BBC chairman discusses licence fee alternatives

The chairman of the BBC has been setting out his thinking on alternatives to the licence fee.

In a wide-ranging interview in The Sunday Times, Samir Shah discusses possible alternatives.

His comments on radical changes will be familiar to all who have followed this debate, recently and in the past.

Advertising would “violate the core principle that the BBC is independent of commercial interests – and kill ITV”.

A subscription service “would not meet the BBC’s key role to offer something for everyone in the country”.

Funding from general taxation would “leave the BBC open to influence from the government of the day”.

He also dismisses the idea of a hybrid model with different tiers of service – such as a licence fee to pay for the basic service with subscriptions for premium content.

These comments reflect the need for a funding model which achieves certain key purposes which supporters of the BBC would be unlikely to ever question.

• Everyone should have the same range of programmes and services to choose between – regardless of ability to pay.
• The BBC should be free from commercial interests.
• The BBC should not be open to government influence.

It is generally accepted within the industry that if the BBC were ever to carry advertising, the size of the advertising market would not grow – it would simply mean that others would get less, possibly threatening their viability.

The result of the General Election changed the terms of reference for the debate on the BBC’s future.

There is no longer an immediate existential threat. Those who would “defund the BBC” or seek radical change no longer have the ear of anyone in the Cabinet.

But are there better alternatives to the licence fee which still respect the BBC’s purpose and independence?

Mr Shah discusses the prospect of a household levy – paid by every household regardless of whether they own a TV set.

He also discusses enforcement issues and the need for such a charge to be progressive.

Obvious possibilities include linking any household levy to income tax bands or council tax bands to create a sliding scale.

It is a fascinating debate which all of us who support the BBC and public service broadcasting should not shy away from.

ITV’s latest financial results last week again demonstrated the challenging marketplace.

But I am also reminded of another key argument.

As long as the BBC in one form or another reaches the vast majority of households in the country with services which are distinct from those the market might provide, it is hard for those who seek to undermine the corporation to make hay.

This fundamentally means high quality programmes – some of which are popular, all of which have public service values.

It also means flagship services like BBC One need to be on top form.

Last week’s episodes of Panorama from Ukraine and Imagine were the kind of programmes no mainstream commercial channel would commission or broadcast except to fulfil a straightforward regulatory requirement.

There are other examples in the schedule – including popular programmes a commercial channel might never have supported in the first place like Antiques Roadshow and Countryfile.

But can more be done to highlight the BBC’s distinctive character without risking a loss of ratings?

And while it is perfectly acceptable for serious programmes to achieve modest ratings, would the likes of Waterloo Road be better off on BBC Three? It works well for some demographics but lacks widespread appeal for a core BBC One audience and gets awful overnight ratings.

Last week brought brilliant news for football fans: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland internationals will be on BBC TV and the iPlayer.

In Scotland in particular, the fact these games had been on pay channels was controversial.

England internationals will remain on ITV.

While ITV’s match coverage is excellent, the need for large amounts of advertising at half time mean discussion and analysis is restricted.

Can the BBC make a positive virtue of what it can do?

You only need to contrast the presentation of Six Nations games on BBC One with those on ITV 1.

The extra editorial time surrounding the matches and at half time can make a big difference.

Being distinctive is not always about self-conscious innovation or serving minorities.

It is about showing that the BBC can bring added value to all kinds of programmes and services.

That point needs to be driven home to help ensure that paying for the BBC – whether through the licence fee or a reformed system – doesn’t feel like paying a tax.

Acknowledgements