The BBC for the Twenty-First Century

Earlier this week the Adam Smith Institute published their paper entitled "Global Player or Subsidy Junkie: Decision Time for the BBC". In it, they describe the current model for broadcast regulation as 'exhausted' and argue for the abolition of the current licence fee to be replaced by a voluntary subscription.

I have been debating with a fellow blogger the merits of the BBC and the existing funding mechanism. As I argued, the BBC seems to have morphed massively beyond its original remit and now resembles a commercial broadcaster, albeit with none of the challenges of competition for advertising revenue. It is difficult to see the public service benefit of the increasing number of gameshows, reality TV shows, or the increasingly ubiquitous Eastenders. Or as the Adam Smith report puts it, "the BBC is, in reality, a subsidised entertainment firm with some non-commercial obligations."

This is undoubtedly harsh. There are some genuinely excellent programmes produced by the BBC. They have a good record of producing costume dramas, sitcoms, and nature programmes in particular. They also produce leading documentaries - of which Nick Robinson's Five Days that Changed Britain broadcast last week is the most recent example - while they also have a clear public service remit to broadcast live the debates in the House of Commons on BBC Parliament.

Some of these programmes simply would not be produced were it not for a public service remit. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that some, perhaps many of the BBC's drama and mass entertainment productions would be better off being produced in a commercial setting. Great they may be, but the BBC is not the only broadcaster that could produce such programmes. The BBC's entertainment remit is a holdover from the times when the broadcaster was the only show in town. There is simply no need for a publicly funded broadcaster to be making such programmes in the multi-channel, multi-media environment of the twenty-first century. It represents an anachronism.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the BBC must be split between commercial activities and a public service remit. The public service remit must be much smaller than it is now and cover those activities which would not be possible in a commercial environment such as e.g. BBC Parliament, aspects of Radio 4 and BBC News and Weather among others. It could also cover programmes which have a clear educational benefit and contribute to society as a whole, but again which would be cost prohibitive in a commercial context. Such programming would include wildlife documentaries, adaptations of important works of fiction - costume dramas etc. (although this is of course a fine line to tread). It would not, however, cover commercial programmes such as sitcoms, soaps, and much of the coverage on BBC Radio, all of which can and are already produced in a commercial environment.

If the BBC wishes to continue with some form of public subsidy such as the licence fee, albeit at a much reduced rate, then it must rationalise its activities into commercial and public service activities. If people want to continue to watch commercial programming then they can subscribe to them. The BBC's public service remit must be restricted to programming that only a public service broadcaster can offer. In many instances, this is already what the BBC does best. It has just been buried.