past I think the BBC has been accused of approaching complaints in a very ad hoc fashion and they were coming into various departments and some of them got lost or got a very slow response. As part of a new approach we are now looking very carefully at the complaints monitoring programme, we are listening and we've heard those criticisms and as Governors we've been conscious that the system does break down and we've worked with management who have set up a new system of dealing with complaints handling which is more efficient in terms of dealing with vast majority of complaints. We as Governors have a clearer handle on the exact process now. We're insistent that most complaints should be handled within a short amount of time most of them are turned over within ten days, serious editorial complaints are fast-tracked. We are the last port of call as Governors on the appeal side of things and we've been incredibly assertive to ensure we are getting this right that we are being fair to people like yourselves who complain and that there's proper and open system for that to happen.
Scottish culture
Can broadcasting keep Scottish culture and traditions?
Jeremy Peat (National Governor for Scotland) responds:
I think that's a huge question and one of the things we're doing over the next few months in the Broadcasting Council is undertaking research to try and see how BBC Scotland can better represent Scottish culture and enhance Scottish culture through its programmes. I don't think it's easy, there's a lot that happens that is very positive on the BBC so far as different cultural issues are concerned I love the way some of the programmes networked from Scotland help portray Scottish culture across the UK, Monarch of the Glen and Still Game being two examples of different genres, I think the BBC has to work carefully to ensure full cultural representation within Scotland it's looking to do that just as it did previously when looking at how disabilities are represented. Genres of culture are a different issue, but we're looking to enhance and develop culture and we're working with BBC management on it.
Dermot Gleeson adds:
The TV arts magazine programme, the Culture Show is 50% now made in Scotland because the BBC wanted to ensure that arts coverage wasn't focused on the south-east of England that it was spread more widely and particularly on artistic, cultural issues in Scotland .
Michael Grade adds:
The best security for the flourishing of Scottish culture through broadcasting is the investment that the BBC makes in offering opportunities to Scottish talent. Now that may be directors, it may be writers it may be actors, producers, editors and so on. In the end they are the nourishment Scottish culture hangs on, the individuals who care enough about it to want to make programmes about it and to deliver them or have a Scottish point of view or bring a fresh point of view to drama, comedy, documentary and so on and so the investment in production in Scotland is what will attract the talent in Scotland. Scotland has a fantastic record of producing film directors, actors, etc. There is a phenomenal amount of talent up here and we have to keep the investment to keep encouraging them that they don't have to come to London to work they can stay in Scotland and absorb what is happening up here and reflect that in the work that they want to make. That is far more effective in the long-term in sustaining Scottish culture rather than just sending demanding from London that they make some programmes about Scotland, whatever that means, it's about what the talent wants to make.
Impartiality
Aren't Israeli casualties treated like British casualties given detailed treatment in six and ten o'clock news headlines while the more numerous, Palestinian deaths are more summarised and in more secondary bulletins?
Andrew Burns responds:
Your question drives to heart the of one of the most important values of the BBC which is its ability to provide impartial, balanced, accurate news reporting and that is central to the BBC's reputation. It's something the Governors pay a great deal of attention to and one of the developments recently has been to commission external reviews of issues, such as the one you raise, to see whether in fact the reporting is as balanced and unbiased and impartial as we reckon it is. Last year saw the completion of a very interesting study done about reporting on Europe , and we've just now commissioned a new impartiality study on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is an issue which arouses huge passions. It's important that we, as Governors, understand whether or not there is truth to the kind of suggestions we've just heard.
Independence
What strategies or procedures are in place to preserve the BBC's independence and objectivity?
Michael Grade responds:
Let's be clear that part of the value that you get for your licence-fee and you expect from the BBC in return for the licence-fee is the independence of the BBC. That is part of what the BBC is there to do and part of the justification for the BBC. I can assure you and I don't know how I can do this other than to tell you in the 18 months or more that I've been Chairman of the BBC I have not been leaned on, I've not had one phone call there has been no pressure applied to me that is because they know what the response would be.
Is that because the BBC is more timid because of what they've been through?
Michael Grade continues:
Absolutely not. The idea that anybody in this country could persuade any journalist inside the BBC to do something or say something or tone something down or say something they didn't fundamentally believe to be true. It is an absolute fantasy amongst written journalists to believe that it is possible for anybody to influence what the BBC says about this, that or the other. There are 6,000 journalists in the BBC it is absolutely impossible to do it. That doesn't mean to say that we don't make mistakes which sometimes get interpreted as bias or cowardliness, they are genuine mistakes, journalists are human beings and they make mistakes. I can absolutely assure you that the independence of the BBC will be preserved as long as any of us have got breath in our bodies. The whole business of Charter Review at every stage at any attempt by any civil servant or politician to undermine the checks and balances in the constitution of the BBC, to preserve the independence of the BBC we would die in the ditches rather than give up one inch of the independence of the BBC.
Mark Thompson (Director-General) adds:
I can't imagine actually asking any of my colleagues in the BBC to change anything because of a call from a politician.
I thought the BBC coverage of the Iraqi War was poorer than the ITV's. ITV had better analysts and drew on the resources of foreign channels. They changed their coverage with the developing conflict. The BBC tended to have the same coverage for the day, and repeat it on BBC News 24, BBC Two, BBC One.
Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors) responds:
I'm really sorry that to hear that because there were a lot of BBC personnel as all the journalists were out there in a very dangerous situation. We have still got people there. I worry every day, about the BBC and all the journalists who are out there in highly volatile and dangerous situations. And they are there to bring you the news. I'm sorry you didn't like our coverage and thought the other coverage was better. It's nice to have the choice.
Mark Thompson (Director-General) adds:
We looked very, very closely and talked to literally thousands of licence payers about our coverage and Sky's, overall people thought ours was the better. The numbers of people who watch BBC News is greater than before. On July 7th, 30 million people watching BBC television on that day, many on radio and many on the web.
During Prince Charles recent trip to the USA , why did the report include a comparison of Camilla's outfit along with what Princess Diana wore many years ago?
Mark Thompson (Director-General) responds:
I wasn't comfortable with that either, actually. I thought it was a cheap shot. We talked about it. I'm not saying it was a disaster, I thought giving Camilla her moment without that comparison would be more gracious of the BBC, thank you for that, I agree with that.