PBS licence

David Zammit asks:
Is the PBS yearly TV licence fee applicable within an EU scenario, especially since we are increasingly not making direct use of this station as it is being re-transmitted by cable and other TV companies?

In addition, can I opt out of receiving this channel thus forfeiting my annual licence?

If it is a licence imposed on TV ownership, does the EU have any directives on such issues or is it up to local government again to decide?

The TV licence fee we pay is, in principle, collected by the government in order to pay for the "public service" that should be rendered by the national broadcasting station, PBS.

There is a clear understanding at EU level that individual EU countries can fund public service broadcasting. This is clearly spelt out in a protocol that was attached to the Amsterdam Treaty back in 1997.

The protocol states that EU rules shall not affect the powers of individual EU countries "to provide for the funding of public service broadcasting insofar as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each member state".

The wording is clear and leaves no doubt that we can use public money to fund the public service element of the programmes transmitted by PBS. By implication, it is also clear that the state cannot fund those programmes that are not of a public service nature and that are therefore purely commercial in nature.

However, it is up to the national authorities to determine what is meant by the "public service element" of PBS programming and, consequently, which programmes can be financed. Typically, of course, the public service element would cover programmes on the promotion of national culture, language, information and education. Yet, the discretion lies at the national level, not the EU.

So having established that the public service rendered by PBS can be financed through public funds, it follows that the government can collect revenue from taxpayers to finance this service. For, clearly, public services do not come out of thin air but are paid for out of our taxes. This is why the public sector should be more sensitive to the need to provide good value-for-money.

The government collects this revenue through what we know as the PBS licence. The licence is linked to TV ownership. But, frankly, this is just one form of collecting revenue and it can be collected in another manner, through other forms of taxes.

The government's right to collect taxes to finance public services is not in doubt and there is no EU law that prevents the government from doing so. So it should be clear that the PBS licence is not incompatible with EU law and may continue to be charged.

If at all, one may question whether all revenue collected through the PBS licence is actually being channelled to finance the public service provided by the national broadcaster. But this question is somewhat academic because, even if this were not the case, there is nothing that prevents the government from collecting this tax. But ideally, of course, if we are to keep on calling it a "PBS licence", an effort should be made to equate as much as possible the revenue collected from the licence to the payments made by the Treasury to PBS for its public service obligations.

Having settled the second point that the government may impose the PBS licence, the question now turns to whether the reader may opt out of receiving PBS channel on his cable television and, therefore, stop paying the licence.

My view is that this is not, should not, be possible.

If we claim to want to pay only for those public services that we use, then the entire edifice of our public services will collapse. At that point those of us who do not frequently use public services will start paying fewer taxes.

But those of us who do, typically the more vulnerable, such as the sick and the aged, but also parents of children in state schools, will start paying more, much more, in taxes.

But then, this would become a society devoid of social justice.

So the point is not whether one receives PBS directly or through cable or whether one watches it or not. It is that one cannot opt out of paying the licence in the same manner that one cannot opt out from paying for public services.

None of this, of course, means that public money collected from our taxes should be wasted. The public sector has a responsibility to be seen to deliver value for money. That includes not just PBS but also other public agencies and authorities that have clearly defined responsibilities to render to the public.

Some of us might question whether we are getting a sufficiently good public service from PBS. My views on that are no more authoritative than those of any other citizen.

However, I certainly agree with my colleague Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando who made the case in this paper a few days ago for PBS to take more of an active role, including in bidding for the rights of World Cup games. Of course, Dr Pullicino Orlando was quick to point out that "The question is whether the taxpayer is ready to fork out some Lm200,000 for PBS to bid for the World Cup rights".

Readers wanting to raise issues or ask a question to Dr Busuttil can do so by sending an e-mail to contact@simonbusuttil.com or through http://www.simonbusuttil.eu