Trump's tariffs could push up BBC licence fee, Tories warn
Trump's proposed 100pc tariff on foreign films could push up the cost of the BBC licence fee, the shadow culture secretary has warned.
The UK government said it was in 'active discussions' with the White House after the US president suggested he may apply tariffs to foreign-made films to revive America's movie industry.
The move could cripple the revenue of BBC Studios, the corporation's commercial arm, which last year made £454m by selling productions to the American market, according to its annual report. Some of its most notable exports include Doctor Who and David Attenborough's Frozen Planet films.
It is unclear whether Trump's tariffs will be applied solely to films or also television series.
Either way, shadow culture secretary, Stuart Andrew, warned the loss of income could leave British licence fee payers footing the bill.
In an urgent question to the Government on Wednesday, he asked: 'What assessment have they made on the potential drastic cut in the BBC Studios profits, that sells into the US market, could have on the licence fee?'
Sir Chris Byrant, the culture minister, said in response that Labour was 'already in active discussions with the top of the US administration on this subject'.
More than £1.8bn was made by BBC Studios last year by selling its popular British film and television productions to audiences around the world, down from £2.1bn in 2023.
The money is a lifeline for the corporation as more viewers cancel their licence fees and turn to streaming services like Netflix instead.
When asked by The Telegraph how it planned to deal with the impact of the tariffs should they come into effect, the BBC declined to comment.
Mr Andrew said it was proof Labour should have begun trade negotiations with President Trump sooner.
He told The Telegraph: 'They wasted five months when they could have been negotiating. They need to highlight [to President Trump] that tariffs will hurt US businesses as they have invested in UK facilities.'
The Government is racing to seal a trade deal with President Trump to reduce the impact of his tariff regime – under which UK exporters will pay a blanket 10pc tariff. Last month, Trump initiated a 90-day pause before the regime was implemented.
On Tuesday, it was reported Angelina Jolie's father, Jon Voight, had advised the White House to include films produced outside of the US in its tariff war in a bid to save Hollywood.
However, the President appeared to soften his stance late on Tuesday, telling CNBC: 'I'm not looking to hurt the industry, I want to help the industry.'
Experts said it may spark a total overhaul of the £174.50 annual licence fee scheme.
Patrick Barwise, emeritus professor of management and marketing at London Business School, said: 'This will further feed into a sense that it is going to damage BBC Studios ability to generate revenue from [the US] market.
'The contributions from BBC Studios are used to subsidise the licence free. My hunch is that we'll end up with a different model from the licence fee.'
He added it was 'another blow on top of the massive funding cuts since 2010. This is going to hit its exports but also it will hit other UK studios. It hits the whole distribution system and it will increase costs'.
The BBC's charter, which authorises it to administer the licence fee to generate profit, is due to end in 2027, with discussions between the corporation and the Government starting this year and its renewal thereafter.
Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, previously criticised the model as 'unenforceable'.
A government spokesman said: 'Talks on an economic deal between the US and the UK are ongoing – but we are not going to provide a running commentary on the details of live discussions or set any timelines because it is not in the national interest.
'We will continue to take a calm and steady approach to talks and aim to find a resolution to help ease the pressure on UK businesses and consumers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Revealed: The new Reform chairman who used to be a TV presenter. ANDREW PIERCE lifts the lid
A television presenter who made his name fronting a popular show about ghosts and the paranormal is to be unveiled tomorrow as Reform's new boss, the Mail can reveal. Dr David Bull, 56, who backs 'binning the burka', will replace Zia Yusuf whose resignation as chairman last Thursday threatened to plunge Nigel Farage 's party into chaos. The new chairman is a former hospital doctor who moved into broadcasting shortly after he qualified at London 's St Mary's Medical Hospital School in 1993. His most prominent presenting role was on paranormal reality TV show Most Haunted Live!. The openly gay Dr Bull, 56, follows the Scottish born Yusuf, 38, who is the son of Sri Lankan Muslims. 'I think we are ticking the right diversity boxes,' joked one senior Reform figure today. Last week, Yusuf, a multi-millionaire businessman, provoked uproar when he criticised Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin for calling for a burka ban in the Commons at Prime Minister's Questions. The next day Yusuf, 38, unexpectedly quit to the relief of many of his senior colleagues who found him difficult to work with. Unlike Yusuf, the new Reform chairman is an advocate of banning the burka, which he regards as an 'anti-British symbol'. Farage hopes the Bull appointment will calm the frayed nerves of many party members coming, as it does, just three months after the resignation of the Reform MP Rupert Lowe. He quit in protest at Farage's 'dictatorial' style of leadership. When Yusuf resigned on Thursday he said he no longer believed that working for Reform to win power at the next election was 'a good use of my time'. Many Reform senior figures feared he would deliver a devastating post-resignation interview but, in a bizarre twist, he instead announced on Saturday he was rejoining Reform only 48 hours after he quit. He is being put in charge of Reform's 'Doge' team, which is modelled on the Department of Government Efficiency set up by US President Trump in the US. Asked today why he had resigned as chairman, Yusuf told the BBC: 'I've been working pretty much non-stop, virtually no days off. It is very difficult to keep going at that pace.' Yusuf alienated many party members with his abrupt manner and controlling style of management. Arron Banks, a founder of Leave EU who is a close friend of Mr Farage, said that Yusuf was a 'control freak' who was 'prone to changing his mind frequently'. One party source said: 'Yusuf's new role will keep him out of party HQ as he will be visiting the county councils which we now run across the country to try to cut out waste. It will be a better use of his talents and energies.' There had been speculation that Ann Widdecombe, 77, the redoubtable former Tory prisons minister who defected to Mr Farage's side in 2019, would be the new chairman. 'It's not Widdecombe even though she is very highly regarded,' said a source. Dr Bull, who is a presenter on the Rupert Murdoch channel Talk, is not wealthy like Yusuf, who netted £30 million from the sale of an upmarket concierge firm. Briefly a Brexit Party MEP, he is described by colleagues as collegiate and a team player. Before joining Farage's Brexit Party, Dr Bull was the Tory parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavilion when David Cameron was party leader. But he stood down in 2009 and headed up a policy review on sexual health. He published his first book, Cool And Celibate?: Sex And No Sex, arguing the benefits of abstinence for teenagers. A former anchor of the BBC current affairs programme Newsround, he presented Most Haunted Live! between 2002 and 2005. A Reform source said: ''He looks and sounds good and he's been out and proud for years so we have no worries about any skeletons in his closet.'
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What does the change to the winter fuel payment mean?
After months of speculation the government has announced that it will reinstate the winter fuel payment to most pensioners in England and Wales. Under the new rules, any pensioner with an income of up to £35,000 a year will be eligible for the full allowance, while anyone on more will have to pay back their share. The payment is worth £200 a year to households where both pensioners are aged under 80 years old, and £300 if there is a person aged 80 or over. A pensioner aged 85 who lives alone will get £300, as will a couple of the same age. The new system will mean these payments are made automatically to those receiving a state pension. There will be no need to claim the money. No. The threshold applies to individuals, not households. A couple who qualify for a £200-a-year payment will get £100 each. If one has an income of more than £35,000 a year and the other does not, the higher earner will have £100 clawed back while the other one is allowed to keep the money. In a couple where one person is aged 80, they will receive £200 and the other will receive £100. The person over 80 will repay £200 if their income is more than £35,000. This will create some quirks. A single pensioner, living alone, will repay the full £200 or £300 if their income is more than £35,000, while a couple with an income of £69,000 would keep all the money. Two households with the same incomes and one person aged over 80 could have to repay different sums depending on whether it is the older or younger person who receives more than £35,000. For most pensioners, money will be taken through the pensioner's tax code and applied to their income the next year. Those who already file a tax return for other reasons may find it is added to it, but it is not yet clear if that will be the case. The same is true when someone dies. The government says it will not make families do a return or pursue them for the winter fuel payment. However, if they have to do a return for someone who has died for other reasons, it is not clear if they will have to declare the payment. There is a potential for problems if someone retires part-way through a tax year and earns more than £35,000 because they are still getting their salary, then drops well below that the next year – they will be faced with repaying the payment when they are on a lower income. No. The new means-testing will take into account income only, not savings or the value of any property. A person with £1m in the bank would still qualify for the payment with an income less than £35,000. The Scottish government gives out a pension-age winter heating payment. Last winter this was restricted to only those people who qualified for one of a handful of benefits including pension credit. This will change next winter, and the payment will be given more widely. Northern Ireland has a winter fuel payment and seems likely to move in line with England and Wales.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
David Beckham's knighthood shows the unique - and utterly absurd - power of the British class system
When the unauthorised, warts-and-all biography of the Beckhams, The House of Beckham, came out last year, it was in the distinctive style of its author, Tom Bower, which is to say, incredibly mean. But it was quite short of warts, to be honest: of course, there were youthful indiscretions – David Beckham's Madrid years featured an alleged affair and an insufficient tip in a restaurant, and Posh once made a TV show that people didn't like. But the Beckhams of today were guilty of nothing greater than that they wanted a knighthood, and had done for a really long time. That was why, according to Bower, David volunteered to help in the Philippines after the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan, and why Victoria gave all her castoffs to the Chelsea Red Cross which raised some eyebrows at the time, just because the last imaginable thing you would need after being hit by a typhoon would be 78 pairs of cerise stilettos. That was why David had reportedly 'unleashed his foul-mouthed tirade' (to use the proper tabloid phrase) by email once his honour was rejected, calling the honours committee a 'bunch of cunts' and lambasting Katherine Jenkins because she got an OBE 'for what? Singing at the rugby and going to see the troops plus taking coke. F—ing joke.' Becks had a point. In the 2010s – if the highest honour is reserved for those who are nationally significant, inspirational, and have demonstrated commitment at the highest level - it was hard to think of anyone who did more football, in a more committed fashion and noticeable way, than he. If there's a tacit clause about charitable works, he had definitely done some of that, and if he hadn't done enough, they should have just produced some time sheets and minimum spend numbers, and he could have done more. If the real block on the honour was that Posh and Becks had thrones made of gold at their wedding in 1999, which apparently annoyed Prince Philip so much that he declined to sit on a throne at the subsequent Jubilee, well, it was surely time that everyone with a throne of any kind just got over themselves. As is almost always the case with anything connected to the British aristocracy, it was impossible to pick a side. The honours committee has a conception of seemly public behaviour, and generally speaking, they go the opposite way to any normal member of the British public, who don't mind 'foul-mouthed tirades' but do mind sycophancy and incompetence, and consequently would much prefer to see Danny Dyer knighted than almost any name on the honours list of the past five departing prime ministers. Yet at the same time, it is tragic to want an honour in the first place, given that it pretends access to the nobility yet is completely ersatz; a fake VIP room where the champagne is fizzy apple juice and the really important people are in a different building. The culture of class deference is sustained on ideas that cannot be said out loud or even directly beheld, because they are too stupid: such as, 'Some people are born better than others, because they have a lineage going back to William the Conqueror'; such as, 'Great wealth connotes some endogenous personal merit, but only if you came by it the right way, several centuries ago and with violence'. By definition, you can't enter that system late, and in the very act of trying, you reveal how little you understand it. Which is fine, because to understand it and still want it would make you ridiculous, yet to want it uncomprehendingly still looks pretty foolish. As the Beckhams finally get what they've always wanted, apparently, what does it say about the institutions that put so much energy into blocking them? Have they finally run out of the energy it takes to make their minute distinctions? Or have they decided that it somehow works for the preservation of the system, to dignify a person only after they have waited an undignified amount of time? This might be the final, unique power of the British class system – the ability to make everyone who goes anywhere near it, in any capacity, look absurd, and at the same time, everyone who objects to it, at whatever volume, sound wholemeal and worthy. It's the last act of national unification, in which we all look as bad as one another. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
