MPs in particular are failing to provide the right solutions, says Raymond Snoddy. So what should the decision-makers do to ensure a fair and stable system to fund the Beeb?
There is a serious danger of piecemeal decisions being taken on the BBC when there is a compelling need for a more comprehensive approach.
The bits-and-pieces method is largely being driven by politicians who often have an unfortunate tendency to ignore the consequences of their actions.
The consultation into the decriminalisation of the licence fee has already been launched amid an obvious determination to change the law on how it should be enforced.
At the same time Rona Fairhead, a couple of weeks into her new role chairing the BBC Trust, is enticed into telling MPs that she thinks offering niche and premium programmes on subscription “would be an intelligent way to look forward in terms of the charter review.”
It is no such thing.
All of these issues, including decriminalisation of the licence fee, should be part of an overall Charter Review which should go back to first principles, given the enormity of the changes to the media over the past decade with even greater changes to come.
Two obvious but fundamental questions have to be addressed. Do we want to have a public service broadcaster in the UK available to everyone that looks a bit like – and has the same weight and influence in terms of production power – as the current BBC?
The alternative is to say that broadcasting can be left to the market like any other service with a small residual rump to provide the small number of programmes that the market finds it difficult to provide. For the sake of simplicity we can call it the American model.
In the UK, few people want to go there apart from BBC rivals such as Rupert Murdoch who has long campaigned for a much smaller BBC.
So let’s assume that society wants something like the BBC, which among the mix includes programmes of ideas such as Brian Cox and the Human Universe or Simon Schama’s History of Britain.
The really tricky bit is how you pay for such an organisation in a way that provides adequate funds for its mission and imposes and collects such funds in a fair and reasonable way.
There are many alternatives to the licence fee but all have serious flaws if the initial premise is accepted.
Advertising? Most of the public service broadcasters of Europe are allowed to take advertising to supplement their licence fees. Certainly possible but it would put pressure on the public service elements of the commercial broadcasters and would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Channel 4 to survive in its current form.
Fund the BBC out of general taxation, which would be much fairer and end the “poll tax” element. But who would trust politicians to fund the BBC adequately over time – or not use their direct control as a stick against programmes and views they did not like?
The technology to introduce subscription has existed for years and is getting better all the time and it has the merit of choice – no-one would be forced to pay for a service they didn’t want.
It would hardly be cost-free but the real issue is that you would destroy the concept of a national broadcaster for everyone. No-one knows what percentage of the population would elect to pay a voluntary subscription. It might be high but you can be sure that it would be a considerably smaller percentage than those paying the current licence fee.
You don’t have to be too numerate to realise that in such a situation there are only two outcomes. If you keep the price low by cutting services that could lead to a downward spiral, or if you maintain existing services, the subscription charge would be higher than the licence fee – possibly considerably higher.
Under such a scenario you can kiss goodbye to bright children in poor homes being inspired by a Cox or a Schama as thousands have been in the past.
Rona’s little idea of charging for premium programmes may be intelligent and obviously works fine at the Financial Times. If, however, you want a national public service broadcaster then creating two-tier licence payers is simply not the answer.
How about charging for additional, newish services such as catch-up, mobile or iPad? Again possible but you are essentially being asked to pay again for programmes you have already paid for.
Even Murdoch doesn’t go that far. Pay a subscription to The Times and you get the electronic version for “free”.
So what then? Raising more from BBC programmes internationally seems promising, as do deals such as bringing in AMC as a large minority shareholder in BBC America.
An international BBC subscription channel or channels might bring in more over time but would be costly to establish.
But although new ideas are welcome, and the more the merrier, the chances are their contribution will be modest in comparison with the £3.4 billion raised each year by the licence fee.
The main effort should be on making the licence fee both fairer and more compatible with recent technical developments and piecemeal decriminalisation now is not the answer. You are virtually saying to many people you don’t really have to pay the licence fee and the BBC estimates that it could lose as much as £200 million a year as a result. Can MPs please, for once, take on responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Laws should be obeyed and we can’t pick and choose whether to fund museums, art galleries or even schools but hounding the poorest in the land over the licence fee and putting 50 of them every year in prison is also unacceptable.
The blanket free licence fee for the over 75s was a nice idea but in retrospect, a mistake. Many are very rich indeed and could contribute more.
We have to find a way of linking the licence fee to social security with the very poorest having a reduced or close to symbolic fee, which would then be enforced.
There is then the problem of increasing numbers watching BBC programmes on multiple devices after the event and quite legally avoiding the licence fee.
Here MPs might go to Dublin to see developments in Ireland where next year a household public service broadcasting fee will be introduced irrespective of the communication devices in the home. Everyone pays, although there are reductions for those on social security.
It should not be beyond human imagination to come up with something that works but the solution has to be thought-through and comprehensive.
As John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said this week, he thought the licence fee was unsustainable in the long-term.
He then added the immortal words: “When I say unsustainable I am talking about over 20 to 50 years.”
Quite.
