THE BBC could be dismantled and its editorial independence curbed in the wake of the row over Iraq, according to leaked government papers.

The Whitehall documents, drawn up by senior civil servants, suggest that the BBC could be split into “separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”. The papers signal a policy which corporation executives fear would end its 80-year existence as a national institution.

The break-up plans form part of a wider review of the BBC’s future and come at one of the most vulnerable moments in its history after the resignations last month of its chairman and director-general.

The internal documents also reveal that the government is considering a wider role for Ofcom, its new media watchdog, with greater controls over BBC services and output. The governors could be stripped of their job of overseeing the BBC’s “impartiality and accuracy” with the task handed to the quango.

Other ideas, which are likely to form the basis for a green paper on the BBC’s new charter, include: o Taking the governors “outside the BBC” to make them more independent. o Increasing parliamentary scrutiny with an annual review of the BBC’s performance. o Sharing a portion of its £2.6 billion a year licence fee revenue among other broadcasters. o Closing new services that fail to fulfil the corporation’s role as a public service broadcaster.

Although the 30 pages of drafts, headed BBC Charter Review, appear to be at an early stage, the disclosure of the documents will be embarrassing.

Critics will claim that the government is gearing up to exploit the fall-out from the Hutton inquiry in which the BBC was savaged for the quality of its journalism and management.

In the most contentious section — entitled The BBC’s Constitution — the papers say there could be more scope for national and regional autonomy “to reduce perceived metropolitan bias”. But then officials ask: “How far is it essential for the BBC to be organised on a UK-wide basis?

Is there a case for separate entities for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or at least a more federated approach than now?” The disclosure will alarm Lord Birt, former director-general of the BBC and one of Tony Blair’s closest advisers. He described any such move as one which would eventually turn the BBC into “a weak, federal institution”.

In his autobiography he said this would mean the BBC being “broken up with an English Broadcasting Corporation . . . and its status as the world’s most successful cultural institution much diminished”.

Any such move could mark an end of UK-wide news bulletins and nationwide scheduling. Each regional and national station would commission and broadcast its own shows.

The document raises the prospect of the post-Hutton BBC having its radio and television networks divided up, further undermining its national status.

In a section on regulation and governance it also questions whether to “shift” the balance of editorial controls, for example through a “wider Ofcom enforcement role”.

There could be “new controls on quality, fair trading and cross-promotion” and an extension of Ofcom’s remit to oversee the “impartiality and accuracy” of the BBC’s output. “Is there some way of measuring compliance?” the papers ask. “Would it be right to do so?” Ofcom was set up under the latest Communications Act as a single regulator of the entire broadcasting and communications industry. However, the quango has been criticised for being too close to government.

Another radical idea is to take the governors outside the BBC “to enhance their status as independent regulators” and change the credentials required and way they are appointed.

The move follows criticism of the governors when they robustly defended Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist, against government criticism without first checking the truth of his reports.

The documents question whether the BBC should retain its royal charter status guaranteeing its independence. Despite ministers having publicly insisted the structure will not change, the papers ask: “Reconstitute BBC as statutory body? Give it NDPB (quango) status? Should it (the charter review) leave the BBC with an effective power of veto as at present?” An alternative, say the documents, could see it being regulated and accountable to parliament via an annual review of its performance. BBC governors and executives could also face “full scrutiny” from the public accounts committee.

The papers question whether new services such as the digital channel BBC3 should continue: “Do new services continue to fill (public service broadcasting) criteria? (If not they should be closed).”

Some of the BBC’s licence fee money could be handed to independent broadcasters to help pay for their public service commitments such as news and education. The papers indicate ministers wish to make BBC programmes more upmarket and educational. They suggest it could be run as an “arts council for the air . . . wholly or mainly devoted to areas where commercial broadcasters are unlikely to provide the required level of service, irrespective of audience share”.

The documents say a clearer definition of the BBC’s public service obligations might be needed so that its performance could be more easily assessed.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?