The Guardian view on the future of the BBC: engage the public
Last week, the cross-party House of Lords communications and digital committee warned that the BBC needed a “bold new vision” to prevent it from stagnating. Peers were right to say that public funding for the BBC remains necessary, and also that it needs to adapt to meet the changing demands of audiences – particularly younger ones. In Britbox, the BBC has its own Netflix-style subscription service for TV dramas. But this would not work for the whole of Auntie. The report admitted that the licence fee has benefits. It was a worry that peers thought a shakeup was inevitable because the current funding model’s drawbacks are “becoming more salient”. One reason for this is that leading Conservative politicians delight in bashing the BBC.
The committee says the licence fee, which provides roughly two-thirds of the BBC’s £5bn annual income, is outdated because it is levied on television sets. This view is not strictly true. Viewers pay if they view licensable content and the BBC can identify people using its service online. The licence fee is also a widely adopted model. Of the 56 markets that make up the European Broadcasting Union area, 20 rely mainly on a licence fee. The BBC’s funding model is protected until 2027 – after the next general election. However, both the current chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, and his predecessor Rishi Sunak – who might become prime minister – think that the licence fee could be gone. The committee has been helpful to their cause by suggesting other ways of funding the BBC.
The most telling charge is that the licence fee is regressive – levied at a rate irrespective of a person’s ability to pay. The answer to that problem would be a household fee payable by all citizens on a progressive basis. But this would mean that every person regardless of media use or device ownership would end up paying – and no doubt allow further resentment to be stoked. Tory backbenchers would find a new BBC
tax hard to swallow. Another proposal is a levy linked to council tax bills, which could take greater account of a person’s wealth. But this mechanism has its own problems – punitively taxing a lowincome pensioner because they live in a large house.
The BBC must find ways of reconciling the habits and tastes of younger people with supporting set-in-theirways older audiences for at least another decade. It has been going through a torrid period of accounting for past mistakes, not least the continuing repercussions of Martin Bashir’s 1995 interview with Diana, Princess of Wales. But these historic own goals must not be allowed to overshadow the corporation’s value – which has been repeatedly shown by its educational programmes during the Covid lockdown, its coverage of the war in Ukraine as well as with world-class dramas such as Sherwood.
It has yet to be shown that there is a model which could improve on the licence fee. The BBC is a national glue that will only become more important in the coming years of cultural and political change. The committee is right that decisions on the BBC’s role and future must not be left to the last minute before its charter is renewed. Britain needs an informed conversation about the BBC. Deliberation would help voters see and engage with complexity and the trade-offs. Tory MPs might understand that however much they love to hate the BBC, many voters depend on it.