What Price The Licence Fee?

While once upon a time the BBC merely reported the news, they now have an increasing tendency to be making it. Programmes like Question Time regularly court controversy, with allegations of bias regarding the makeup of the panel and news stories relating to Israel invariably provoke criticism - from both sides of the fence, it has to be said, which possibly indicates that they are more even handed than their detractors will admit. The recent adaptation of the JK Rowling novel, The Casual Vacancy has been accused of left wing bias by adding scenes that do not appear in the book. Some say that it is a far cry from the BBC's mission to inform, educate and entertain, but on the other hand we all have the capacity to make up our own minds and we equally have the ability to question what is being reported or otherwise shown and form our own opinions.

The BBC is of course funded by the licence fee and that in itself has again come under recent scrutiny with calls for its reform including decriminalising non-payment. The argument goes that in this day and age the licence fee is an anachronism and should go the way of things like the dog licence (abolished in 1987, except in Northern Ireland) and that the BBC should be funded through subscription. Britain is not the only country to have a licence fee but apart from Denmark, Sweden and Norway, few other countries use the income to fund public service broadcasting. Opponents of the licence fee will argue that it gives the BBC an unfair advantage but on the other hand without the constraints that might be imposed by paymasters like advertisers or broadcast company owners, the BBC does at least have the freedom to indulge in minority or niche broadcasting that might otherwise be swept aside by a unremitting diet of populist programming. Not that the BBC doesn't have its own range of programmes appealing to the lowest common denominator, but as broadcasting evolved from a time when there was the BBC or nothing to the position we now find with a whole plethora of broadcasters, the corporation does at least provide a range of programmes that will appeal to a wide cross section of the population. Let's face it, if you had to chose just one free-to-air broadcaster, you would more likely choose the BBC than anyone else.  

And then there is radio. From a purely personal perspective I much prefer the BBC to any other radio broadcaster, if for no other reason than the absence of commercials, which frankly I find even more tedious on radio than on TV. About £27 of your licence fee of £145 is spent on radio and I believe that represents good value for money. There was a time when I listened to radio a lot; that declined over the years but lately I have found that I listen to the radio more and more, chiefly Radio 4 or Radio 5. There is something soothing about it but also, when it comes to news, radio is not driven by a need prioritise stories that have pictures to go with them and is able to concentrate on different issues and go into greater depth, that television news may avoid. In part my returning enjoyment of radio has been driven by having been to the BBC to watch a number of radio programmes being recorded. One of the key differences between attending a radio recording and watching a TV show being made is that a half-hour radio show tends to get wrapped up in under an hour while a similar TV programme may take three hours or more to get completed. I thoroughly enjoy going to radio recordings and there is an added bonus that they are free (well, included in the licence fee I suppose).

If the licence fee was abolished the alternative methods of funding could be subscription or advertising. The former would involve a good deal of technological change but would, some argue force the BBC to put its money where its mouth is because having argued that it represents such good value for money, a subscription would prove (or disprove) their point; presumably they would expect few people not to subscribe. Allowing advertising would, the argument goes, drive down quality, but then at least the other broadcasters would be competing with the corporation on a level playing field.

The current licence fee works out at 40p a day; this is predicated on income that is predictable and pretty much guaranteed. Income from subscription services might be harder to estimate and would inevitably lead to an increase in the price the viewer pays. The current licence fee is set by government but how would the fee for a subscription service be set? Given that it would make the BBC's ability to fund itself independent from government it is probable that that 40p per day would increase. And what of the BBC's values? Freed from the reliance on compulsory funding but at the mercy of the free market and supply and demand, would the whole ethos of the BBC change? There is no reason to suppose that it would but equally there is no reason that it should not. The BBC currently operates under a Royal Charter that gives the corporation obligations such as serving the public interest, sustaining citizenship and civil society and representing the UK. In exchange for discharging these responsibilities it receives its funding through the licence fee;  remove the licence fee and there is an argument that the charter becomes irrelevant and if not swept aside altogether, could be significantly diluted.

It is sometimes argued that people who do not watch the BBC ought not to have to pay the licence fee, but of course although the licence fee is collected primarily to fund the BBC, merely owning a TV and watching any channel (whether you pay to watch that channel or not) requires a licence. In theory, while if the funding of the BBC from the licence fee were withdrawn the BBC would have to obtain its income from elsewhere, this would not necessarily mean that the licence fee would be abolished. It may be that a fee for owning equipment capable of receiving a TV signal would be collected through local taxes as happens in some other countries, making opting out more difficult even if a household doesn't have a television. That may start life as a nominal charge but as sure as eggs is eggs, it would be likely to creep up and then everyone effectively ends up paying twice by paying a subscription and a licence fee. Proponents of the idea that the fee be abolished may find that the alternative is even less palatable.

BBC director general Tony Hall says that he is "open to a new universal levy on every household in the country – even those that do not own a television set." 

There does appear to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of doing away with the licence fee, even BBC Director General Tony Hall backs plans for its overhaul "to reflect changing times" but whichever way things go I somehow doubt that the BBC will suffer. At the end of the day you'll still pay for the BBC somehow, whether you watch it or not.