Nine months to find a new BBC Trust chair? That's good news, not bad

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/11/find-bbc-trust-chair-lord-patten-departure

Version 0 of 1.

It's "turmoil" again at the BBC as "Patten quits after heart surgery". Thus the Times; and, indeed, almost the entire Fleet Street chorus. But let's drop a dollop of calm amid such pulsations. Of course it's sad that Lord Patten feels he must leave the stage. But there is no turmoil on show around Broadcasting House. More a groan at the quoted six to nine months that finding Chris's successor may take – and a sigh of relief as the calendar tells its own story.

Succession speculation, naturally, is in hyper-rife mode. Will it be Howard Stringer, ex-chief of Sony? Marjorie Scardino, below, ex-chief of Pearson? Terry Burns, ex-chief of almost everything? No one – least of all Sajid Javid, new culture secretary – knows. There is, though, a big question that must be answered early which will, inevitably, shape what happens next.

The system of choosing a trust chair – supposed sacred guardian of BBC independence and royal chartered freedom – is ropey, going on risible. Hacked Off's energetic Evan Harris would turn even more apoplectic if newspapers chose their own regulator that way. (What? An "open process" that submits names to Javid, who can add one of his own before sending an either/or choice to the PM, with select committee vetting thrown in: meddling fingers at every turn producing ideologically acceptable appointees for whoever happens to be in Downing Street at the time?). Yet at least, this time around, lugubrious manipulation has some advantages.

Patten was due to go next year – election year – leaving his successor to look after a new charter, beginning in 2017. That charter may or may not feature any governing trust at all. Many BBC outsiders, and leading former insiders like Roger Mosey, want a single integrated board whose chairman "stands alongside the director general, fighting for the BBC's independence when it matters", and handing content regulation over to Ofcom. But Javid can't scrap the current regime in midstream. Nor can he, here in 2014, decree what future culture secretaries and prime ministers may decide in 2016-17. Therefore it makes sense to move more obliquely.

The trust remains for the moment. Then let it be an actual regulator, not a part-time cheerleader. Keep retired politicians out of it. Indeed, ban political finagling completely. Make sure the trust doesn't waddle between corporate approval and stern remonstration month after month. A new breed of BBC executive directors – such as the aforementioned Stringer – already has the expertise to hold the DG to account. The chair of the trust is not the "head of the BBC". He or she shouldn't be rallying to the flag every time the organisation gets stick. The next trust leader must be a regulator first and last – not the difficult mix of role-playing as heretofore.

Stringer? No: jumping from board to trust doesn't seem a good notion. Terry Burns? Too many jobs on a long final circuit. Scardino? Probably too expansively interesting for what ought to be a more constricted job. I'd give a respected industry hand – say Professor Stewart Purvis, once editor-in-chief of ITN – a whirl. Or Colette Bowe, just retired as chair of Ofcom. What's Mervyn King doing these days? I might, in extremis, even call for a judge (though probably not Leveson). The point of the exercise is distance, time and an opportunity to test options more clearly. Which doesn't sound like turmoil at all.