Memorandum submitted by Erika Sigvallius
I have been reading your web pages and see that
you have asked for comments from interested individuals in the
run up to the Charter Review. I am entirely unqualified to comment
on the relative roles of BBC management, the Governors, Ofcom
and the Secretary of State, but I am writing to urge you to reconsider
how the BBC is funded.
The method of funding the BBC impacts very unfairly
on those of us who do not own a television. Since most people
do own TVs (and pay the licence), they are often startled to hear
how I am treated like a criminal by the licensing authority.
Unpleasant letters are routine. Over the years
I have received them saying variously, "You do not have a
licence. You must get one immediately", "Final demand"
and "We are taking you to court". I have had letters
demanding to know why I haven't responded to a previous letter,
when in fact I have, and made a follow-up phone call too.
The letters invite you to respond to say why
you don't have a licence, and when you reply to the effect that
you don't own a TV, the licensing authority writes back to say
that it doesn't believe you, and is sending a sinister-sounding
"Enforcement officer" to your home. And whether you
repeatedly write or phone the authority, or make no response at
all, the result is always the same: it sends someone to inspect
your home.
This inspection involves a search of your house,
with every room being entered (sometimes you are told that "the
main living area" only is inspected. What this means is open
to interpretation, but I had it directly from the Enforcement
Department itself that this can mean every room bar the attic.)
All of this is threatened in the face of no evidence whatsoever
that I have committed any offence.
I have refused entry for the search, which means
that harassment is constant: a letter every other month and two
separate visits from Enforcement officers within the last six
months. I strongly object to this invasion of my privacy: I believe
that to enter someone's private property uninvited requires a
compelling reason to do so. The "Well if we didn't inspect,
everyone would say they didn't have a TV, and then where would
we be?" response from the licensing authority simply isn't
good enough. There are many activities in this country that require
a licence. Yet I have never received letters from the local authority
asking why I don't have a licence to run a pet shop, I have never
opened my door to find a police officer asking to search my house
for an unlicensed gun, and I have never been threatened by Customs
and Excise for not possessing a licence to import and sell tobacco.
But these authorities would be quick to inspect if they had REASONABLE
suspicion that I was doing any of those things without a licence.
Why should TV licensing be any different?
I have told the licensing authority that they
are welcome to use their detection equipment close to my house;
I always reply courteously to its letters, and co-operate fully
EXCEPT for the requests to search my house, an idea I find abhorrent.
The authority has tried to tell me that allowing them entry will
stop all further visits for up to three years, yet a TV-free friend
of mine living locally was searched three times in two months,
so frankly, I don't believe what I have been told. Also, I don't
consider it reasonable to be inspected once every three years
simply because the authority feels like it.
I am NOT anti-BBC. Far from it. I consider myself
to be very well served by Radio 4, and would willingly pay for
it. I also get good use of BBC Online, and use some of its content
in my professional life. It is quite ridiculous that this is free
to anyone, including people overseas who also do not pay for it.
BBC Online is funded by the licence fee, yet in the area where
I live, Crook North ward, very few people own a PC or have internet
access (the ward falls within the lowest 6th of all wards as measured
by the indices of deprivation [Census 2001].) It simply isn't
reasonable that this excellent service is paid for by people who
have no access to it. I understand there are also now some digital
TV channels that many people have no access to; yet this is also
funded by the licence fee.
I have little sympathy for people who feel they
should be able to watch BBC TV without paying for it. If they
feel so strongly about not paying, they don't have to have a TV
at all. But it doesn't seem reasonable that they have no option
to watch exclusively the advertising-funded channels, without
also paying the BBC's licence. The current annual fee of £116
must be very onerous for low-income earners.
Would it not be possible to make each BBC TV
and radio channel a subscription service, especially as we move
towards digital signals? Then people could pay for what they actually
use, and if they don't use it, they don't pay. I am not personally
in favour of paying for the BBC out of general taxation, since
there seems to be hardly enough tax to go around for necessary
services, let alone something that is largely entertainment. Unlike
the NHS or state education it can hardly be called an essential
public service.
April 2004
| 
