What would it take for the BBC to be free of political interference? A new report sets out a blueprint that includes a perpetual charter and a citizen's panel
Another year, another scandal at the BBC. Boardroom drama. Politicians circling. And looming over it all: Charter Renewal in 2027, that once-a-decade moment when the government decides whether Britain's public broadcaster lives, dies, or gets carved up for parts.
But what if there was a way out of this endless cycle? What if the BBC could finally break free from the political meddling that's plagued it for decades?
A new report from thinktank Demos reckons it has found the answer, and it's radical: a perpetual charter that can't be rewritten every time there's a new government. Independent governance that actually means something. And citizens getting a real say in how the BBC is run.
[email protected]
The blueprint, co-authored by Hannah Perry (director of digital policy) and independent consultant Sameer Padania, doesn't mess about. As the government opens its green paper consultation, the clock is ticking.
JournalismUK sat down with Padania to find out what's really at stake—and whether these reforms could actually save public service broadcasting.
This interview has been edited for brevity.
Jacob Granger: Let’s start with the big picture. With charter renewal on the horizon and recent controversies at the BBC, what’s really at stake?
Sameer Padania: What has been revealed in the last few months is that the BBC, although we all think of it as independent, has been dependent on governments.
If you track what has happened during those charter renewals, particularly the last three or four, what the BBC ends up being is often shaped by what the government of the day thinks and wants.
The recent board crisis over the Trump edit has shown that political interference can reach deep into the BBC’s governance. It’s not just how the BBC is run or funded, but actually inside the board. That’s led to the loss of a director general and the CEO of news.
How you govern the BBC might seem like boring technicalities, but if you don’t get that right, you open the door to more and more influence, more and more pressure, and the editorial freedom of the BBC is at risk.
JG: What do you see as the single greatest threat to the BBC’s independence, and how would your proposals address it?
SP: The single biggest threat is this periodic renegotiation. The royal charter was given to the BBC because it was seen to be something unique and was supposed to be beyond politics. That’s why it’s a royal charter, not an act of parliament.
But the original rationale for periodic review — ensuring the BBC kept pace with technology and public needs — has become a liability. Now, government after government has used leverage to extract, push costs onto the BBC, and force it to make more and more invidious choices. That is exactly the kind of thing that we think is the biggest threat to the BBC’s independence, its ability to serve the British people.
JG: Your report calls for a perpetual Charter – a permanent, or at least generational, constitutional guarantee from the BBC. Some critics might say that could impact its ability to innovate. How do you keep things political-interference-proof but also responsive to change?
SP: The charter isn't what governs how the BBC innovates. The charter guarantees certain things, and alongside that is what's called a framework agreement, which is more about operational detail.
What we're suggesting is that the charter becomes more long-term — simpler, higher purpose, higher level. Then you have a periodic operational review, every six to eight years, which is not in a political cycle but is in a technological cycle.
That’s where you make decisions about how the BBC delivers on public service and universality, without constantly questioning its very existence.
JG: One of the most striking proposals is embedding citizen participation in BBC governance. How would that work in practice, so citizens can have meaningful influence?
SP: There's a powerful idea that it’s our BBC — we should have a stake in it, we should have a say in it.
The BBC does a lot of audience research, but it’s largely one-waybrake. The information is taken from people and put into the BBC machine, but there’s no independent authority.
What we’re saying is that if you’re going to say this is a universal organisation, you also have to involve the public as part of that universality. We’ve designed a specific and limited way for this to happen: it should be written as a right into the charter, backed up in law.
There would be a standing citizens’ panel, refreshed every 12 months, interacting with the board on operational issues. And then, for existential questions — like changing the BBC’s mission or purposes — a citizens’ assembly would be convened, with its advice feeding into Parliament. It’s about creating a democratic brake on major decisions, not just leaving it to ministers or a government majority.
JG: Are there lessons here for other UK media organisations, such as the nationals, locals, and hasindependents?
SP: Everyone is wrestling with the issue that the global information environment has completely changed: it's oligarchic and captured. The media's incentives have become other people’s incentives — not the public’s, not the journalists’ or media outlets'.
I'd encourage other media organisations to see the BBC as infrastructure, not just as a competitor. If we rethink the relationship and give the BBC more freedom from political interference, maybe that opens the space for the BBC to genuinely help the wider market in ways that wouldn’t have been possible before.
Compared to striking individual deals with AI companies, which might fend off the wolves for a little while, publicly owned infrastructure is going to have to be at the foundation of our journalistic and media economy.
JG: What's next for your proposals?
SP: The report is more of a public document. Demos will do its own technical submission to the government's green paper, but what we've tried to do in this paper is help people see what could be achieved through this process.
We hope it helps others in the field, the sector, collaborators, and anyone thinking of putting in a response. There’s a political consensus now that's different from ten years ago.
I think there’s an opportunity for a really positive discussion in the political sphere about this. The industry should make its voice heard.
This article was drafted by an AI assistant before it was edited by a human
