TELEVISION
Licensing hours
GEORGE SCOTT
Last week's announcement by the Post- master-General about the future financing of the Bac represented a large victory for the Corporation and, in particular, for Lord Hill. If it was also a victory for Mr Stone- ouse in his battles inside the Government as some including Mr Stonehouse, have med to suggest—that is because Mr onehouse happened to agree with Lord As an example of political pressure ubliely exerted, Lord Hill's tactics corn- and admiration. What pose could be more ppealing in these straitened days than that the chairman of a public corporation ho,e only wish was to live within his Nome? Unfortunately, one of the ecessary economies must be the sacking f a couple of hundred musicians, super- uous to the BBC'S broadcasting needs.
The reaction of Mr Hardie Ratcliffe, the htant leader of the Musicians' Union, and f the powerful music lobby, was predic- ble. No doubt Lord Hill had counted on as part of his campaign. No less predic- ble was the Government's reaction to the real that if they did not find the money or a network of BBC local radio stations hey would be leaving the field clear for e Tories and the commercial boys.
So the BBC is to get the money it needs ad I am not going to complain about that. ut the means chosen to raise that money ad the arguments advanced to defend the ecision are dubious indeed.
First, of course, the sac will not begin get the extra revenue from the increased tence fee until after the next general ction. This means that the Government wids the odium of making people pay ore here and now while bequeathing to e next Government an obligation to do • By April 1971 the BBC should have run a deficit amounting to several million )unds—on the strength of the present inernment's promissory note. Thus a ure Conservative government will be orally obliged to find the money to pay the sac local radio stations to which ey. the Tories, are politically opposed. lhen there is the question of abolishing e radio licence fee. Mr Stonehouse cheer- ily agreed with me at his press conference t this will form part of Labour's elec- a manifesto—a promise of relief, in eel, for old age pensioners. But an im- riant principle has been sacrificed. The htmaster-General said in his statement t 'the aac radio service is largely financed )rn the combined Tv-radio licence • • . ' That clearly implies that radio is rtly financed by money raised by the TV enee fee. In Broadcasting in the wines, however. the BBC explicitly re- led the possibility of taking TV money Pay for radio.
Rightly so. If Tv licence money is raided Pay for radio, then there is no reason, Principle, why TV itself should not be lifted out of taxes on whisky, tobacco, rse-racing or football pools. The argu- nt that radio licence fees are expensive to lect Is much too flimsy to justify this Nlonment of principle.
ere i& also the effect upon the BBC If to be considered. Until now. the Pe and size of BBC radio services has borne a more or less direct relationship to the finance raised by radio licence fees. In future, with only a TV licence to provide money, radio will have lost its sense of independence. Decisions about how much radio there should be and how much money it should have could be taken in much more arbitrary fashion than now.
Lastly, there is the serious issue of the BBC's role as a major patron of music in Britain. However mixed the Corporation's motives in threatening to sack musicians to help balance the books, its defence for doing so was a powerful one. It was ex- pounded most forcibly by the Director- General, Mr Charles Curran, at last month's press conference. The fundamental question he asked was: is the licence fee the most appropriate means for the exercising of national patronage of music? That question had force enough when there was a com- bined TV and radio licence. From 1971, it will be people who are paying £6 lOs (or £11 10s) for television who will be exercis- ing vast musical patronage. Should their money be used for that purpose?
The BBC did not threaten to reduce the amount of broadcast music but to reduce the number of musicians employed. It has now agreed to maintain the present level of employment—that is the official language. But it still wants to increase the amount of recorded music—to improve the variety of its output, it says. If the Musicians' Union agrees, that will mean either that the BBC is broadcasting even more music at greater cost—and at the expense of other forms of broadcasting—or paying the same number of musicians as it now employs to produce less than they now produce.
It is a pity this basic question of musical patronage was not thoroughly examined before the Government reached for the nearest political expedient. It ought still to be examined.
Previous page
