The BBC is a key tenet of British society. Along with the NHS, it has been hailed as one of the reasons that countries across the world envies the UK. From its news to its Sunday night dramas, it impacts so many across the country.
Why is its future in doubt?
Unlike other public services, the BBC is not funded by tax, but by its own licence fee, which currently costs £159 per household per annum. And the licence fee is currently a hot topic of discussion for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, led by Nadine Dorries, Minister for Culture. According to its charter, the BBC’s licence fee funding deal expires in 2027, and there are many who do not want it to return.
Should the license fee be axed?
On Sunday 16 January, Dorries tweeted that “This licence fee would be the last, the days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over”, causing a debate which dominated the news. It is perfectly plausible that this was timed to distract from the Downing Street party allegations, which didn’t quite work. This suspicion is not just mine, Dorothy Byrne, former Head of News and Current Affairs at Channel 4, agreed. She said the timing was “so obvious”, Johnson was in trouble and he needed another story. Furthermore, Byrne was outraged that the government would release such a statement on Twitter of all places, and that it would do so without a solution or replacement.
Putting the politics of the announcement details aside, Byrne had an interesting opinion concerning the licence fee in general. Despite her anger with the government, she does think that it could be time to reconsider the fee. At the moment, she describes it as the ‘least bad system’, but that does not mean that it works. It is no secret that the licence fee isn’t perfect.
The licence fee was introduced in 1964. Its purpose was to fund a public service broadcaster that served its audience – you and me. As TV channels grew, the licence fee remained, to ensure that whatever the purpose of other channels, the BBC’s remit stayed solid. But this was before the proliferation of the industry. We now have hundreds of channels in the UK if you care to watch them all, but you still have to pay the BBC licence fee to watch any of them on a TV. Due to its existence, it is illegal in the UK to install a TV and watch or record any programmes as they are being broadcast without paying for a TV licence. In real terms this means that up and down the country receive letters with threats of fines and home visits, which I can attest to, as I received four in my first year of university.
Whilst letters might seem like a small issue, it means bringing the licence fee and its running into question and whether it is really ok that we are threatened with fines if we do not pay £159 to watch an hour of telly on a Sunday night? When the fee was introduced, it all made more sense, you paid to be able to watch TV. But we are living in the technological revolution, we now have streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon to watch TV on, the mere possession of a licence is no longer essential to watch TV. It is also no secret that the youth are watching less and less terrestrial TV. A lot of students don’t even have a TV nowadays. Aidan, 22, a University of Sheffield student, said: “I don’t need a TV, everything is on my laptop.”, as the demand and consumption of the BBC is changing and diversifying, Should we still have to pay £159 for everything?
I agree with all of those who say that it is so important to have terrestrial news and TV. Looking at the US, every news source has its own audience and there is not one which represents all different sides of the political spectrum, whereas the BBC is held up to be duly impartial. If we keep news and cut dramas, where will Britons see their lives portrayed? Or enjoy the classic cultural Sunday night show? On a US bulk series? I think not.
However, there are other services that the BBC provides such as Bitesize and BBC Sounds which, whilst so helpful, might be considered surplus to requirements vis-a-vis the licence fee. This does not mean that we should not have free revision resources for children. I believe we should. Across the country people are questioning whether they should have to pay for something that they never use, essentially just to watch a bit of telly. Whilst it is a valid question, it is also a dangerous one. The British welfare state is built on paying for things that we do not use, you may never have children, but pay for schools through tax, you may not even use the NHS, that is how our society is run.
Do we have a solution? Probably not.
But one thing is for sure, this is too intricate, important and complicated an issue to be used as political ammunition to ward people off the scent of the Downing Street parties, and thankfully, it hasn’t worked.
