However, the Commission's own experience of the handling of both standards and fairness and privacy complaints, and the views of complainants themselves, indicate that there is strong public support and value for a complaint handling system which is seen to be independent of the editorial process and which can provide efficient, judicious and timely redress. Content complaints are generally of a different order to those of service delivery. There is a degree of personal involvement and investment, as well as a sense of rights denied with fairness and privacy complaints, which is not the same as issues of value for money or delivery. To argue that to move to a provider based service in the first instance may not command general public support because it will not be viewed as sufficiently at arm's length, may add to the time taken to achieve redress and will be inconsistent in its results. It may be thought to be a lessening of present processes of accountability and transparency.
Complaints are also an important indicator of audience concerns.
Sanctions will range from publication, to a stop on further transmission, to a formal warning of a fine. In the interests of a level playing field, this should apply to all broadcasters. Such lay involvement has been a strong feature of content regulation for a number of years and there is every indication that it has public confidence. The Commission takes the view that the third tier obligations should be the matter of promises of performance based on the commissioning and scheduling cycle. The promises would be an interpretation of how each public service broadcaster intended to meet their high-level public service obligations as defined in their licence for the period ahead, bearing in mind developments in audience expectations.