The media column: Yeo's TV-licence idea stinks, but at least he's had an idea

There's a little game doing the rounds of us journalistic types at the moment. It's called Name Me a Policy of the Conservative Party. After five years in opposition, the Tories have gone back to the drawing-board on everything, from taxes to table tennis. When asked what their alternative is to any particular government action, shadow ministers react with defiant embarrassment, as if to say: "What are you asking us for? We're just the Opposition." So, a cheer at least for Tim Yeo, who – as no one knows – is the Conservatives' Culture spokesman and seems to have come up with something that – while not actually a policy – is (as he himself admits) an idea.

I like Tim Yeo. I like him because he's been through the wringer, and (these may be linked) because he's a liberal Conservative. Back on Boxing Day 1993, the junior Environment minister – as he was then – woke up to tabloid stories about his private life. After one of those media-induced panics about politicians leading lives too like journalists', he resigned.

Now he's back, and last week, at the Social Market Foundation, Mr Yeo gave a speech in which he made suggestions about how the BBC ought to be funded in future. Well, maybe they were not quite as definitive as suggestions, for as he himself said, "I'm at the early stages of a journey of exploration." Nevertheless, they did seem to mark a point of departure. A fortnight ago, the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, said that she thought the BBC licence fee was here to stay. Tim Yeo, by contrast, said that he thought it wasn't. Or, at least, not all of it.

Yeo's view is that the licence fee was a regressive impost (which it is; but then, so is VAT) and out of date with it. "Buyers of books", Mr Yeo pointed out, "aren't forced to pay to get into a bookshop..." So, he went on, "Now is the time to move towards a market in broadcasting where viewers pay for what they choose to watch and not much else; to reduce the distorting effects of the licence fee; to set the BBC free to grow in competition with other suppliers."

It is often disconcerting for an institution when the Tory party plans to set it free. Few BBC folk I know crave the freedom of losing the licence fee. They, of course, will always argue that the fee, though archaic, is a proven way of delivering public-service broadcasting to the nation for remarkably little cost. And they would be more convinced by Mr Yeo's "you pay for what you use" principle if – say – road tolls were to become a key part of Tory policy on Transport.

So, what are the alternatives? Mr Yeo concedes that public-service television is important and needs to be funded. The obvious solution is through direct-taxation support to the BBC (and maybe to other broadcasters, too). But Yeo doesn't like that answer. "The constant struggle of the World Service for proper funding isn't an encouraging precedent for the general taxation option," he says. Advertising is no good, either.

His idea, therefore, is to keep the licence fee but vastly to reduce it. Eh? Yes, to keep it, but to cut it so that it funds only a core service that can be clearly defined as public service. That is, stuff that the market wouldn't otherwise provide, such as regional news, ballet and programmes with Mr Yeo in them. "It's doubtful", says Mr Y, "if much sport can still be defined as PSB." If the BBC wants to do footie or entertainment, then it can jolly well set up subscription channels and sell them directly to consumers.

You may feel, at this point, that Mr Yeo's journey of exploration has brought him to that grim place, the worst of all worlds. He still has a licence fee, but it covers only arcana, leaving the BBC, in effect, to concentrate on competing with commercial companies to set up purely commercial stations. Which means that those of us who do not currently subscribe to any of these overpriced channels will end up paying vastly more for the TV we do watch. Oy, Yeo, no!

David.Aaronovitch@btinternet.com