| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Prescott: I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend's remarks. With the modern communications of today, there are always complaints about leaks and whether statements are made to the House. It has always been my intention--and my history--to make statements for which I have responsibility to the House.
I cannot guarantee that there will not be leaks. That is unfortunate, with even the Opposition perhaps responding to them. I find that the turf is set out before I can make the statement. It leaves me a little bemused, but my job is to come to the House and to make the statement. I have
done that today. I have given my best judgment of what the balance is with regard to independence. My hon. Friend can rest assured that, if necessary, and certainly if Cullen recommends it, we will take the necessary legislative actions to ensure that we have the best and safest railway system in Europe.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the two-stage approach that he has outlined: immediate improvement by separating responsibility for safety; and the prospect of further steps if so recommended by Lord Cullen? Just half an hour before the statement, there were television interviews of relatives of victims of the tragedy on the basis that no change was to be made. Does he agree that that was totally irresponsible and that victims should not be exploited by the media on the basis of press speculation?
Mr. Prescott:
I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I agree with what he has said, particularly having heard the reports on the BBC. It was made clear to the BBC that the reports could not be based on the statement that I was making. It made no difference. It had all the interviews lined up, went on and made its case.
Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Jane Kennedy and Mr. Charles Clarke, presented a Bill to make provision for determining the mode of trial in the case of offences triable either summarily or on indictment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 28 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 73].
1.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949; to remove the requirement for the obtaining of certain wireless telegraphy licences; to make provision with respect to the funding of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
This deregulatory Bill--that is what it is--would put an end, once and for all, to the monumental waste, abject misery and injustice that the archaic television licensing system entails. It would also set the BBC free. May I--with you, Madam Speaker, and more than 20 million other people in the United Kingdom--declare a financial interest in the Bill? This measure, when enacted, from April, will save us each £104 annually, with the saving rising to about £150 annually in 2006.
My Bill already enjoys significant support. Last week, The Southern Daily Echo conducted a telephone poll on my proposal, causing it to produce a headline in Saturday's newspaper saying, "Our Readers Back MP's Bid to Scrap TV Licence". However, that already strong support is increasing even further, as the impact of yesterday's Government announcement sinks in.
Yesterday, the Government announced that, on 1 April, the television tax, or licence fee, would increase by double the rate of inflation, and by 60 per cent. above the rate of inflation for each of the next seven years. If only the Government treated our deserving pensioners with the same benevolence that they bestow on the BBC!
The so-called digital surcharge is now to be paid by everyone. Yet, the Davies panel concluded:
One might have expected a Government who say that they are committed to reducing social exclusion to act accordingly. However, as is so often the case, the
Government say one thing but do another. The increased television tax will hit the poor hardest and make social exclusion worse.
Is it possible to have public service broadcasting without having to have a licence fee? The answer is that of course it is. The BBC World Service is already funded by the taxpayer, and the principle of taxpayer funding for at least part of the BBC has been accepted by the Government in the abolition of the fee for those aged over 75.
Advertising and sponsorship are also compatible with the public service requirement. Indeed, Lord Bragg, in addressing a meeting at last year's Labour party conference, said:
Yesterday, the Secretary of State repeatedly referred to the quality of the BBC as though it were the licence fee that generated such quality. However, the Labour-supporting Lord Bragg has exposed the fallacy in such thinking. He has also drawn attention to the way in which, in the past 10 years, the BBC has taken on a great deal of advertising of its own--advertising itself, time and time again. He observed:
I have been asked what the BBC would do without access to the licence fee. My answer is that it would have the freedom to compete globally, deciding its own expenditure priorities and investment, free from Government control. A significant element of yesterday's statement was that the Government wished to take even greater control over the BBC. The Secretary of State wants the BBC to engage in self-help. If it has the freedom that the Bill would give it, it will then be able to exercise that self-help.
At present, because the demand for television advertising is greater than the available air time, the price of advertising is artificially high. That works to the benefit of the independent television companies, but against the interests of consumers and those who wish to advertise their products. That explains why we never find the independent television companies arguing in favour of advertising on BBC.
The Bill would remove a licence fee system that was appropriate in 1949 when independent broadcasting funded by advertising had not been invented and when ownership of a television was the privilege of only a few, but it is not appropriate today. We are in the midst of a digital revolution and the technologies of television, telecommunications and personal computing are converging. Those technological changes will render redundant the concept of a licence for individual items of television receiving equipment in the same way as the advent of transistor and portable radios rendered the old radio licence fee redundant.
The Bill is a modernising, radical and inclusive measure. Indeed, it is a Conservative measure and I hope that it will have the support of the House. If any right hon. or hon. Members are not yet convinced, let me draw to their attention the editorial in one of today's national newspapers, the Daily Star, which says:
"It is unfair to charge analogue households for the development of digital services which they cannot receive".
The panel also said:
"The licence fee is a regressive charge since it falls equally on all households whatever their income. It, therefore, bears more heavily on the poor than on the rich."
I welcome the introduction of free licences for those who are over 75--an idea that was promoted earlier this Parliament in a Conservative ten-minute rule Bill. However, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies told the Davies panel, a free licence for those who are over 75 and a 15 per cent. increase in the standard licence for everyone else would result in 71 in every 100 poorest households being worse off. That is exactly what the Government have achieved. They are making 71 in every 100 poorest households worse off.
"ITV and Channel 4 are capable of every bit as much quality, integrity and creativity as the BBC."
The question everyone is asking is why, if ITV and Channel 4 are able to achieve that without a licence fee, the BBC cannot do the same.
"The BBC has actually helped ITV as British TV is now much more seamless than it has ever been before."
Every year some £14 billion is spent on advertising in the United Kingdom--including £4 billion on television advertising and £500 million on radio advertising. Advertising makes innovation and product development more attractive as a competitive weapon. The Bill would make advertising itself more competitive.
"The £3 rise in the TV licence fee is £3 too much. In fact the entire licence fee of £104 is a costly farce . . . Most BBC programmes are about as exciting as old wallpaper paste . . . The BBC says it wants to be more adventurous. It can do that by scrapping the licence fee altogether. Think of all the dosh it will save on those stupid detector vans."
I could not have put it better.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |