TV Licence increase: a welcome boost for public service broadcasting

Nobody ever likes to see prices go up.

But the £5 rise in the TV Licence should be welcomed by all who care about public service broadcasting.

Confirmation the licence would rise in line with inflation for the next three years came on Friday.

It was, perhaps, a day to bury what some of the press might interpret as “bad” news. The news agenda was dominated by the momentous decision on assisted dying in England and Wales.

Undoubtedly this meant there was less criticism on Saturday than you might have expected from the usual suspects in the parts of the press which are no friends of the BBC.

The TV Licence, after the rise, will cost 48p per day.

It is not hard to argue that it represents excellent value for money if you enjoy or appreciate BBC services.

You’d be doing well to buy a decent coffee for less than £3. The Sunday Times costs £4.50. 

I cannot think of a popular daily newspaper which costs less than £1 – most cost substantially more.

BBC marketing needs to push that incredibly low cost and high value.

However Ofcom research highlights that there are people who, for one reason or another, do not regularly consume BBC services.

For some this may be a simple matter of taste and preference – others may have more malign reasons, a belief that BBC journalism is biased or a dislike of the corporation’s core values.

It was ever thus. Is this really any different to the household in the 70s which kept the TV almost permanently on ITV?

Still the BBC is paid for by every honest person in the country with a TV set so it should always be a concern if someone is paying for something they do not use. (What about those who don’t have a TV but watch online?)

That does not necessarily imply that programmes or key services need to change. The challenge is to help make sure people know about the content they might enjoy.

Friday’s rise is a welcome sign that the new government accepts the importance of the BBC to both society as a whole and creative industries.

Given the cuts to commissioning budgets in the commercial sector, the arguments for ensuring the BBC is properly funded are stronger than ever.

Meanwhile there is renewed speculation about an overseas takeover bid for ITV plc. This too only strengthens the argument that a publicly owned corporation must be at the heart of broadcasting.

(The threat of privatising Channel 4 has gone for now but, as I have said before, Channel 4 really needs to demonstrate that it is different to the other commercial channels if it wants to ensure the issue is not raised again.)

But while Friday’s announcement on BBC funding was good news, there are still important issues to consider.

It will hopefully mitigate further cuts. But it comes after years of licence fee freezes and rises which fell below inflation.

This, of course, has meant cuts. Some of those cuts have had a real impact on staff not to mention important services like the BBC News channel.

There will always be legitimate questions over how money is spent – more for this service, less for that one. But let’s hope the need for headline cuts is over.

There must also be a debate over alternatives to the licence fee – so long as this does not mean subscription, commercial funding or direct government funding.

Is there an argument for a household charge instead? Or linking it to, say, council tax bands so there might be some relationship to wealth?

Bringing back universal free TV licences for the elderly could help calm down the row over the end of the winter fuel allowance. But, by the same token, why should well-off retired people pay nothing?

Could more government money for overseas services relieve pressure on BBC finances without asking the public to pay more?

All those issues are worth debating.

Ahead of Charter Renewal, there needs to be a proper debate about the scope of BBC programmes and services.

Nobody who believes the BBC should be at the centre of national life would argue that popular programmes, mainstream drama and light entertainment are not important.

If the BBC only served minorities or made programmes which were self-consciously serious or distinctive, it would have no right to claim funding from every household.

But are there areas for improvement? Things like quiz shows with large cash prizes which – however well made – really belong elsewhere?

Is Radio 2 too similar to commercial radio, stripped of much of the live and evening specialist music which once made it stand out?

Similarly so, say, children’s programmes and demanding drama like Wolf Hall need bolstered.

In other words, is the balance right even where most individual programmes are fine?

Supporters of the BBC should never be afraid of debates on practical alternatives to the TV Licence or the kind of programmes and services it should be spent on.

But for now they should just feel relieved that those with a dogmatic or ideological hostility to the corporation will not be able to attempt to undermine an important part of Britain’s culture and society.

Acknowledgements