BBC must remain free of interference

ANY government setting out to reform the British Broadcasting Corporation begins with a problem: there is no basis for comparison, no model to emulate or import. There is, famously, nothing like the BBC. That is its glory and, perhaps, its political problem. Sometimes it baffles admirers and critics alike.

Previous attempts at reform are meanwhile useless as guides. Had they succeeded, John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, would not be establishing a committee of the great and good to carry out a “fundamental review”. There would be no reports of an impending Green Paper, least of all one that sounds like a familiar compendium of Tory complaints.

This does not mean the government is not serious, or that the BBC would not benefit from reform. Anyone who thinks Mr Whittingdale is engaged in the usual softening up process ahead of the renewal of the Corporation’s Royal charter at the end of 2016 misunderstands the new Cabinet. There is more to this than placating Tory backbenchers.

Is a compulsory licence fee still the right way to fund a national broadcaster spending £3.4 billion annually? In an age of multi-platform, multi-channel entertainment, people are increasingly using catch-up services to evade the fee. Should the licence therefore be extended to cover the BBC’s iPlayer and the like? Or would a subscription model make more sense? Then again, could any subscription service provide what the BBC provides in TV, radio and on-line, for just £12.13 – according to the Corporation – per month?

Reportedly, a Green Paper will raise the issue of subscription and its still more contentious alternative, a household tax. The vast scale of the BBC’s website will be questioned, arguments for more independent production examined, and the future of BBC Worldwide raised. Ofcom could meanwhile be proposed as a successor to the BBC Trust. Finally, needlessly, there is a proposed examination of the BBC’s commitment to impartiality.

The last of these is an old Tory favourite. It also happens to preoccupy Labour people, and Nationalists, and many others. The BBC is attacked regularly from all sides. The fact is not proof of impartiality, as Corporation loyalists sometimes assume, but it illustrates a paradox. When politicians feel entitled to adjudicate on impartiality, impartiality is at risk. A national broadcaster becomes a state broadcaster. Mr Whittingdale should abandon plans for this futile “debate”.

Other arguments might be more fruitful. When recently it accepted the cost of providing free licences for the over-75s – without much of a fight – the BBC’s first reaction was to propose redundancies among its managers. Clearly, overstaffing was conceded. A newspaper has a vested interest, but something similar could be said of the BBC website. What justifies its scale beyond the Corporation habit of believing that because something can be done it must be done?

Some Conservatives would apply the argument to the BBC in its entirety. They demand the Corporation ceases to chase ratings, that it reverts to “public service broadcasting”. This too is familiar: why does the Corporation bother with talent shows or pop music when these are plentiful elsewhere?

The better question might be: who decides what is “public service”? The government? If so, that is also a formula for state management, and as pernicious as any manufactured debate over impartiality.