As outgoing BBC chairman Sir David Clementi prepares for his departure in February and the id of his successor stays unclear, the BBC faces varied challenges, together with questions regarding its future funding. Leo Watkins, PhD scholar in Media and Communications at Goldsmiths, College of London and lead researcher for the Media Reform Coalition for the UK element of the Media Affect Matrix Undertaking particulars his issues with discussions on decriminalising evasion of the BBC’s licence charge.

On 9 December final 12 months, mere days earlier than the Common Election, Boris Johnson was having a nasty information day. He was televised within the morning attempting to keep away from being confronted by a reporter’s proof of a younger boy sleeping on the ground of an NHS hospital (with the insinuation being that he was being denied correct medical care). Later within the day, his well being secretary, Matt Hancock, instructed journalists he had been assaulted by anti-Tory protesters outdoors Leeds common hospital. This account was repeated by senior journalists till video footage emerged displaying that Hancock had really solely walked right into a protestor’s hand.

Licence charge abolition as a ‘lifeless cat’

In response, a query from a reporter about TV licences at a press convention allowed Johnson to tug off a basic case of what his former marketing campaign advisor, Lynton Crosby, infamously dubbed the “lifeless cat” technique: you reply to a nasty information cycle by placing one thing shocking and attention-grabbing on the desk to distract everybody and alter the subject of dialog. On this case, Johnson mooted the concept of eliminating the TV licence altogether.[1] (After all, it helps in case your fellow right-wingers within the press and the primary broadcasters are all too joyful to alter the subject too.)

The BBC’s existence has lengthy challenged beliefs that the market should be the only choose of worth, and that requiring the general public to pay for some broadcasting with public service quite than business goals is an infringement on freedom. As well as, the right-wing press tends to imagine {that a} key motive it finds it troublesome to generate profits on-line is the mixed fault of, on the one hand, digital giants like Fb and Google for monopolising promoting income, and on the opposite, the BBC for offering a good, free supply of reports which reduces the necessity to take out a digital subscription to a newspaper to have sufficient sources of reports. Digital ‘convergence’ has put the BBC and the nationwide press in rather more direct competitors than previously, when the latter had print and the previous had radio and TV: mediums whose use overlapped to some extent, however not solely.

Immediately, conservative ideology and evolving press business pursuits have mixed to make any destructive story in regards to the BBC much more attention-grabbing to right-wing newspaper editors than it was earlier than. As an skilled politician and former newspaper journalist himself, it’s truthful to imagine Johnson knew that when he threw the ‘abolishing the licence charge’ cat onto the desk. And certainly, the right-wing press dutifully picked up on and prioritised the story.

After the Conservative victory on 12 December, the Authorities moved rapidly to transient the media that altering the BBC would rank excessive on its precedence checklist. There was some suggestion of ‘getting even’ with the BBC for its apparently unfair therapy of the Get together throughout the election marketing campaign – regardless of, or maybe due to, vociferous complaints of the identical from supporters of Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, and regardless of the Conservatives’ giant Parliamentary majority.

Authorities management over the licence charge

The Authorities’s fast choices for altering the BBC are restricted. The Authorities will get to nominate a brand new chair of the BBC board when David Clementi’s time period finishes subsequent 12 months, however it may well’t eliminate the licence charge earlier than the top of the present Royal Constitution interval, which lasts till the top of 2026. The Constitution does, nonetheless, present for a ‘mid-term evaluation’ of BBC governance, and a possibility to set the licence charge degree for the 5 years from 2022.

Authorities management over the extent of the licence charge – the BBC’s main supply of funding – has, notably because the 1980s, been used repeatedly as a way of exerting affect over the Company. In 2010, George Osborne imposed extreme real-terms cuts on the BBC by conserving the licence charge degree flat in money phrases. In line with the BBC’s 2019/20 Annual Report, its earnings is 31% decrease as we speak than it will have been if the extent had elevated consistent with inflation. Whereas the BBC could draw an growing quantity of its earnings from business sources, 71% of its earnings in 2019-20 nonetheless got here from the licence charge. And business income sources include completely different constraints, like what overseas distributors need to purchase.

The BBC is dealing with intense competitors for audiences from large, new digital rivals whose spending on content material is quickly rising, like Netflix, Amazon, Disney and Apple, alongside acquainted rivals like ITV and Sky (now owned by Comcast). There may be dramatic price inflation in essentially the most in-demand codecs, like unique scripted fictional collection. (Netflix reportedly spent an infinite $130m on two collection of The Crown, for instance.) On this state of affairs, even real-terms will increase within the degree of the licence charge aren’t sufficient for the BBC to maintain tempo.

The BBC’s earnings from licence charges is decided not solely by the licence charge’s degree, however by its methodology of assortment too. A excessive price of licence charge evasion would slash its finances simply as absolutely as an insufficient licence charge settlement. In the intervening time, the BBC manages assortment effectively: assortment prices are a small share of income (3.6%) and the speed of evasion has remained low for a few years, at round 6-7%. However that may not proceed.

Decriminalising licence charge evasion

In February, Authorities sources briefed the press that the Authorities was planning to decriminalise licence charge evasion. The DCMS launched a session, claiming that “the broadcasting panorama has modified” since 2015 when an impartial evaluation of the matter by David Perry QC concluded there was “no compelling foundation for change” to the present system. The DCMS didn’t fee a brand new evaluation to reveal its declare. For the DCMS, the apparent hazard of doing so is that an impartial evaluation can’t be relied upon to supply the specified reply.

The case normally made for decriminalisation is kind of easy. There are two foremost arguments. The primary is that prosecutions for evasion are ‘clogging up’ magistrates’ courts, at nice price to the taxpayer. The Perry Overview handled this argument by citing proof that, in 2013, they could have represented 11% of circumstances dealt with, however solely took up 0.3% of court docket time as a result of they had been fast to course of and lots of defendants pleaded responsible by publish. The associated fee to the taxpayer is small: round £5m a 12 months. The Authorities, not the BBC, will get the proceeds from fines that courts impose for evasion.

The important thing argument, although, is {that a} felony penalty is an unfair, disproportionate and heavy-handed sanction for evasion. Nonetheless, that argument’s obvious energy is partly based mostly on some primary misconceptions:

  • The primary false impression that people who assume a felony penalties for license charge evasion are unfair are likely to harbor, is that anybody convicted of licence charge evasion will get a long-lasting felony document. In reality, it’s a ‘non-recordable offence’ which doesn’t present up on DBS checks.
  • The second false impression is that individuals hear ‘felony penalty’ and assume it means they are going to go to jail for TV licence evasion. That isn’t what occurs. TV Licensing – the BBC by one other title – isn’t on the lookout for excuses to lock individuals up. In reality, even the place evasion is confirmed, all that occurs within the first occasion is that TV Licensing sends individuals letters telling them to purchase a TV licence. In the event that they don’t, and if TV Licensing decides it has sufficient proof in opposition to them, finally they are going to be summoned to the native magistrates’ court docket for a listening to. At any stage, TV Licensing will drop proceedings if individuals purchase a licence.
  •  If convicted on the listening to, individuals get a effective whose degree is about taking contextual elements, like means to pay, into consideration. Fee could be instalments – £5 every week is the same old most for these in receipt of state advantages. The typical effective in 2018 was £176, the authorized most is £1,000. The Commons DCMS committee famous that the punishment is much like utilizing a automobile untaxed or with out insurance coverage. No person goes to jail for licence charge evasion.
  •  If somebody repeatedly fails to pay a effective for licence charge evasion imposed by the court docket, regardless of having been confirmed in a position to take action, they could finally obtain a jail sentence – however solely as soon as all different enforcement strategies have been exhausted. This is similar as for some other court-imposed effective for some other variety of minor offences – council tax evasion, as an example. The Perry Overview was at pains to level all this out again in 2015.

In 2018, proceedings had been commenced in opposition to 129,446 individuals for licence charge evasion, of whom 121,203 had been convicted (the vast majority of non-convictions had been as a result of individuals purchased a licence within the meantime), and solely 5 individuals had been imprisoned for not paying court docket fines that included – however weren’t essentially restricted to – fines for licence charge evasion. To reiterate: imprisonment for court docket fines solely happens as a final resort, when all different assortment strategies have been exhausted.

The unfair distribution of the licence charge burden

It’s however true that this method is manifestly unfair. The licence charge’s price to every family takes no account of households’ disposable earnings and resultant (in)means to pay. (Exceptions are these over-75, who get a free licence if in receipt of pension credit score, these in long-term care, who pay £7.50 a 12 months, and the severely sight impaired, who get 50% off.) On that foundation, individuals argue that criminalising evasion quantities to criminalising individuals for being too poor to pay. They then say that, with the intention to ease the burden on the poorest, we must always exchange the felony penalty for evasion with a civil one.

The premise of this argument is true, however its conclusion doesn’t observe. Clearly, the flat price of the licence charge – just like the flat prices of different utilities like gasoline, electrical energy, water and family web – is hardest to satisfy for these on the bottom incomes. When Amelia Gentleman, the Guardian’s social affairs correspondent, went to a magistrates’ court docket in 2014 to watch proceedings for licence charge evasion offences, she estimated that almost all circumstances contain individuals in poverty or monetary difficulties. A wave of latest adjustments to council tax profit eligibility, occasioned by native authorities austerity, appeared to have exacerbated these difficulties.

However not solely does the argument’s conclusion not observe, it’s patently ridiculous. Initially, whereas the licence charge is certainly a distributionally regressive ‘flat tax’, altering the penalty for evading it does nothing to ease its monetary burden on those that proceed to pay it. The argument for decriminalisation implies actively wanting the speed of evasion to rise. Secondly, there’s no assure that will probably be the poorest or the least capable of pay who will efficiently evade cost. The belief that will probably be, appears to replicate a Victorian class prejudice that the poorest are essentially the most expert at getting away with breaking the regulation. After all, so far as tax evasion normally goes, the reality is the alternative. In actuality, some individuals would get away with evasion and a few wouldn’t; of those that did, many could be well-off people who find themselves completely capable of pay; the consequence could be arbitrary and unfair.

What the individuals making this argument subsequently implicitly concede – certainly, appear actively to need – is that decriminalisation would trigger a rise in evasion. It will accomplish that, first, as a result of changing the felony penalty with a civil one would vastly complicate enforcement. In the intervening time, to show somebody was responsible of the offence, TV Licensing simply has to show they had been watching TV with out a licence sooner or later. To show you owe the BBC a civil debt, then again, it will have by some means to show the period wherein you watched TV unlicensed. The evidence-gathering crucial would usually not show cost-effective, given the quantity prone to be recovered.

The BBC estimates that the price of decriminalisation could be round £300m yearly – as a consequence of elevated assortment prices and lowered earnings – equating to round 9% of its licence charge earnings in 2019-20, or 6% of its whole earnings.[2] In different phrases, this coverage is one other Conservative assault on BBC funding, pure and easy, cynically dressed up by its supporters as a honest concern to guard the poorest. The insincerity of that concern is much more clear from a cursory examination of the choice enforcement methodology: civil penalties enforced via the civil court docket system.

For a civil penalty to have something just like the deterrent impact crucial to forestall widespread evasion, the BBC has estimated a monetary penalty of round £500 could be required. Such a penalty wouldn’t keep in mind individuals’s means to pay, by definition. The result’s that some individuals would, perversely, find yourself owing extra from a civil penalty than a court docket effective for evasion.

To gather unpaid penalties or money owed, the BBC must get a county court docket judgement (CCJ) authorising bailiffs to go and seize property. CCJs linger on individuals’s credit score information, usually for a number of years. They impression individuals’s means to get a cellphone contract or automotive insurance coverage, to take out a mortgage, and even to get a job (some employers test credit score information). This doesn’t appear a technique to ease the burden on individuals residing in poverty.

The way in which ahead: two options

There are two actual options to the unquestionable and appalling incontrovertible fact that, in Britain as we speak, some individuals are so poor they discover it arduous to afford the £157.50 annual price of a TV licence. The primary could be to alleviate the underlying poverty. It’s eminently inside the state’s energy to take action. However within the low-growth, post-2008 period, it will require a willingness on the a part of the state to lift taxes on the well-off and aggressively scale back tax avoidance by rich people and huge firms. The entire development of Conservative coverage over the past decade has been in the wrong way. Austerity hit the poorest the toughest, which might be why the variety of licence charge evasion circumstances rose after 2010.

The second resolution could be to exempt low-income households from paying the licence charge. In Germany, low-income households are exempt from the broadcasting levy. In Finland, the broadcasting earnings tax isn’t payable beneath an outlined earnings threshold. Free TV licences for the poorest million households in Britain would subsequently be neither internationally unprecedented, nor financially unaffordable. It will price the Authorities a mere £157.5m a 12 months, roughly 0.02% of the 2019/20 Authorities finances, lower than the price of two RAF F-35 stealth fighter jets (price: £92m every).

In the long term, the licence charge may very well be changed with a extra progressive and common funding mechanism. The Finnish broadcasting earnings tax, for instance, appears to be essentially the most egalitarian funding mechanism in Europe. The UK Authorities’s Minister of State for Media, John Whittingdale, was chair of the DCMS committee when it checked out that choice alongside the German family broadcasting levy. The Instances reported that the BBC internally favours the latter.

However some elements of the Conservative Get together – and a few in Quantity 10 – would appear to need the BBC to turn into, both wholly or partially, an ‘opt-in’, subscription-funded service. How a lot of the BBC you get could be contingent in your means to pay. Fairly other than the associated fee and sensible problem of deploying conditional entry to the know-how throughout the nation, the consequence could be to punish poverty otherwise: by depriving individuals of entry to BBC programmes and companies if they’ll’t afford them.

In the end, this problem comes down as to if you agree that, as a society, we must always make at the least some journalism, schooling and tradition freely accessible to everybody – no matter means to pay. When you think about the enormously necessary, formative position that these items play within the lives of kids, for instance, the contribution to cultural-educational inequality and exclusion implied by the non-public, subscription-funded route turns into particularly egregious. If we settle for that, then it follows that some sort of tax is critical to pay for it. However there are strategies of taxation rather more progressive than the licence charge, which we might and may use to take action.

The arguments for decriminalisation are based mostly on false premises and absurd logic, motivated by a Conservative agenda to additional scale back the BBC’s funding, make the present system insupportable to the BBC itself, and get it to simply accept a future of personal, subscription funding – at the least partially. However the right-wing imaginative and prescient for the BBC is an elitist and exclusionary one, dishonestly offered as a priority to develop freedom of selection. It ought to be uncovered as such, and fought. Decriminalisation would require main laws, so it’ll quickly be as much as MPs and friends to resolve whether or not they agree with this agenda. This example requires a high-profile marketing campaign to oppose the measure, as a part of a extra common effort to reframe the talk on the longer term funding of public service broadcasting in progressive phrases.

This text represents the views of the writer, and never the place of the Media@LSE weblog, nor of the London College of Economics and Political Science.

[1] Johnson: “At this stage we aren’t planning to eliminate all TV licences, although I’m actually it. … I believe the system of funding out of what’s successfully a common tax…bears reflection, let me put it that means. How lengthy are you able to justify a system whereby all people who has a TV has to pay to fund a specific set of TV and radio channels? That’s the query.”

[2] Tv Licence Price Belief Assertion for the 12 months Ending 31 March 2020, p. 28, paragraph 10


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here