BBC should be accountable

Last week the media furore surrounding the behaviour of two well known, and very well paid, television and radio presenters missed one crucial factor which, to me, justifies much of the public reaction. That is the lack of accountability by the BBC to anyone other than itself.

The BBC is funded by billions of taxpayers money, paid through the TV license. But it is the only entity funded by the people which has no responsibility to account to the people's representatives in Parliament or barely anywhere else for that matter (although Ofcom and the Press Complaints Commission have limited oversight).

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee the BBC appears before us on occasion, but only to discuss a value for money topic of their choice.

I have commented in Parliament that this is not good enough. In fact I implored Sir Michael Lyons when he became chairman of the new BBC Trust last year to re-consider whether the BBC should voluntarily submit to proper Parliamentary scrutiny. He refused, again citing the primary importance of editorial integrity and independence.

But this is precisely where the BBC has let itself down. If it cannot be trusted to police its own internal rules governing taste, propriety and respect for victims of its presenters' increasingly prurient conduct, then it has no defence to the charge that it should accept external scrutiny in common with every other recipient of public funds.

Allowing celebrity talent to be produced by their own employees may be acceptable, but the lack of an effective editorial system fatally undermined BBC claims of integrity. The BBC have brought this problem on themselves. One way to start to restore public trust would be to submit to Parliamentary scrutiny of its processes; if not its content, yet.