Are TV licences really necessary?

[Dave2002]

Given that almost all households in the UK have TVs is there really any point in retaining licensing?

Licences seem to me to serve at most two main purposes, which are:

1. To regulate or control something
2. To raise revenue

A subsidiary one is:

3. To provide an additional level of effort or inconvenience to some, and employment for others

There could be a serious case to make now for either no licences for TVs, or free licences for domestic users. The situation might be different for commercial businesses such as hotels.

Revenue could be raised from general taxation, and at least used to provide the infrastucture. Other revenue could be by subscription or other charges to cover the costs of running a news organisation, producing programmes etc.

[rauschwerk]

Apart from anything else, the licence system ensures the funding of a first class BBC radio service. And if revenue were raised from general taxation, the independence of the BBC would be seriously undermined.

[french frank]

Apart from anything else, the licence system ensures the funding of a first class BBC radio service. And if revenue were raised from general taxation, the independence of the BBC would be seriously undermined.

But the BBC should still have its Charter & Agreement, guaranteeing its independence and stipulating what it must and must not do. It's already answerable to government on that.

Even with the licence fee, it's the government that decides now how much the BBC gets since it regulates the level of the fee.

[Dave2002]

Apart from anything else, the licence system ensures the funding of a first class BBC radio service. And if revenue were raised from general taxation, the independence of the BBC would be seriously undermined.

I have already suggested that funding could be done differently. However, the rather sad state of broadcasting in countries such as the USA, does suggest that other funding models for quality broadcast services don't work too well.

Re the independence issue, isn't the licence just really a form of Chinese wall mechanism? Presumably your concern re independence is that if the funding came out of general taxation that it could be subject to government and other manipulation. However I don't think that licensing mechanisms necessarily ensure independence or preclude interference.

[salymap]

Never mind, when you are 75 the licence payment stops. Unless the present government changes the rules.

[greenilex]

I think the awesome power of the grey vote means that free licences for over 75s and free bus passes are (relatively) safe for now. Yippee!

[aeolium]

Revenue could be raised from general taxation, and at least used to provide the infrastucture. Other revenue could be by subscription or other charges to cover the costs of running a news organisation, producing programmes etc.

I have long argued that since the BBC is providing a public service it should be funded out of general taxation like all other national public services. The argument that the licence fee system guarantees independence does not hold water since, as ff has mentioned, the government sets the level of the licence fee now anyway. The BBC's independence has to be ensured in other ways, such as its charter and independent regulation. A flat-rate licence fee system is unfair on the poorest in society who are likely to be the most vulnerable.

[french frank]

Never mind, when you are 75 the licence payment stops. Unless the present government changes the rules.

Actually, that's not strictly true: atm your licence fee is paid to the BBC for you by the government - so it does come out of general taxation.

One of the things the Conservatives put up for negotiation was for the BBC to 'fund' the free licences out of their existing revenue (i.e. they would accept the revenue cut). That didn't go through but the government/FCO did divest itself of the liability for funding the World Service.

If the new Charter settlement saved the Exchecquer £340m, as Osborne said, that was £340m that had to be paid for out of a licence fee that was frozen for six years.

That's how financially 'independent' the BBC is of government under the present system.

[salymap]

Thanks ff, I had read that long ago but forgotten.

[rauschwerk]

That's how financially 'independent' the BBC is of government under the present system.

I thought the licence system was really about ensuring editorial independence (as far as possible).

[french frank]

I thought the licence system was really about ensuring editorial independence (as far as possible).

The Charter states, para 6 1): "The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs."

But finance and output are connected: what happens to a BBC, perceived by the government of the day to be 'hostile', when Charter renewal + licence fee arrangements come round again?

[Lateralthinking1]

Are TV licences really necessary?

Yes.

[Gordon]

The funding of the BBC has always been an issue from day one back in 1926 and even before that in 1922. The same arguments raged then [as they did in the USA at that time] as now and have revived every 10 years since. We have had every method known to man debated but we still come back around to the present method; one day I suppose that will change and with modern technology perhaps it can. That being the case the BBC could well be in danger of being broken up.

The licence system was started after WW1 by the Post Office who had the statutary powers to raise taxation on "wireless telegraphy" licences both for transmitting and receiving. They collected the fees and handed some to the BBC. BBC funds have never been independent of government or its agencies, even when it wasn't a public body. In fact the creation of a public corporation was the result [Crawford Committee] of the failure of the commercial BB Company to raise the revenues it was due because of PO policy and inaction in collecting those fees. There was a great deal of evasion and subterfuge among licensees and the public.

As FF says the funds, one way or another, flow from government with strings and the veiled threat of revokation being used each Charter review. I think the BBC might just as well be funded out of general taxation. One reason against given all these years ago: the separate fee indicated to the public that the PSB BBC was independent and funded directly by them and so they knew how much it was costing them, just as the funding of the NHS is supposedly from NI. I doubt that that argument has much purchase these days. If it does go into taxation it will become another political football like defence or NHS - so what's new? The Charter is the main defence of the independence of the BBC not where its money comes from.

[Lateralthinking1]

But why change the one system in this country that works well? Including it in overall taxation is a slippery slope too far. I am vehemently against it. The service is miles better than any other that you could get for the money and I don't mean just broadcasting. The cost is less of a burden on low income households than that of a daily newspaper and many get it for free.

Some Conservatives will argue for the freedom to choose. There is far more freedom in the range of programmes available to the public from being required to pay for a licence than there would be in the options available to them in a competitive market.

It isn't as if Governments can't focus on other things. The BBC service is incredibly reasonable and the BBC is profligate. It should be more robust in cutting high pay, unnecessary travel costs and business expenditure. When it doesn't, it risks not only our programmes but our service. I do though understand the sense in a step-by-step strategy when every Government seeks cuts.

[aeolium]

But why change the one system in this country that works well?

Because it is not as fair as funding from general taxation in that it claims a much higher proportion of a poor person's income than a rich one's.

The cost is less of a burden on low income households than that of a daily newspaper and many get it for free.

It is though around 5% of the weekly income of someone on JSA, and more in the first year since they are likely to have to pay it weekly at higher rates rather than monthly, quarterly or annually. That is quite a lot when one thinks that income has to cover all possible costs*. Needless to say, the financial burden is considerably lower on, for instance, a BBC executive

* not including rent and council tax of course