Licence to kill or renew

Public service broadcasting is under threat from new Government proposals, warns Ivor Gaber Good news, bad news is one way of describing the Government’s Digital Britain report launched last month. The good news comes in the positive recommendations the report contains for making high-speed broadband access available for virtually the whole of Britain by 2012. [...]

by Tribune Web Editor
Saturday, July 11th, 2009

Public service broadcasting is under threat from new Government proposals, warns Ivor Gaber

Good news, bad news is one way of describing the Government’s Digital Britain report launched last month. The good news comes in the positive recommendations the report contains for making high-speed broadband access available for virtually the whole of Britain by 2012. The bad news is the proposals that the television licence fee was to be top-sliced.

Certainly, making a positive case for the BBC in the current climate would strain the spin-skills of Downing Street’s finest. One only needs to think of the absurd salaries the corporation’s top executives award themselves, the insults that are handed out to audiences (courtesy of the likes of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand) and the decision to ban the Gaza appeal.

However, despite all these misgivings, defending the BBC – and that means defending the principle of the whole television licence fee going to the corporation – is crucial.

Without being over-dramatic, it is possible to see the beginning of the end of the BBC in the top-slicing proposal – and with it the beginning of the end of high quality, British-produced radio and TV, one of the great achievements of 20th century social democratic Britain.

The top-slicing legislation will be in the Queen’s Speech in November. And with a consultation period that straddles July and August, the Government’s commitment to taking on board the views of objectors is weak in the extreme.

So why does it matter if 3.5 per cent of the licence fee does not go to the apparently over-funded BBC, particularly since the Government is proposing that this money is channelled to support regional news and current affairs (to replace ITV’s current offerings) and pay for other programmes (such as for children) that come under the public service broadcasting banner?

It matters because of issues of practice and principle. The practice is that, in order to achieve these laudable aims, the top-slice is intended to be used, not just to produce public service programming, but also to subsidise the BBC’s competitors – rival broadcasters and programme-makers, internet service providers and newspaper groups – which will be providing the programming. It is one thing to take money away from the BBC, but it is a double blow if that money is then used to subsidise the BBC’s competitors.

There is also a matter of principle at stake. Anything that breaks the link between licence fee-payers and the BBC will lead to a real threat to the long-term future of the licence fee itself. At present, when people pay for their licence, at least they know what they are paying for. Currently, the licence costs £142.50 a year. For this, the BBC provides eight TV channels, BBC online, 10 radio networks and more than 50 local TV and radio services.

Once that link is broken, it will become ever more difficult to retain public support for the principle of the universal licence fee. While the licence fee might not be a perfect system for funding public service television, to misquote Winston Churchill, it is the least bad system yet devised.

It is often said that British broadcasting is the best in the world. That may be debatable, but it is undeniable that the licence-fee funded BBC has encouraged a rich broadcasting ecology in which Britain, uniquely, has three commercially-funded public service broadcasters. This enhances our democracy and the quality of cultural and social life.

However, as a result of the proliferation of new channels and platforms and the collapse in advertising (which is suffering both a slow, long-term structural decline and a current sharp cyclical downturn), the current funding model for commercial public service broadcasting no longer works.

It is becoming increasingly problematic for ITV and Channel 4 to continue to deliver public service programming at a significant level. Hence the Government’s proposal to use part of the licence fee to sustain this output. However, once the licence-fee dam has been breached, what is to stop other beneficiaries from demanding another 1 per cent and another until the BBC becomes a shadow of its former self?

Channel 4, a publicly owned commercially funded public service broadcaster, is also in serious financial trouble. It is currently talking to the BBC’s money-making Worldwide division to see if it makes sense to form some sort of joint partnership. Even that may not be is the answer to the channel’s longer-term financial woes.

Fortunately, it is not all doom and gloom. There is an alternative. Ironically, it is inside the Digital Britain report in a section that has nothing to do with television. The Government is proposing that, in order to fund universal broadband access, there should be a modest 50p a month levy on all fixed line phone bills. That £6 a year per subscriber would raise around £150 million – far more than the Government is hoping to raise through top-slicing the licence fee.

So who should pay, other than the poor old consumer? Those who pay should be those who benefit from Britain having high quality public service broadcasting. That means those parts of the telecoms industry which benefit from access to BBC and Channel 4 programming. It means companies that produce or import televisions, radios and DVD players. It means internet service providers, social networking sites and advertisers that use BBC and Channel 4 output. And it means the pay-TV companies, specifically BSkyB and Virgin TV, which are able to transmit BBC TV and radio channels without having to pay for the privilege.

Sadly, you will search in vain through the 239 pages of Digital Britain  to find any reference to industry levies as a means of keeping the BBC and Channel 4 in their present forms. Could that be because, even after the years of obeisance to Rupert Murdoch and all his works, this Labour Government will do everything in its power to avoid offending him?

Can it be a coincidence that, in the run-up to the publication of Digital Britain, some of the most vociferous criticism of the BBC was to be found in the Murdoch-owned Sun and The Times?

Unlike the Government, Murdoch knows that the best form of defence is attack. Hence the barrage of hostile publicity against the BBC ensured that the Government would view with fear and trepidation any suggestion of a funding mechanism that might threaten the commercial interests of Murdoch’s empire.

Thus – and not for the first time – this Government is taking major decisions about the future of this country, based less on a rational consideration of the options and more on a fear of suffering short-term flak from “friends” in the press.

Perhaps, just once, it might occur to Labour politicians that offending right-wing newspapers might be a rather good way of winning support from those millions of voters who still cling to old-fashioned notions of fairness, equality and the good society.

If not, it could be that top-slicing the BBC turns out to be the same as post office privatisation, as the Government struggles to force through a measure unpopular with Labour MPs, trade unions and party members, and eventually has to admit defeat. l

Ivor Gaber is a broadcaster, researcher and consultant

The Citizens’ Coalition for Public Service Broadcasting is an alliance of major charities, campaign groups, unions and other organisations.

It seeks to: alert people to the threat posed to Britain’s democracy by the erosion of plurality in public service broadcasting;  ensure that the voices of civil society groups and citizens are heard in the debate; ensure any future commitments to plurality in public service broadcasting do not threaten the independence, integrity or funding security of the BBC; support all broadcasters and other programme suppliers who are committed to providing public service content; encourage a fair and equitable method of providing additional financial support for public service broadcasting outside the BBC.

To see the full launch statement, email psbcoalition@gmail.com

Good news, bad news is one way of describing the Government’s Digital Britain report launched last month. The good news comes in the positive recommendations the report contains for making high-speed broadband access available for virtually the whole of Britain by 2012. The bad news is the proposals that the television licence fee was to be top-sliced.
Certainly, making a positive case for the BBC in the current climate would strain the spin-skills of Downing Street’s finest. One only needs to think of the absurd salaries the corporation’s top executives award themselves, the insults that are handed out to audiences (courtesy of the likes of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand) and the decision to ban the Gaza appeal.
However, despite all these misgivings, defending the BBC – and that means defending the principle of the whole television licence fee going to the corporation – is crucial.
Without being over-dramatic, it is possible to see the beginning of the end of the BBC in the top-slicing proposal – and with it the beginning of the end of high quality, British-produced radio and TV, one of the great achievements of 20th century social democratic Britain.
The top-slicing legislation will be in the Queen’s Speech in November. And with a consultation period that straddles July and August, the Government’s commitment to taking on board the views of objectors is weak in the extreme.
So why does it matter if 3.5 per cent of the licence fee does not go to the apparently over-funded BBC, particularly since the Government is proposing that this money is channelled to support regional news and current affairs (to replace ITV’s current offerings) and pay for other programmes (such as for children) that come under the public service broadcasting banner?
It matters because of issues of practice and principle. The practice is that, in order to achieve these laudable aims, the top-slice is intended to be used, not just to produce public service programming, but also to subsidise the BBC’s competitors – rival broadcasters and programme-makers, internet service providers and newspaper groups – which will be providing the programming. It is one thing to take money away from the BBC, but it is a double blow if that money is then used to subsidise the BBC’s competitors.
There is also a matter of principle at stake. Anything that breaks the link between licence fee-payers and the BBC will lead to a real threat to the long-term future of the licence fee itself. At present, when people pay for their licence, at least they know what they are paying for. Currently, the licence costs £142.50 a year. For this, the BBC provides eight TV channels, BBC online, 10 radio networks and more than 50 local TV and radio services.
Once that link is broken, it will become ever more difficult to retain public support for the principle of the universal licence fee. While the licence fee might not be a perfect system for funding public service television, to misquote Winston Churchill, it is the least bad system yet devised.
It is often said that British broadcasting is the best in the world. That may be debatable, but it is undeniable that the licence-fee funded BBC has encouraged a rich broadcasting ecology in which Britain, uniquely, has three commercially-funded public service broadcasters. This enhances our democracy and the quality of cultural and social life.
However, as a result of the proliferation of new channels and platforms and the collapse in advertising (which is suffering both a slow, long-term structural decline and a current sharp cyclical downturn), the current funding model for commercial public service broadcasting no longer works.
It is becoming increasingly problematic for ITV and Channel 4 to continue to deliver public service programming at a significant level. Hence the Government’s proposal to use part of the licence fee to sustain this output. However, once the licence-fee dam has been breached, what is to stop other beneficiaries from demanding another 1 per cent and another until the BBC becomes a shadow of its former self?
Channel 4, a publicly owned commercially funded public service broadcaster, is also in serious financial trouble. It is currently talking to the BBC’s money-making Worldwide division to see if it makes sense to form some sort of joint partnership. Even that may not be is the answer to the channel’s longer-term financial woes.
Fortunately, it is not all doom and gloom. There is an alternative. Ironically, it is inside the Digital Britain report in a section that has nothing to do with television. The Government is proposing that, in order to fund universal broadband access, there should be a modest 50p a month levy on all fixed line phone bills. That £6 a year per subscriber would raise around £150 million – far more than the Government is hoping to raise through top-slicing the licence fee.
So who should pay, other than the poor old consumer? Those who pay should be those who benefit from Britain having high quality public service broadcasting. That means those parts of the telecoms industry which benefit from access to BBC and Channel 4 programming. It means companies that produce or import televisions, radios and DVD players. It means internet service providers, social networking sites and advertisers that use BBC and Channel 4 output. And it means the pay-TV companies, specifically BSkyB and Virgin TV, which are able to transmit BBC TV and radio channels without having to pay for the privile
The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author