Gavyn Davis answered BBC News Online's users' questions on the future of the BBC. Read his replies below.

Katie Ryan, England: Should the changes go ahead, I would be interested to know the legal position, if we decided to stay with Sky but not to watch any of the BBC channels. Can they enforce the payment?

Gavyn Davies: Our intention is that this will be treated the same as the other forms of the licence fee - ie if a household possesses the relevant equipment, then they will become liable for the charge. This is always how the licence fee system has worked.

John Temperley, UK: Don't you think the Digital Poll Tax will act as a disincentive to people taking up Digital and so hold back the freeing-up and selling-off of the analogue frequencies so denying urgently needed funds to the exchequer?

Gavyn Davies: First this suggestion bears no resemblance whatever to the poll tax. We agree that there will be a disincentive effect operating through the slightly higher price for digital services (the increase for a top-rate satellite subscriber will be about 3% over 10 years), but we think that this will be offset by the better services that the BBC will provide, and the BBC's marketing of its digital services.

About 70% of the population has not been attracted so far by the cable and satellite packages - we think that it will need an enhanced BBC (and ITV) service to attract more of them to digital. On your last point, since the digital supplement will be zero at the time of analogue switch off, there will be no problem connected to delaying switch-off.

William Durrand, United Kingdom: When would the proposed "tax" start and why is this being levied when very soon 'analogue' TV is to become obsolete anyway?

Gavyn Davies: The digital supplement would start next April. Analogue switch off will not occur for many years, so there is plenty of need for the digital supplement in the next few years to enable the BBC to enhance its services.

Heather Hurst, England: Don't you think we get over-charged for everything as it is?? Why can't the BBC adopt the styles of the three other terrestrial channels and sell advertising time? I would rather have EastEnders interrupted by an ad break than pay for a TV license.

Gavyn Davies: We looked at systems overseas where the main public service broadcaster is financed by advertising. We did not like what we found. Too much competition for scarce advertising revenues leads to a general dumbing down of all TV.

Incidentally, assuming you watch EastEnders on terrestrial analogue (normal) TV, your licence fee will drop by 3.5% in real terms in the next two years. We needed the digital supplement to ensure that this can be afforded by the BBC.

S Steven, UK: It cannot be right for an outside body to consider whether the BBC is spending "wisely" - that is a qualitative function which surely is one only the Governors and the Management can decide? If they can't should they not be dismissed and put in place those who can. More bureaucracy which an outside audit will create will make things far worse and not better.

Gavyn Davies: We think that Parliament, operating through the National Audit Office, should have a role in ensuring that £2.2 billion of public money is spent appropriately. But this should only be a financial audit. The role of the Governors is not only to ensure financial probity, but also to ensure that all other aspects of the BBC (programming etc) are satisfactory.

Jenni, UK: What is happening to all the money they make from advertising on the current digital channels the BBC operate? Considering the drop in quality of the programming on the BBC I think we should all be given rebates, not asked for more to be able to watch digital vets, Rolf, cooking and DIY which is all the BBC seems to be able to produce these days.

Gavyn Davies: The advertising on BBC digital channels is fully returned to the BBC to make new programmes for the regular TV services. I haven't yet seen any digital vets, but I shall watch out for them.

Paul Berthold, UK: Rather than tax people who already pay for the digital service they get, why do they not tax people who have yet to experience the joys of digital TV, as the service will be developed specifically to benefit them, rather than existing users?

Gavyn Davies: Surely it would not be fair to tax people who do not yet get the service. It seems to us fairer to levy a charge only on those who benefit from the new digital services, so that the rest of the population does not subsidise them.

Tony Franklin, England: As this is a late move by the government on this particular service, does this mean that any new technology that comes to the fore will be taxed just to raise extra revenue for companies that don't have the wherewithal to keep their finances in order. Digital TV and radio will soon be made available over the Internet, will we be taxed extra on PCs just to get monies for the government coffers?

Gavyn Davies: First, none of this money goes to the government coffers - it all goes to the BBC. Second, PCs will not be subject to the digital supplement unless they are equipped to receive television signals.

Ian Robinson, UK: The BBC have the funds from the conventional licence fee, if this goes ahead then surely it must be possible for somebody to argue that people who own a TV but not a radio can get a reduction from the conventional fee because of the percentage which goes to the radio services. So why make a special case FOR digital?

Gavyn Davies: As you know, we used to have a separate radio licence, but the government decided this was no longer necessary, presumably because very few people who have a TV do not have a radio, and the radio licence was getting difficult to police. In the case of digital, only 5% of TV-owning households currently have access to digital, so it is not fair to charge everyone for these new services.

Mark Jackson, UK: Given the growth of satellite, cable and digital services in the UK, how can you even justify a license fee when the Beeb's share of the viewing public is declining? I think the current fee is far too high and should be abolished full stop.

Gavyn Davies: The Panel took the view that the licence fee system produces a good outcome for broadcasting in this country. Also, the BBC share of the viewing public has been virtually constant at around 42% in the 1990s. This may fall in the future, but as long as everyone continues to believe that they get something worthwhile from the BBC, then the licence fee will be sustainable.

Mark Peters, UK: How are Sky Digital / OnDigital going to pass on subscriber details? Surely the Data Protection Act will prevent this?

Gavyn Davies: I think you are right that this would be prevented by the Data Protection Act. We do not intend that Sky or OnDigital should be involved with the collection of the digital supplement in any way.

Mark Finney, UK: Why should the consumer have to foot the bill for the BBC to upgrade their services to keep pace with their competition? Perhaps I should take the initiative and insist that the BBC become one of my customers, paying me a mandatory fee for a product which is forced upon them.

Gavyn Davies: We are building on the general principle of the licence fee, which is that everyone should share the cost of paying for a service that everyone can receive. At present, everyone is paying through the licence fee for a service that only one household in 20 can receive. This is unfair.

Garry Catchpole, England: Why should we pay any extra when most of the programmes shown on digital will be repeats. Haven't we paid for these once before?

Gavyn Davies: The idea of giving the BBC a new source of revenue is that the digital channels will include a lot of entirely new programmes. If the BBC is only able to provide repeats, then they will have failed to justify the digital supplement, and this will have become clear before Charter Review in 2006.

John Foley, UK: Why didn't you go for a lower digital licence fee per receiver instead?

Gavyn Davies: The licence fee has always been based on the principle that each household should only pay once for the BBC's services. We do not want to change the basis on which the licence fee has always been collected. It has stood the test of time.

J Landon, England: Why should Digital viewers pay more, you are not providing more channels. People who have digital already pay for additional channels. Are you trying to make television a rich man's pastime?

Gavyn Davies: We are definitely not trying to restrict digital TV to rich people only. In fact, we have recommended that the BBC should take steps to increase the access of the whole population to the benefits of digital technology. This would not be done by the private sector.

David Monteith-Hodgem, Scotland: Temporary fees have a nasty habit of becoming permanent as the organisation receiving them becomes accustomed to the income which invariably comes to form a "necessary" part of the budgeting. What assurances can the BBC give that this extra levy will be temporary, and will this assurance/guarantee be written into the contract, that is, the licence agreement, between the BBC and its customers?

Gavyn Davies: Our report makes it very clear that we expect the digital fee to disappear by 2010, so that analogue switch off can occur at that date (if the government so decides). If the government accepts our recommendation, you will clearly be able to see whether our pattern for the digital supplement has been implemented.

J O Lippold, UK: Bearing in mind that the consumer, given the choice, usually gravitates to quality, do the new plans include provision for the introduction of HDTV? As evidenced by the US/ Japan, this hardware factor, to my mind, is going to influence the global TV industry as much as a software led approach put forward by the BBC.

Gavyn Davies: We have made no allowance for the possible extension of HDTV in the UK. This technology has not yet been proven. However, wide-screen digital television is very high quality, and is a major enhancement on the current analogue service.