3 hours ago
4
Polly Toynbee says “the BBC’s funding system remains better than anything else anyone has come up with” (In a world of lies, we need the BBC more than ever. This week could be our last chance to save it, 6 March). Sadly, that isn’t true. Today, with hundreds of channels available from a wide range of broadcast and streaming services, for the BBC to collect TV licence fee is outmoded and unjust. With the number of households not holding a licence having risen to 12.5% in 2024-25, and a 30% loss of BBC funding, these trends are bringing the BBC to its knees.
The BBC’s public consultation document stressed that it is “a national institution that belongs to all of us”, and mentioned reforming the licence fee, qualified by “We are not considering replacing it through general taxation”. The closing words of the last question asked if people could “suggest a different funding model”. Was this an open door, or is the mindset already closed? Retention, with fee collection outsourced by the BBC to Capita, is plain wrong. A different approach is essential so that those watching GB News don’t have to pay the BBC for the privilege.
The solution lies in treating reception of the BBC’s publicly owned, national broadcast services as a national right. We already treat our police and fire and rescue services that way, by part-funding through council tax. Recognised as progressive, hypothecated taxation, this is accepted as both fair and familiar, despite costing on average more than twice as much as the licence fee.
Given that the BBC chairman, most board members and the TV licence fee are all decided by the government, with policies policed by Ofcom, would putting the licence fee on council tax rates really compromise the BBC’s editorial independence? It would be seen as progressive and the liability of 26.3m households to pay the fee broadly matches the Office for National Statistics total of 28.6m households – isn’t that fair enough?
In Switzerland, the national broadcast levy is a compulsory annual charge paid by every household, whether or not they consume radio or television. Why not for the UK too?
Hugh Sheppard
Odiham, Hampshire
In comparison with other broadcasters and streamers, the TV licence fee of just £15 a month is huge value for money. It is not just about television services; it is about the breadth of BBC radio output uninterrupted by advertising, the enormous contribution to UK classical music through the BBC orchestras and the Proms, and the soft power and national reputation delivered through the World Service.
The government benefits from this soft diplomacy and the ability to connect with the population through radio. It is not a cost, it is a strategic investment. And no commercial broadcaster is going to offer an equivalent, advertisement-free range of quality TV and radio output for anything near £15 a month.
Michael Thorn
Helston, Cornwall
A lot, if not all, of what the BBC does can be designated as charitable within the statutory definition. If it were to become a charity it would be regulated by the Charity Commission and political involvement would be removed. Its funding would need to be looked at, but at least politicians would be unable to threaten it at every charter renewal, or to interfere in its governance for purely party political reasons.
William Ward
London
