The writer is both a director and a screenwriter with a rich history in British television. In 2014, I had the honor of directing the BBC's acclaimed adaptation of Hilary Mantel's celebrated novels Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, both of which were awarded the prestigious Booker Prize. Most recently, in 2023, I completed the trilogy with The Mirror and the Light. However, if any attempt were to be made to recreate these works in 2025, I fear we would face insurmountable challenges.

Colin Callender, the visionary producer who successfully convinced Hilary Mantel to allow her works to be adapted for television, initially presented the opportunity to collaborate on the original Wolf Hall series to several major streaming platforms. Unfortunately, all of them declined. As we approached the start of filming The Mirror and the Light, a mere six weeks away, we found ourselves on the brink of abandoning the project altogether. It was only after the leading actor, along with the writer, director, and producer, agreed to forgo a substantial portion of their fees that we were finally able to move forward with the production.

This experience is not isolated; it highlights a broader trend of stagnation in public service television. For instance, ITV's Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which had a significant impact on national discourse regarding an important issue, has ultimately left its creators in financial distress. The producer publicly stated that there would be little point in developing it further for television at this time. The appeal of tax incentives in the UK has attracted wealthier streaming services, which often pay exorbitant amounts for cast, crew, and filming locations. Unfortunately, this inflation of costs has made it increasingly difficult for public service broadcasters to produce high-quality drama.

Despite the unique themes and narratives these programs offer, they generally cater to a UK audience and may not resonate with American viewers. While streaming platforms have indeed created some remarkable content, such as Adolescence and Toxic Town, the subjects they tackleranging from child radicalization online to the detrimental effects of industrial waste on communitiesdo carry some relevance across the Atlantic.

However, streaming services appear disinterested in developing stories that are exclusively relevant to the UK, like Mr Bates, Three Girls, and Anne. These narratives are best told by public service broadcasters, and its essential that we prevent streaming companies from overshadowing and ultimately driving them out of business.

This week, the cross-party culture, media, and sport committee took a bold step by endorsing a levy on major streaming platforms. They proposed that 5 percent of UK subscriber revenue be allocated to create programs specifically catering to UK audiences. This move is far from revolutionary; in fact, 17 other European countries have successfully implemented similar levies. Netflix has previously challenged such decisions in French and German courts and faced defeat. Back in 2018, when I first introduced the idea of a levy in the UK, I asked Reed Hastings, Netflix's co-founder and executive chair, whether he would contest it here. He replied, Not if it was a level playing field across all the streamers.

Streaming companies often argue that a levy will deter inward investment into the UK. However, I maintain that a 5 percent holdback will not significantly impact their production decisions here. The choice to produce in the UK has always relied on practical financial considerations such as access to talented writers, actors, directors, and crews; generous tax benefits; and the widespread use of the English language. Therefore, the introduction of a levy will not inflate production costs in the UK by even a penny.

Notably, the production of high-end drama by public service broadcasters dropped by 25 percent last year, reaching the lowest level since 2019. The select committee believes that implementing this levy could reverse this trend. It's a courageous stance given the prevailing dynamics of the U.S. government, but it is undoubtedly the correct one. This levy should not be seen as a tax or a tariff. Why? Because streaming companies will have the opportunity to apply for funding to create a program from the levy, provided it is co-produced with a UK public service broadcaster.

In conclusion, the levy could provide a much-needed solution to the challenges faced by public service broadcasters. The only question that remains is whether this government is willing to take on the U.S. and protect the enduring legacy of public service television in the UK.