BBC funding

As predicted by Peter Black yesterday morning, yesterday's statement by the DCMS Secretary of State, Nadine Dorries turned out to be of the deceased feline variety. Along with the statement about Chinese interference (referred to yesterday), it gave a taster of red meat to the Tory faithful while incidentally taking up time which could more profitably have been given to discussion of the Elections Bill. (A further hour was given to a statement by defence minister Ben Wallace about the Ukraine, but since this (a) introduced new government policy and (b) was undeniably topical, it can be excluded from the list of statements calculated to divert attention from Boris Johnson's troubles.)

When I first heard of Nadine Dorries' premature Tweet about the licence fee (incidentally earning her a rebuke from Mr Speaker), my first thought was: the Beeb has now fulfilled the Tory purpose in achieving Brexit, so it can now be sold off. Fortunately, Ms Dorries had no such proposal to lay before the House - or any proposal, for that matter. Instead, she merely stated two obvious facts: that there is now a lot of competition out there in the field of dramatic entertainment, both broadcast and distributed over the Internet; and that the licence fee is in effect a regressive tax.

It is all very well for the likes of Gary Lineker and Yvette Cooper to say that £159 is good value for money (arguably true) and easily affordable, but they do not have to budget week by week, let alone month by month. £159 is probably the sort of money they would spend in a good restaurant for a family meal. It is much different for people of the stock Nadine Dorries sprang from, and she should be given credit for being more in touch with the terraces of Walton than most professional politicians.

Of course, being a Tory, she could not take the logical step of declaring that what was needed was a levy which fell proportionately more on the broadest shoulders and not at all on the poorest, with appropriate tapering in between. I have already suggested that a household levy linked to council tax bands, using existing collection mechanisms, would be more equitable. Housing benefit would take care of the most deprived. The outsourced licence fee collection and enforcement scheme could then be done away with. Clearly, a tax expert must be able to come up with at least as good a solution.

What we do not want is yet another channel dependent on advertising. I agree with much of what Nigel Hunter says most of the time, but I believe he is wrong in his comment on Peter's post. The aim should surely be to restore Auntie's distinctiveness, not reduce it. Already, too much time on TV (and even radio - even Radio 3!) is annoyingly wasted on plugs for BBC's box-sets. Also, making the BBC dependent on advertising, even for just a part of its income, reduces the Corporation's independence.

Nadine Dorries and many of the Conservatives who followed her were right to point out that, while the BBC used to have the field of high-value drama to itself, the latter is now available via other media. One way the Corporation could trim its costs (which it clearly needs to do) is to withdraw from this area unless it has something distinctive to offer. Another "me-too" cop show is not it.

Of course, the fat which would be least missed from the BBC budget is that of needless administration. Its status as sacred cow has permitted the Corporation to be impervious to the sort of regular job reviews and administrative audit that the general civil service is subject to. There must be many posts, particularly in TV, which have now become supernumerary because of the digital revolution and thus can be abolished. Many posts vacated on retirement need not be filled.

Surprisingly, considering the number of accusations made by MPs on various media in advance of the statement, there was very little said about the perceived bias of the BBC. Only Sammy Wilson of the Democratic Unionists and Conservative Richard Fuller characterised the Corporation as biased and only in passing. Away from their megaphones, MPs recognise the BBC for what it is, a basically conservative organisation, the cap-and-bells of its comedy output notwithstanding. It is noticeable that recent coverage of "partygate" has centred on the person of the prime minister rather than attacking the government as a whole. It has been as helpful to potential rivals to Boris Johnson within the Conservative party as it has to Sir Keir Starmer.

Ms Dorries' announcement that the licence fee would be frozen until the end of this parliament drew the predictable response from the corporation: programmes would be cut. There are programmes and their staff which would not be missed by the general public but will never be cut, though. I refer, of course, to the political output. As long as MPs are guaranteed their slot on the box, BBC News and Current Affairs will always have friends in Westminster.