Clare Sumner, Director of Policy, BBC
The Government’s consultation on decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee has put the future of the BBC firmly in the spotlight again. It has sparked debate not just about how payment of the licence fee is currently enforced, but more broadly about the licence fee funding model.
First let me say that the BBC always welcomes well-informed debate. Frequently, however, discussions about decriminalisation are side-tracked by a number of myths and misconceptions. If we are serious about scrutinising the current system of enforcement, we must take care to understand the issues involved and what exactly is at stake.
Why is this review happening now?
Many of you will remember that it is only 5 years since the Government commissioned an independent review into the question of decriminalisation, led by David Perry QC. It looked at a full range of options and ultimately found the current system to be the fairest and most effective, and so recommended that it should be maintained.
Isn’t the BBC sending people to prison for not paying the licence fee?
No. The penalty for non-payment of the licence fee is a fine. It is only later if people wilfully refuse or neglect to obey court orders – often to pay a large number of fines, of which one might relate to the licence fee – that courts can decide to imprison.
This is very much a last resort. It happened to 5 people in England and Wales in 2018 – the latest year we have information on. No one wants people to end up in prison, which is why we do everything possible to avoid it.
Can’t you just stop people who don’t pay using the BBC?
No. It’s important to recognise – as Culture Minister John Whittingdale did recently – that there’s no way to cut off access to BBC TV channels or radio stations like you can with other services like Sky or electricity.
That’s why decriminalisation does not mean an end to enforcement. As the last Government review highlighted, there has to be an enforcement system in place, and it needs to be fair to the vast majority who pay as well as the few who don’t.
Surely a civil system for enforcement is better than a criminal system?
People still go to prison under a civil system. Hundreds of people have been sent to jail for Council Tax evasion in the last decade, for example.
The reality is that there are real problems with a civil system. Currently, the level of fine for non-payment of a TV licence is decided by a magistrate. There is flexibility to waive a first-time offence. And while the maximum fine is £1000, the average fine is £176 and over a third are less than £100. This is because magistrates can and do take account of individual circumstances – including income and employment status – in setting fines.
By contrast, civil penalties tend to be fixed at a single level. That means people’s incomes and personal circumstances would not be taken into account in the way that magistrates currently do. It could therefore end up in more and larger fines, and more enforcement action for those who can’t or won’t pay. A civil system could also impact people’s credit ratings, whereas the current system does not lead to any centrally held criminal record.
Doesn’t the current system clog up our courtrooms, with the BBC making a profit from court fines?
Neither of these are true. The last review found that, contrary to what many believe, non-payment cases accounted for just 0.3% of court time. Since then this figure is likely to have gone down even further, because of the single justice procedure.
The National Chair of the Chief Magistrate’s Association said: “They are dealt with very quickly by what is called a single justice procedure. They are only seen by one magistrate, not three. And although there are a lot of cases, approximately 9% of the total workload of the Magistrates' Court is TV licences, the actual time spent is far smaller, probably less than 1% of the working magistrate is taken up with TV licences.”
And any fines go to the Government, not the BBC. The point of non-payment being a criminal offence is to act as a deterrent – which it does very well – not as a money-making device.
What does the BBC want from this consultation?
The BBC will engage fully in this consultation, but it should be based on facts not opinions. As the previous review highlighted, under any alternative civil system, evasion would go up, more people would be penalised, and the poorest in society could be hit hardest with higher fines.
Decriminalisation would also cost the BBC at least £200m a year, according to research we did in 2015. Inevitably that would mean substantial cuts to our services, making licence fee payers the ultimate losers. We are updating this figure is we think it is an under-estimate of the potential impact.
A decision of this scale – hundreds of millions of pounds out of the BBC and the creative economy - should not be taken in isolation. Any substantial changes to the BBC’s income should be considered as part of the next licence fee settlement.
Isn’t it time to look at the licence fee model more widely?
The licence fee is guaranteed until 2027 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC, not only amongst the public, but within the broadcasting industry too.
The success of the UK’s broadcasting industry is based on a unique ecology, with broadcasters supported by advertising, subscription and the licence fee. This model has sustained a growing industry, led to a hugely successful production sector and driven up quality to the point where the UK punches far above its weight in the international TV market.
If you remove any part of this system then you threaten the whole model. This is recognised by the commercial broadcasters themselves who said during the last Charter review: ‘The broadcasting industry’s success has been built on a diverse range of funding streams, and this mixed ecology should not be undermined’.
It’s worth remembering that the BBC generates around £2 of value for every £1 spent in licence fee funding. We are the largest single investor in UK original TV and radio content and we help sustain thousands of small suppliers up and down the UK. The Government should not rush to short-term decisions that could unravel this country’s creative economy – which is currently the fastest growing sector in the UK.