A permanent Charter is not enough to stop government control over the BBC

The Culture Secretary declaring major BBC reforms in a private speech to corporate media violates basic principles of open, transparent and democratic policymaking. By Media Reform Coalition / Thursday March 19, 2026 Read More

You are currently viewing: Home » Blog » A permanent Charter is not enough to stop government control over the BBC

Media Reform Coalition response to Lisa Nandy’s speech to the Society of Editors:

  • The Culture Secretary’s announcement – made barely a week after the Government’s consultation has closed – undermines the public’s essential role in shaping the future of the BBC
  • By declaring BBC reforms in a private speech to a corporate media event, Lisa Nandy is repeating the same undemocratic practices that blighted the last BBC Charter Review
  • A permanent Royal Charter will not ‘futureproof’ the BBC against political interference – unless it is paired with ending all government powers over the Charter, appointments and funding
  • The BBC must be democratised, giving the British public – the BBC’s owners and funders – a direct and active democratic role in shaping how the BBC is run.

In a speech to the Society of Editors on Monday 16th March, the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy announced the Government’s intention to ‘futureproof’ the BBC by introducing a permanent Royal Charter.

The BBC is an essential institution for British democracy, and its future legitimacy and connection with its audiences depends on Charter Review being – and being seen as – a process in which decisions are genuinely informed and shaped by public participation.

Declaring major BBC reforms in a private speech to corporate media violates basic principles of open, transparent and democratic policymaking.

A week ago, the Government was inviting the public to “have your say” on the future of the BBC. Yet before even analysing or reflecting on what the public have said, the Culture Secretary is proposing significant constitutional reforms of the BBC which did not feature in the recent Green Paper and consultation survey.

Having previously described Charter Review as “a well-established, transparent process”, Lisa Nandy is ironically repeating the same makeshift, opaque and antidemocratic practices that defined the previous Charter Review process in 2014-15. Major policy changes are announced in the media, rather than debated openly and democratically, while the views of the public are openly dismissed or ignored altogether.

The Culture Secretary’s speech, despite her intention of “protecting the BBC”, demonstrates that ending the Government’s control over the BBC – through its powers of Charter renewal, government appointments and licence fee funding – is more important than ever, and must go further than tinkering with the constitutional quirk of a Royal Charter ‘expiry date’.

The BBC and the need for democratic public accountability

Since its establishment nearly a century ago, the BBC’s Royal Charter – the document that defines its public purposes and which is the legal basis for its existence as an organisation – has run for ten to eleven years, requiring governments after that time to issue a new Charter.

The Culture Secretary said in her speech that a permanent Charter, which is the norm for other chartered organisations like the Bank of England, would “futureproof this vital institution in these stormy times”, protecting the BBC from “toxic and polarised” public debate and “ongoing, exhausting culture wars”.

A permanent Royal Charter has been proposed by the BBC itself, in its own official submission to the Government’s recent public consultation on Charter renewal. The BBC has also called for an end to government-appointed members of its governing Board. The acknowledgement of this longstanding problem is welcome: both the Charter renewal process and government powers of appointment have been used as means of direct political interference in the BBC’s operations and to undermine its independence as a public institution.

However, the issue with the system of Charter renewal is not merely that it limits the period within which the BBC can operate. The problem is that it has allowed governments rather than the public, or even Parliament, to dictate the terms under which the BBC operates, and to influence its priorities and policies.

Although reporting on the speech has mentioned political interference in the BBC, this was not mentioned by the Culture Secretary. On the contrary she stated that ‘the terms, the structures and the funding for the BBC will continue to be negotiated every several years’.

If the system of accountability at the BBC continues to run through governments, and other mechanisms of political influence are not removed, a permanent charter will do little or nothing to protect the BBC from political interference, or to ‘futureproof’ it against any hostile government, which would continue to influence it through the existing channels and could in any case pass legislation to amend anything enshrined in a permanent charter.

Ultimately, accountability must be to the public, not to politicians and industry lobbyists. On this question, the Culture Secretary said the government wanted ‘to strengthen the accountability of the leadership of the BBC – not to politicians – but to the people it serves in every nation and region’.

The acknowledgement that the BBC should be accountable to the people rather than politicians is welcome, but this is all but meaningless if the mechanisms of accountability are not stipulated. Moreover, it is particularly concerning that vague policy proposals about the BBC’s governance are being announced during a public consultation which has afforded no meaningful opportunity for licence fee payers to have their say on the future of the BBC.