We ask ex-Ofcom and BBC boss whether the TV licence fee should be cut

Añadido: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]Is the license fee the right way to fund the BBC? Then >> I don't know a better way, but that we need changes. We need the license fee to come down to be rebased lower.

[00:00:09]>> This is Michael Grade. He's a former chair of the BBC and in a 60-year career, he's also run ITV and Channel 4.

[00:00:17]Last month, he stepped down as chair of Ofcom, the organization responsible for policing the conduct of broadcasters and tech companies. With children still being exposed to harm, Grade says now is the time for the government to prevent the under 16s from accessing social media.

[00:00:35]>> I think we've got nothing to lose by instigating a ban.

[00:00:40]Offcom has made great strides. I think not as quickly as some people would like. We live in a world where we expect everything to be instant. You know, if you turn the tap on, if the water isn't hot immediately, you you get grumpy. You know, that applies across the field. But Ofcom can only do what the online safety act allows them to do. They do it very well. There's been a lot of action and a lot of voluntary action by some of the big tech companies as a result of pressure from Ofcom.

[00:01:06]>> What would you point to that you think looks like progress?

[00:01:10]>> Enforced age verification uh on porn sites to keep kids off porn sites. You know, just clicking I am over 18 doesn't work anymore. Some of the big tech companies have voluntarily uh increased their vigilance and their detection of online harms and uh grooming uh and misinformation and so on. So we we're going in the right direction unquestionably so.

[00:01:36]>> The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges says social media is as harmful to children as smoking. Would you agree with that?

[00:01:44]>> Speaking personally, not speaking for Offcom anymore, I I I would agree with that. Yes. I I have grandchildren of all ages.

[00:01:50]>> Do you worry about their social?

[00:01:52]>> That's why I went to Offcom in the first place was to play my part uh in the online safety regime. They're not in control of what information is pushed to them.

[00:02:03]Uh, and you know, the Molly Russell case, the most tragic, horrible case, one of many, sadly, brings home to you the unscrupulous nature of the uh and the addictive nature of uh of social media. That's that's the real example, and you don't want your kids to go anywhere near that.

[00:02:25]>> You're a free marketeteer at heart. Um, why do you think self-regulation has failed?

[00:02:32]Self-regulation has failed because they don't know the meaning of the word in the tech companies. Self-regulate.

[00:02:38]What's regulation? You know, we're here to get clicks and and get get advertising revenue. Uh the same way the tobacco companies are in the business of selling cigarettes.

[00:02:48]>> Do you think that the under 16s should be allowed to access social media?

[00:02:54]Speaking personally, I think we've got nothing to lose by instigating a ban on social media for under 16. So long as there's a sunset clause, so long as that it's not in perpetuity, you know, the parliament needs to look at it again in the light of evidence, say in every two years, keep looking at at what the evidence shows. But I don't think we've got anything to lose by doing it. It's quite a big thing for you to call for this because your instincts are for yes for regulation but for the lightness of touch. You you're a less afair man. Yes.

[00:03:27]I think the problem is so serious and it's it's taking quite a while to put put the legislation the online safety act into uh into effect. Although offcom's doing it as fast as they as fast as the legal processes allow. But in the end, I think a dramatic action is called for and we'll see in two years time or three years time whether it's worked or not, whether it's had a benefit. But I think it will call the tech companies to account. You know, it'll affect their revenues and there's nothing nothing worse for these companies than than to hurt their revenue.

[00:04:03]>> Last week, Ofcom said 73% of 11 to 17 year olds are still exposed to harmful content, mostly on personalized feeds.

[00:04:12]It name checked Tik Tok and YouTube.

[00:04:14]Offcom says they have failed to set out meaningful steps to protect children. I mean the online safety act has been around for just over two years. Children are still being harmed. Ofcom does have the ability to fine. Why hasn't it used it?

[00:04:31]>> Ofcom has very very uh rigorous powers given to it by parliament. It's not a star chamber. People would like it to be a star chamber. as soon as there's some evidence they'd like us to close them down or or fine them. That's not how a powerful regulator should operate under any circumstances. There have there has to be due process.

[00:04:52]>> But I mean due for two years I mean and not a single fine.

[00:04:56]>> Yeah. But the act requires a lot of consultation which takes time. You got to give you know we put ideas out there.

[00:05:03]Tech companies consult and come back with their views. There's a whole process which has to be gone through as a result of the act. We're not making this up as we go along.

[00:05:12]>> What would you say to people who don't think you're being tough enough with the tech bros?

[00:05:18]>> Well, I you know, I would direct them to the uh Ofcom uh uh website and see all the action that we have taken and the responses that we have got from tech companies, >> but investigations and public warnings.

[00:05:32]No hard action. No fines, Michael.

[00:05:34]>> Plenty of fines. Plenty of fines. Not for the big tech platforms, >> not yet. There are a number of investigations going on at the moment.

[00:05:40]>> Caroline Dinage says, "Ofcom has the teeth, but they don't appear to have the stomach. They're too cautious." Is that fair?

[00:05:48]>> No. Very unfair. Very, very unfair. You don't find people on the basis of newspaper headlines. That wouldn't be right.

[00:05:54]>> Do you think that fines may be coming that they're >> Oh, yes. No question. We've already Ofcom has already shown uh its ability as I think one company was fined I think a million three another 800,000 uh for for breaking the rules.

[00:06:08]>> But but not the not the big tech tech platform yet. No. Offcom says Tik Tok and YouTube's content feeds are still not safe enough for children. Why haven't these companies been fined two years after the act?

[00:06:20]>> You've got to have the evidence. You've got to compile the evidence. It's painstaking process. uh you can't just find them on the basis that you know of some anecdotal stuff. You've got to drill down into >> but this is offcom saying the feeds are not safe enough. No on the basis of evidence presumably. So why not for find them?

[00:06:41]>> Because they will go back offcom will go back to the tech company say this is happening on your website. What do you say about it? Then there's a two and fro on the evidence and eventually uh after due process action will be taken if the evidence points in that direction.

[00:06:57]>> All of the public service broadcasters BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 are losing viewers as the audience moves online. Is what's happening to public service broadcasters existential in your view? the free-to-air advertiser supported uh uh organizations ITV Channel 4, Channel 5 and to a lesser extent Sky they're severely challenged because a lot of advertising money is moving online. So it's a really it is an existential problem which they have got to solve. They're moving uh their strategies much more to digital uh smart TVs, YouTube etc. Um they're a bit late doing that but they they are doing it.

[00:07:38]Do you think we still need public service broadcasters? And if we do, do we still need four of them?

[00:07:44]>> Well, that's for the market ultimately to decide. I think we do need them. We do want programs that that are made by British producers with nothing but a British audience in mind. Uh I'm thinking of Mr. Bates versus the Post Office uh and some of the great shows that we've seen over over recent years.

[00:08:04]The streamers wouldn't have touched those shows. will fall on the BBC. You know, these are programs that nobody else would would make. So, we need that supply, otherwise we lose our culture in Thailand. At the heart of that, of course, is independent and impartial journalism, which is huge. ITN, BBC News, Sky News. These are really important. At times of crisis, you know, people do turn to the trusted trusted news organizations.

[00:08:32]>> Do you have any concerns about Sky taking over ITV?

[00:08:36]No, I don't think so. I think, you know, it's it's a matter for shareholders and ultimately there'll be if if it goes ahead, no doubt there'll be a public interest test uh which the Secretary of State will uh will commission and we'll see what the outcome of that is. I don't don't have any problems with it. I think scale is very very important in the commercial market.

[00:08:56]>> Project Kangaroo, when you look back at that, was that a missed You're rolling your eyes already. Was that a missed opportunity?

[00:09:04]Well, the the merger authorities at the time deemed that that was not acceptable for ITV, Channel 4, and the BBC to create a a streaming a single streaming platform.

[00:09:19]We just handed the market to the Americans. It was the most disgraceful, idiotic, shortsighted, and ignorant regulatory. Uh we're paying the price for that now. It's absolutely shocking.

[00:09:31]>> Where would we be today if that had gone ahead? Well, we might have a a streamer of scale uh where you could find all the great British programs. And I I you know, I think it would have been it would have been a great benefit.

[00:09:45]Would have given us a chance against the Americans. We've had the the regulators have handed the market to the Americans.

[00:09:51]>> Do you think the BBC ultimately should be a subscription service?

[00:09:55]>> No. Once you put the BBC into competition for revenue, there will be a dramatic effect on the output. If if the BBC were in a subscription, I'm not saying they couldn't make a go of it, but they'd only be making programs that drive that drive subscriptions. They're not going to make programs that, you know, we've seen this. We've seen this wonderful performer in Edinburgh called FE Phoebe Waller Bridge. I think we'll give her a series. You're not going to do that in subscription. Flea Bag wouldn't happen. You know, lots of programs wouldn't happen if if if their sole purpose in life was to drive subscriptions. you change the nature of the BBC.

[00:10:33]>> So is the license fee the right way to fund the BBC then?

[00:10:36]>> I don't know a better way but we need changes. We need the license fee to come down to be rebased lower which will get public support. You know you've got half the BBC uh saying we want more money from the public and the journalism on the BBC is saying you know the cost of living crisis and we get stories every night quite rightly on TV and on the radio about the cost of living crisis.

[00:10:59]Meanwhile, another part of the BBC, they're asking for more money.

[00:11:01]>> So, where should the license fee be set then in your view?

[00:11:04]>> Well, I I I wouldn't want to guess, but it's got to come down. It's got to it's got to it's got to stop being more and more and more every year.

[00:11:11]>> If you cut the BBC license fee, don't you just further weaken the BBC?

[00:11:17]>> No, you've got to have a hard look. I mean, they've got buildings all over the UK. I mean, there's huge costs in there that need need a hard hard look. you know, they've got palaces in outside London, you know, which they don't need.

[00:11:31]Everybody's working from home today.

[00:11:33]There's a lot of cost to come out of the BBC in my view.

[00:11:35]>> You you've run in your career, Channel 4, ITV, the BBC. Which one of those are you most concerned about?

[00:11:43]>> I think I'm most concerned about Channel 4. Um, I think I think they're a very small operation in a they're the corner shop in a world of supermarkets, you know, hypermarkets if you like. Um, and it's very tough. But if you're a corner shop in that market, you find a way of providing something that the others are not providing that the public wants.

[00:12:08]Michael Grade. On the 18th of June, there will be a bi-election in Makerfield, and all the candidates will be scrutinized, as you'd expect, by the uh the main broadcasters. GB News says it now gets more viewers during the day than either Sky or the BBC's news channels. Its star presenter is the leader of reform. Isn't that a problem?

[00:12:32]>> I don't think it's a problem. Uh it's it's something that only parliament can and should decide. As far as I'm concerned, GB news operates under exactly the same rules as ITN, the BBC or Sky News. They have to show due impartiality at all times, which they do irrespective of who who the presenter is.

[00:12:52]>> But Nigel Farage has a political agenda, doesn't he?

[00:12:55]>> Yes. But then they have a they have an extra duty to uh to be impartial and reflect other views. And you think Nigel Farage is impartial on >> G? Not on his on his own, but it depends who else who else? No, I don't see it at all at all as a I don't I don't personally have a problem with it.

[00:13:13]>> I think Ofcom's failed in its duty as a regulator, says Adam Bolton, former political editor of Sky News. It seems to me there have been clear violations of due impartiality rules consistently from GB News.

[00:13:25]>> He's wrong.

[00:13:27]Have you have you seen the the GB News exclusive interview with Donald Trump?

[00:13:32]>> I haven't seen it. I know all about it.

[00:13:34]I know that some people would suggested it was a very soft interview. What people failed to recognize whether it was a soft interview or not is not a judgment for me. But people have said that that what followed was a was a discussion where people tore into or immediately followed the interview.

[00:13:50]There are a number of studio guests who tore into it and tore into Trump. That's due impartiality. But but in terms of the interview itself, should there not be due impartiality in an interview?

[00:14:01]President Trump claimed climate change was a hoax. That London had no go areas for the police that parts of London had law.

[00:14:08]>> That's that's his point of view.

[00:14:09]>> At no point was he challenged.

[00:14:11]>> He was after the program.

[00:14:12]>> But but when a presenter doesn't challenge an obvious falsehood on air, isn't that a problem?

[00:14:19]>> Well, you it may just be a mistake that that they were thinking of the next. You know, a lot of what passes for impartial what passes for bias or political partiality on television in all news broadcasts is a slip of the tongue, a failure to pick up a point. Do you think it would be helpful in the interests of trust and due impartiality for the government to prevent elected politicians, party leaders from presenting news programs? I think in the interest of freedom of expression, uh, I'd be very nervous about that. Very nervous indeed. Where do you stop then?

[00:14:57]Who else do who else don't we like presenting television programs?

[00:15:02]All of the major tech companies insist they take the protection of children seriously and are committing energy and resources to reducing harmful content on their platforms.