The BBC needs to change to survive

Tony Hall took over as the BBC’S director-general in the midst of the Jimmy Savile scandal seven years ago which led to the resignation of his predecessor George Entwistle after just 54 days in post. He deserves credit for steadying the great corporate ship and steering it through some turbulent political waters without wrecking it on the rocks that are an ever-present threat. But they have not gone away, and avoiding them will no longer be Lord Hall’s responsibility.

He will leave the post in the summer, earlier than expected, with the future of the BBC less clear than ever. He had been expected to remain in situ until 2022, the centenary of the corporation’s foundation under the avuncular stewardship of Sir John Reith. That also happens to be the year when the BBC’S Charter agreement with the Government, due to expire in 2027, is to be reviewed. Few expect that process to be easy for the corporation, and perhaps Lord Hall, able to avail himself of the opportunity to take over as chairman of the National Gallery, thought it politic to depart now.

But it leaves a monumental task for his successor to prepare for a review whose biggest question will be whether the BBC should continue to be funded through the licence fee as it has been for a century. Given the revolution that has occurred within broadcasting and with myriad sources of news and entertainment now available through subscription, why should the BBC, uniquely, be able to raise money through what amounts to a tax, since it is a crime not to pay it?

There is, then, a debate the country needs to have: do we want a public service broadcaster at all? If the answer is yes, the two further questions are: how do we pay for it and what should it do?

Defenders of the licence fee say that the £154 annual charge represents value for money, providing umpteen radio channels, both national and local, news, documentaries, sport, the Proms, as well as attempting to cater for children and youth audiences. Critics, however, see the licence fee as the problem. It guarantees an income that the BBC then endeavours to spend on TV shows it should not be producing in order to compete with commercial broadcasters and on a bloated bureaucracy of highly paid senior executives.

The BBC agreed to pick up the £750 million cost of free TV licences for the over-75s but has now reneged on that deal, saying it cannot afford it. Yet it is handing out £400,000 in compensation to the former Today presenter Sarah Montague because she was paid less than her colleagues. Of course there should be equality but many pensioners about to lose their exemptions will be appalled at the salary levels in a publicly funded body that claims to be strapped for cash.

The inbox for the new director-general, then, could hardly be more problematic. To survive, what the BBC needs is someone who recognises the need for change and not a time-serving insider determined to resist it.