Ofcom Chief Labels BBC Licence ‘Regressive Tax’, Calls for Funding Review

The scene at BBC Broadcasting House in London, after red paint was sprayed over the entrance on Oct. 14, 2023. James Manning/PA

In an interview with the Financial Times, Michael Grade, the head of Britain’s media regulator Ofcom, has urged the government to reevaluate BBC funding, branding the current licence fee as a “regressive tax.”

In a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times, Lord Grade emphasised the need for the BBC to enhance its governance and complaints mechanisms, raising questions about the BBC’s ability to compete for advertising revenue against commercial broadcasters during the next charter review.

In response, the BBC said: “We look forward to a healthy public debate about how the BBC is best equipped to continue to deliver for audiences in the UK and around the world.”

Alan Miller, founder of the Together Declaration, a cross-party pressure group, told The Epoch Times:

“We see from Net Zero to lockdowns, from ULEZ to recent events in the Middle East there seems to be a very particular set of views at BBC editorial that is often anti-public, contemptuous and insulting to fee payers.

“Michael Grade is absolutely correct to raise questions about the regressive nature of licence fee as well as whether there should even be one at all.”

In the live BBC news at 5:35 p.m. on April 15, reporting on a protest held against the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), a BBC reporter made the comment that “Local protesters and mainstream politicians were joined by conspiracy theorists and far-right groups.”

Mr. Miller, whose organisation ran the protest, added: “BBC London decided to call anti ULEZ protestors ‘Far Right’—an outrageous smear & correctly recognised as such & subsequently admitted.”

The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) issued an amendment on Aug. 3, upholding a complaint of mischaracterisation of protesters as “far-right” who were attending.

Ofcom Not to Dictate Hiring

Lord Grade’s call comes a day after he told BBC One that it is not within his purview to dictate broadcasters’ hiring decisions, while responding to inquiries about GB News employing four serving Conservative MPs and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Questions have arisen from the BBC regarding whether GB News complies with Ofcom rules and the efficacy of Ofcom’s oversight. Lord Grade emphasised that rules on impartiality, fairness, and accuracy apply uniformly to GB News and other broadcasters, including the BBC.

Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, Lord Grade said that Ofcom does not, “want to be in the business of telling broadcasters, licensees, who they can employ, who they can’t employ.”

“There are rules about elections and politicians at election time, there are very strong, clear rules, but that’s not our job,” he continued.

“Our job is to ensure, within the rules of due impartiality, that there is plenty of choice and freedom of expression on the airwaves.”

“That means some people will always be offended by stuff, but there’s no rule that says you can’t be offended.”

While acknowledging that there were 14 ongoing investigations into GB News, Lord Grade underscored that Ofcom’s role is to ensure ample choice and freedom of expression on the airwaves, adhering to the rules of due impartiality.

GB News Approach ‘Innovative’

Speaking to the Financial Times, he labelled GB News’s approach as “quite innovative,” adding: “It’s not like Sky News. Watching some of their programmes, you would never say that they were news programmes, they are current affairs.

On the subject of GB News hiring politicians as presenters, he added: “We don’t want Ofcom dictating who can and can’t present shows—its freedom of expression.”

Speaking about the decision-making process behind the election of a new head of the BBC (which is ongoing at the moment), Lord Grade told the Financial Times that he believes the position should be more public.

He said: “The board does need to be much more publicly open about what they think about some of the stuff that becomes controversial. We hardly ever hear from the board and that leaves a vacuum.”

Lord Grade also emphasised that political allegiances had no impact on Ofcom’s decisions, dismissing concerns over its size and extensive remit.

Scrutiny remains on Ofcom in the wake of new powers under the Online Safety Act, which some commentators have labelled as a potential means to “censor dissident voices.”

As reported last Thursday, a social media shake-up under the new Online Safety Act will compel platforms to block suicide and terror sites to children—and remove “suggested friends” to protect them from groomers.

Sites that don’t comply with the strict new rules face being fined or blocked completely by Ofcom, with senior social media managers liable to criminal proceedings, the regulator said.

Publishing its first draft codes of practice under the new bill on Thursday, Ofcom said under the code, the largest platforms will be required—by default—to ensure children on their sites are not presented with lists of suggested friends, do not appear in other users’ lists, that their location information is not visible to other users and that people outside their agreed connections cannot direct message them.