8. How should the BBC be funded beyond 2016?

[RobertLeDiable]

In any case, my proposal for changing the basis to PSB funding by general taxation would operate under a protected formula whereby funding was guaranteed to be a set percentage of overall spending, averaged over 5 years, so that it would rise (or fall) in line with overall public spending. This spending formula would be underpinned by a Charter which - as with the recent press regulation charter - would require a substantial majority (like 66%) in Parliament to amend. I think this would better protect BBC funding than the current system and be fairer in being linked to ability to pay - as well as resulting in the abolition of the wasteful licence fee collection system and the clogging up of courts with non-payment cases.

Be careful what you wish for. I absolutely accept that the BBC is already subject to a cut in its overall income because a government can determine the size of the licence fee. But the crucial difference, if that income was moved into general taxation, would be that you could easily have daily interference in how the BBC is run, what its priorities are, where it should spend its money and so on. The Secretary of State would be in a position (on behalf of the sainted taxpayers, of course!) to call in the Director General and complain about a news programme if he or she didn't like it. It's hard to imagine a Jeremy Hunt, for example resisting pressure from a media mogul with a vested interest in the BBC scaling back its online operations. A taxpayer-funded BBC would no longer be seen around the world, as it currently is, especially in one-party states, as a trusted, impartial source of news.

Now you are proposing a structure that would guarantee a stable income and the arms-length principle, which you would hope would keep politicians out of the BBC's internal affairs and protect its independence. I am saying that I find it hard to believe that the politicians would go along with that model. It's too easy for them to say that since the tax-payers are coughing up the BBC must be accountable to the government of the day. And it seems unlikely to me that they would agree to the protected funding scenario either. What other part of public spending is ring-fenced by a strong legal framework in that way?

Lastly, we currently have a government that is full of implacable enemies of the BBC and of public service broadcasting. It would be nice if I was wrong but I find the idea that they would move from the licence fee system to an equally benevolent one under general taxation highly implausible.

[aeolium]

But I think the experience of Leveson has shown that governments are almost paranoically averse to being seen as interfering in the free expression of the press, trying as far as possible to avoid any appearance of legislative regulation. How much more would this be the case with public sector broadcasting. The publication of any attempt at interference in the spending and/or editorial policies of the BBC would be an absolute gift for the opposition, not to mention the national and international press. And further protection to enshrine such independence could be incorporated into the Charter.

As it is, the government has the best of both worlds. It can set the level of the licence fee - or at least prevent any increases in funding - while strangely escaping criticism that it is effectively intervening in the operation of public service broadcasting. It can snipe from the sidelines or in the columns of its supportive press outlets, some of which are owned by competitors dedicated to reducing the BBC's scope and influence, and claim that of course it would not do anything to undermine the independence of the BBC.

There is a problem about governance and accountability which I think has been discussed elsewhere. The BBC Trust is useless imo as an institution of governance and is not remotely accountable to licence-fee payers. Having the BBC's expenditure subject to scrutiny of parliamentary select committees or the National Audit Office would at least enable proper accounting for expenditure and pick up on egregious abuse.

[french frank]

The submissions had to be in last Friday, so FoR3's has long gone! In the end I opted for laying out the disadvantages of the licence fee system and the advantages of general taxation. It was a bit complicated to go into the various possible checks and balances that could be put in place.