Licence fee under fire

The BBC's creative soul has been stultified by the drive for efficiency and cost effectiveness. So said two of Britain's most successful comedy writers, Laurence Marks and Maurice Gran, at the Edinburgh International Television Festival at the weekend.

In a two-hander some said was reminiscent of Gilbert and George, the men proposed that if the BBC was to re-capture its glory days it needed to be liberated from the licence fee and rely on subscription.

Giving the annual James MacTaggert memorial lecture, Marks and Gran predicted that their recommendation would be denounced by the BBC spin doctors - and this was precisely what happened. Within hours of their lecture on Friday, the BBC executives were reported to be treating the suggested £10 monthly voluntary payment for the BBC with disdain: "Let them just try and collect the money," said one executive.

Marks and Gran are the creators of Birds Of A Feather, The New Statesman and Shine On Harvey Moon. They made £50 million two years ago when they sold their own library of programme rights. It is their wealth that prompted reports from BBC sources to suggest they were simply seeking more money, and did not understand that the BBC must be available to the whole community, not just those who could afford a subscription.

On the other hand, the head of arts and entertainment at Channel 4, Stuart Cosgrave, was reported in the Guardian as saying they were among the few people who had the strength to "bite the hand that feeds them".

Marks and Gran told the audience of television executives and independent producers - who now form the majority of those attending the annual festival - that if viewers had to subscribe, the BBC would be able to pay independent writers and producers properly, because a subscription would generate more money than is currently available from the licence fee.

They spoke of the great programmes that had made them want to write for the BBC and of the "pretty awful sit-coms on ITV" that led them to believe they could do better.

What they offered was, in effect, a re-definition of public service broadcasting, that operated in the marketplace, and where the starting point was quality and wellrewarded writers and producers. "A BBC funded by subscription could be truly independent, truly innovative, a real public service. Its income would increase and it could richly reward talent. It could take risks, be renewed, exciting, stimulating."

"What we are seeking is a real revolution at the BBC. The new BBC may not be free to air, but it will be free from constraint, free from fear, free from penury. At least new talent will be allowed to grow."

Ironically, many feel that the control by the "legion of lawyers, accountants, business affairs executives and policy unit aparatchiks", as Marks and Gran describe the BBC's advisers, is precisely what saved the BBC during the Thatcher years. It was the fact that the BBC began to look like a business and less like the huge and possibly anarchic creative corporation it had been that allowed it to hold on to the licence fee.

In these circumstances, Marks and Gran argue, the BBC felt obliged to become more commercial, introduce an internal market, forge commercial partnerships, establish commercial satellite and cable channels, and use its library of quality programmes to provide content for new channels. The reward was that its charter was renewed, ensuring its future as a public service broadcaster, financed by the licence fee.

According to Marks and Gran, the BBC believes it must maintain market share to justify the licence fee. "This forces the BBC more and more to shadow ITV's programming as it moves remorselessly towards the safe, the repetitive and the cloned.

"This process is particularly noticeable in drama. If ITV has a vet, the BBC wants a vet. If ITV has a moody cop, the BBC wants a moodier one. This follow-myleader reflex is exacerbated by the chaos within the BBC drama department, which over the past few years has resembled a flock of headless chickens."

Ten years ago it was independent programme-makers such as Marks and Gran who defended the licence fee. Today, it is the politicians who have become converted to the view that public service television must of necessity be funded by a licence fee.

There are complex reasons for the change, but one important factor is the fear of what de-regulation has brought and might yet bring. Politicians throughout Europe, now wary of the power of the new media moguls, want public service television that is free to the whole population.

So strongly is that view held that it is expected to be written into the next European Union treaty. One wonders if Marks and Gran are aware of this, and if so, was their proposal really just a mischievious suggestion put to television's great and good at Edinburgh, so attention would be paid when they raised the issue of pay for independent writers and producers?