In response to Russ� comments about the proposed BBC Trust � �I have not seen anyone who seriously supports it� � I�d like to point out that Public Voice does support the proposals. Our view is that the heart of the Charter review is the set of new �purposes�, in other words, what the BBC will exist to do for UK citizens for the next decade. These purposes � such as supporting informed citizenship, stimulating culture, bringing the world to the UK, creating lifelong learning, etc � represent the first time that the BBC has been charged with a specific and detailed Mission, expressed in terms of �outcomes�, ie the social and cultural gains for citizens. You can see that, unlike the economists and industry commentators we do not consider the BBC from a competition standpoint but as a social and cultural institution delivering public services.

We believe that, in order for these purposes to be delivered, the BBC needs a specific kind of governance, one which is of the BBC, which understands the institution and is charged with upholding the Mission. Any other solution, whether in the form of a wider Trust, or through an Ofcom extension, creates the risk that the specific Mission of the BBC will be �traded off� against the interests of other broadcasters and competitors.

While at one time it might have seemed coldly logical for Ofcom to assume this role, the regulator�s record on balancing the twin aspects of its principal duty � to consumers, and to citizens � gives no confidence that it is prepared to take a strong line on �citizens� interests� and face down the commercial lobbies.

More generally, the various proposals that have been floated for a different sort of Trust are really a stalking horse for the gradual undermining and restriction of the BBC. In its response to the Green Paper, Ofcom clearly sees this all as a package, including: taking governance away from the BBC, and with it some of the licence fee, that would then go to other broadcasters (including, presumably, some of the purely commercial broadcasters whom Ofcom thinks may well be providing �public service� programming), while forcing the BBC to turn some of its services over to subscription and throwing the whole funding question open again with an early review. There is direct correspondence between this and the arguments and proposals floated at various times by David Elstein, Barry Cox, and the cable and satellite broadcasters.

It is unfortunate, in our view, that neither the Lords select committee nor Ofcom has placed their consideration of the �logic� of these proposals in the political, rather than the economic, context.

Don Redding
Co-ordinator, Public Voice