TV Licence Fee

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on putting both sides of the argument on the petitions. She touched on the issue that I will initially focus on, which is one of the disadvantages I see in the current licence fee arrangement—the enforcement on those who do not have a TV licence. I raise the matter on behalf of a constituent, who has been in contact with me recently to outline his concerns and experience. The Library briefing paper prepared for this debate neatly sets out the laws indicating when a TV licence is required. However, I would argue that the implementation of those laws, unlike other general aspects of law, appears to assume that someone is guilty of the offence of not having a TV licence unless they prove otherwise, whereas normally the law presumes innocence until it is shown otherwise.

My constituent is

“deeply concerned with the manner in which TV Licensing chooses to communicate with unlicensed occupiers; with the accusatory and extremely menacing tone they use in their letters; the relentless requirement for them to “investigate” unlicensed properties; and perhaps most of all by their assumption that those without a TV Licence are most likely guilty until proven innocent.”

He has forwarded copies of communication he has received. Some of the letters he has received contain headings such as:

“Official warning: we have opened an investigation,”

and:

“Your address has been scheduled for a visit by an Enforcement Officer.”

Furthermore, the body of that letter states, “You know. We know.” As my constituent says, the text and headlines cannot be interpreted as anything other than threatening. The language is as bad as that of the rogue car park companies that we all receive complaints about.

The rhetoric ramps up further as the letters continue:

“Our Enforcement Officers visit an address every 5 seconds. Day. Evening. Even weekends. And if no one answers, they can come back.”

One has a bold blood-red stamp stating, “Enforcement Officer Visit Approved.” The next phase is a letter implying that a court case is imminent, with another implied threat:

“We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court. Please read the information below carefully and keep it for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you.”

The letter then continues under the heading “What to expect in court,” before offering advice on how to avoid a court summons. It is quite clear that there are heavy-handed threats of court action. The solution offered effectively involves purchasing a TV licence, although there is acknowledgement at the foot of the letter that people can contact TV Licensing to inform it that they do not need one. Even that comes with the caveat:

“We may visit to confirm this.”

There is no doubt that that is extremely intimidating. It is certainly intended to make someone feel that they have to purchase a TV licence. I accept that there is a mechanism for people to highlight to TV Licensing that they do not require a licence. I am sure that is TV Licensing’s excuse for being so heavy-handed: it claims that it offers that alternative. However, that comes only at the end of the letter, and the general content of the communication is always about the requirement to have a TV licence and the threats associated with not having one. It is way too heavily skewed towards intimidation. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on that process and the companies involved in it. It is fine to target those who should pay, but it should not be by intimidation. Quite often it is those who are innocent who feel threatened, whereas people who are willing to deliberately evade often have no concern about such communications anyway.

I am also aware that many people do not know what their rights are regarding inspector visits. My constituent wrote to TV Licensing stating that he was removing its implied right of access to his private property. That was respected for a period, but the licensing authorities have now contacted him. The BBC states:

“We do not recognise this withdrawal in Scotland as different laws apply.”

My constituent is quite tenacious. He has contacted the BBC on that point and submitted a freedom of information request, but the BBC refused to release the information—it has had legal advice and will not divulge that information. I would argue that for the sake of transparency, it should release the information on why its understanding is that implied rights of access do not apply to Scotland because of different laws north and south of the border. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. It is an important point, because many people do not understand what rights an inspector has to enter their property. That goes along with intimidation and threats in letters, which make people feel that they must let an inspector into their home, but that is not actually the case.

I would like to make a few points about the BBC’s use of TV licence funding, which feeds into why so many people are against the current funding arrangements. As the hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned, there has been a well publicised scandal about the over-inflated salaries being paid and, of course, the inexcusable inequality of women’s pay, whereby a woman presenter is paid substantially less than a male presenter on the same show. That is utterly bizarre and, as I said, inexcusable.

If we look at how viewers in Scotland are treated, we see that only 72% of the licence fee raised in Scotland is actually spent in Scotland. That does not compare well with the situation in other devolved nations. The hon. Lady spoke about the BBC’s fantastic football coverage. I would point out that Gary Lineker gets paid more to present “Match of the Day” than the whole Scottish premiership gets for its highlights package. To me that is simple proof of the tunnel vision the BBC has at executive level.

The BBC’s coverage of the Scottish referendum was frankly woeful at times, and from what I can tell its coverage of Catalonia and the violence perpetrated by the Spanish state has also been sadly wanting. I say “from what I can tell” because I must put on record that I am actually one of the people in Scotland who does not hold a TV licence. I choose to withdraw my funding. It is all legal and above board: I do not watch live TV any more, and neither does my wife. That was a choice we made, but I think it shows how the current model might not be sustainable. Myself and my wife made that choice following the Scottish referendum. We no longer watch live TV, and we do not miss it. It shows that if a habit is broken, it can be hard to mend it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Has the hon Gentleman suffered the trauma that many people who have ceased watching television have suffered of repeatedly getting letters from TV Licensing insisting that it gets access to the property to prove that they do watch?

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I did suffer that. I alluded to what my constituent has had to put up with, and it was the same for our household, which was bombarded with letters that became increasingly threatening. My wife, who does all my paperwork, contacted TV Licensing and filled in an opt-out form online. That kept it at bay, although the letters have started again, so we need to go through the process again. That shows that people are continually assumed guilty rather than innocent.

From a Scottish perspective, the BBC has resisted calls for a “Scottish six” programme for years. It appears to have caved in to Unionist politicians who have pressurised it, in the fear that a national and international news programme created in Scotland, the same way as Radio Scotland is managed, would somehow create a nationalist nirvana. That is clearly an absurd proposition. Equally absurd is the UK Government’s resistance to devolving powers over broadcasting to Scotland. That is somehow seen as the Scottish National party trying to get its hands on control of output, whereas the SNP actually called for the measure when we were in opposition. It is a further example of Unionist parties conflating the SNP being in government and control being given to the Scottish Parliament. It is the Scottish Parliament as an institution that would control broadcasting powers if they were devolved to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I join other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for introducing the debate. I declare a somewhat different interest, which is that I have been trying to hold the BBC to account for many years. I have had some limited success in recent years, but initially I struggled to get it to be more accountable and transparent.

Several hon. Members have alluded to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s February 2015 report, the tail end of which stated that

“we do not see a long-term future for the licence fee in its current form.”

That was almost three years ago, but given the transformational changes since then because of Netflix and Amazon, for example, we are now even closer to the point that the report predicted.

To paraphrase what someone said 70 or 80 years ago, an independent, impartial, fully accountable public service broadcaster sounds like a very good idea. Could we have one, please? I am afraid I disagree with much that has been said today. Some £3.8 billion of public finances go into the BBC, which produces some very good programmes and some that are not so good. Unlike the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I have a licence fee, but I pay it very reluctantly, for reasons I will come to in a moment. I do not have a choice; even if I want to watch the BBC only occasionally or very rarely, I still have to pay.

The licence fee is a regressive tax, as the hon. Member for Warrington North said. The £3.8 billion arises from an out-of-date funding process that is fast becoming a redundant exercise. Over the past 10 years the number of viewers who watch via delayed broadcasting has risen from 2% to 14%; with other providers such as Netflix and Amazon transforming viewing habits, I do not know where we will be in 10 years’ time.

Let me move on to the side of the BBC that is not so good. I do not know what it is like for people in other regions, but when I ask the BBC how many complaints a programme has received—five or 500—it replies, “We can’t tell you; it’s commercially sensitive.” I do not see why that information is commercially sensitive. If I found out that there had been 500 complaints rather than five, I would ask why.

A few years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the expenses scandal in this place, I watched programmes such as “Question Time” with embarrassment whenever the presenter turned to senior politicians and Ministers—the present Minister excluded—and asked their salary, expenses and taxi fares. Each time I saw the politician squirm, instead of turning to the BBC presenter and saying, “Actually, my salary and taxi fares from the public purse are in the public domain. Are yours, Mr Dimbleby?” Of course, they are not, but I never heard anyone challenge the BBC on that.

[Huw Merriman]

The Minister might be able to clarify this point, but I believe that the BBC will now be required by Ofcom to provide details and an editorial view whenever it receives more than 100 complaints. I think I heard that on Radio 4’s “Feedback”, so we may need to establish the source, but the hon. Gentleman may get the increased transparency that he asks for.

[Mr Campbell]

Indeed, but why has that not been happening for years? Why did the BBC have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into revealing presenters’ salaries? When we discovered those salaries, there was outrage at the disparity between men and women, but was the BBC asked when it would lower the salaries of male presenters? No, it was asked when it would raise the salaries of female presenters. The BBC has a lot of questions to answer. I hope that it is moving, slowly but inexorably, towards greater transparency. If so, that is a very good thing.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

May I introduce a note of hope? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the BBC now makes a declaration of talent pay, following a recommendation made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, accepted by the Government and included in the charter. That shows that when we clearly voice the reform we want, it is possible to get it.

[Mr Campbell]

I am glad that has happened. Some of us have been campaigning on the issue for many years, so I am glad that there has been some success.

I have raised commissioning many times, privately and publicly, within the BBC and externally. As hon. Members are probably aware, there is a commissioning process in the BBC’s regions, under which independent media companies—small or large—are entitled to apply for commissions; so are people who work for the BBC, many of whose applications are successful. I have endeavoured to find out whether having worked for the BBC for some time gives people an unfair advantage because they know their way around the system—how the sound people work, how the video cameras work and so on—but once again I have found it difficult to get answers. Why do private companies find it difficult to get on commissioning shortlists, while internal BBC companies and individuals seem to get on them frequently? Can we have more openness and transparency about that? Will the BBC explain it? When I have complained to the BBC about the nature of commissioning, I have been told repeatedly that it has a robust and transparent internal process.

[Julian Knight]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about internal processes. Has he found that sometimes the BBC’s knee-jerk response is to defend, rather than to be absolutely transparent?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree totally. If a political party in this House were in receipt of public money from a variety of sources for commissioning opinion polls and so on, and the BBC said, “We would like to question you about your spending of public money, because there seems to be a lack of transparency,” just imagine its response if the party replied that it had robust internal mechanisms to ensure that the money was spent appropriately! Yet that is what the BBC tells me about its internal commissioning process and the complaints engendered by it: “Leave it to us; we know how to spend public money, and we have very efficient internal employees to ensure that it is accounted for.” That is not good enough.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case on commissioning, but does he accept that, apart from news programmes, all BBC programmes, whether new or repeats, require competition in the commissioning process? In fact, since the changes in the royal charter, the highest profile recommissioning case has been that of “Songs of Praise”, which the BBC has lost to a commercial competitor.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I come back to this one: whenever we complain about a commissioning process, it would be infinitely preferable if the BBC opened up its system. If it has a fully accountable and transparent system for assessing the commissioning process, we will be able to see it. We can analyse it, we can look at it and we can say, “Is that value for money for the licence fee payer, or is there something else at work?” I do not know that there is something else at work, but I know that there have been complaints and that there needs to be greater transparency.

In short, and to conclude, the BBC used to be a wonderfully independent and impartial public service broadcaster. I want to see it return to those days, because I think that it has fallen short in recent days—I had a debate in this Chamber only recently along similar lines. We need to keep pressing the BBC. We also need a wider debate: were we to move away from the licence fee, what would be a better way of doing things? I fully concede there are no simple, easy solutions, but we need accountability and transparency for almost £4 billion of public money.