The BBC’s slide towards becoming a government body

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/08/the-bbcs-slide-towards-becoming-a-government-body

Version 0 of 1.

We were promised a widespread consultation about the future scope and scale of the BBC as part its charter review. Now in a secret deal concluded in a week, the government has decided that a fifth of the BBC’s income will be diverted to fund free licence fees for the over-75s (BBC wins licence fee guarantee – but takes on cost of subsidising over-75s, 7 July). Just like that.

By deciding that the licence fee will in future be used to fund welfare payments, the move takes the BBC another dangerous step closer to becoming just another government department, with all that implies for its editorial independence. Phil HardingChief political adviser to the BBC 1995-97

Suddenly the BBC is implicated in the implementation of social policy and becomes complicit with government cuts

• It’s very revealing that the BBC has felt the need to remind staff not to “sound off about things in an openly partisan way” on social media regarding the licence fee settlement. Having worked for the BBC in the past for over 32 years, I can guess what staff might think: that the whole thing stinks. I don’t feel any obligation to remain silent over this extraordinary and unprecedented deal, which will cost the BBC £750m by 2020-21, almost a fifth of its current income. I thought it pretty appalling in 2010 when the BBC agreed to take on the financial burden of World Service radio from the Foreign Office, in another hastily stitched-up deal behind closed doors, but this is a step change in BBC history. Suddenly the BBC is implicated in the implementation of social policy and effectively becomes complicit with massive and controversial government spending cuts. During the election campaign the BBC was somewhat feeble in its efforts to get the Conservatives to spell out where the threatened £12bn cuts would fall, perhaps through fear of the wrath of of the Tory right, so there is absolutely no mandate for any of this. I hope BBC staff ignore the Pravda-style constraints on what they can say and speak out with vigour, especially as the BBC Trust response so far has been so feeble.Giles OakleyLondon

• Making the BBC fund a governmental social initiative is another outrageous wheeze from Osborne’s Pandora’s box – but why stop there? Were he really on the case he would be announcing the funding of free prescriptions by pharmaceutical companies, the winter fuel allowance by energy giants, the bus pass by a transport and petroleum company consortium, while housing benefit (and repairs to the Palace of Westminster?) could be offloaded on to property developers and speculators. That should just about see the deficit wiped out, and with it the need for more austerity. What’s he waiting for?Anne JohnsLittleover, Derbyshire

• I find it astonishing that the government feels it can just tell the BBC to cut a fifth of its budget. Money that might have been allocated for programme-making and which, no doubt, comes on top of the cuts the BBC’s director-general, Tony Hall, was going to make. No government, of whatever hue, should have anything to do with how the BBC is run. The BBC is there to be an independent, impartial voice, not a British Pravda. One of the key reasons people overseas valued the World Service so much was for that impartial voice. Governments criticise the corporation for its assumed bias this or that way. But surely government diktats make it look more like a puppet than a responsible broadcaster? That we have this level of interference from the culture secretary suggests an insidious approach. What they’d like to do is shut it altogether, but to say so would cost them too many of the votes of those who benefit from those free licences.

I very much hope Tony Hall rejects this latest bully-boy tactic from George Osborne and John Whittingdale.Bev NicolsonCambridge

If the BBC is now to be responsible for social policy at least let the government pay for foreign policy/propaganda

• Once again the BBC has caved in to a poor deal, after previously accepting responsibility for the World Service. While I hold no particular brief for BBC3, at least I recognise that it is watched by UK citizens. A much more useful saving could be made by scrapping the BBC World Service (operating costs £283.9m). Why should UK licence-payers contribute to broadcasting to the rest of the world? If these broadcasts are seen as vital to the national interest then the government should pick up the tab.

Why should I pay for broadcasts to Africa? I quote as an example from the World Service accounts: “To maintain our unique position in Africa as the largest international broadcaster, we launched new programmes mainly on TV for African audiences. In June 2012, we launched Focus on Africa on the international news channel, BBC World News, and made it available on a number of local African TV networks ...”

If the BBC is now to be responsible for social policy at least let the government pay for foreign policy/propaganda.George PearceSutton Coldfield, West Midlands

• Diane Coyle claims the 2006 decision by the Office for National Statistics to reclassify the BBC as a central government body has jeopardised the financial independence of the corporation and calls for the change to be reversed (This attack on the BBC is scandalous, Opinion, 8 July).

These classification decisions are made solely on the basis of the relevant criteria set out in international standards and in European law. As the standards and the facts remain unchanged, there would appear to be no basis for amending the decision.Joe Grice Chief economic adviser, Office for National Statistics

• George Osborne plans to require the BBC to fund TV licences for the over-75s. This burden could reasonably be lightened by applying the age limit to the youngest member of the household, rather than is possible now to the oldest.John CliffWeybridge, Surrey

• To protect the world-class BBC, can we arrange for the over-75s who can afford it to pay a voluntary licence fee in the same way that some of us give our winter fuel allowance to charities that help those in fuel poverty? This way we can chip away at the mean-spirited cuts to public services and welfare benefits that are being imposed on us.Michael MillerSheffield