| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.29 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I can agree with at least some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) about the importance of the BBC. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) started on the right note--he recognised the importance of the BBC and was in favour of it--but I am afraid that for the rest of his speech he took a carping, criticising tone.
Mr. Greenway: I was referring to the report.
Mr. Winnick: Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman was criticising every aspect of the BBC and clearly did not agree with the increase. It is interesting that, knowing what the order would be about, the Opposition put down the prayer, but then the hon. Gentleman was frank in saying that they did not intend to vote against the order. It may seem okay to oppose the increase, but the Tories do not want the country to see them oppose the free television licence for the over-75s.
Mr. Greenway: Had we not tabled a prayer against the order, the hon. Gentleman would not have had an opportunity to make his remarks.
Mr. Winnick: Somehow, I do not believe that the prayer was tabled in order to let me make a speech. I may be wrong. Perhaps my wishes are considered by the shadow Cabinet, but I doubt it.
Like the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Worthing, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the Minister, I believe that the BBC is in Britain's interests. We need a public service broadcasting organisation. If we appreciate it and recognise its role, we must realise that increases are necessary. The increase amounts to 6p a week. I do not deny that some will find it difficult, but it is extremely modest and I see no reason why we should not agree to it.
Sometimes, Conservative Back Benchers--although not the hon. Member for Worthing, West--give the impression that they would like the BBC to be privatised or semi-privatised. They sometimes seem to want advertisements. I do not believe that the Opposition's enthusiasm for the BBC comes close to ours.
I am glad that the Minister has explained the position relating to the administrative arrangements being made for those approaching 75. I have had queries in writing and at my surgeries about licence renewal from those who are or soon will be 75. I shall be better able to explain those matters to my constituents in future.
My principal reason for speaking is my view that the free television licence is absolutely justified. With others, I have campaigned for that for a long time. I must say that the hon. Member for Worthing, West has been consistent. I have re-read the voting list on my private Member's Bill on 16 January 1987, and his name was among those who opposed the Bill. It is difficult to get colleagues into the House on a Friday, but I managed to have quite a number here that day, only to lose by 21 votes.
Some argue that the free licence is not necessary because some pensioners aged 75 or more are well off, but we do not have means tests for the bus pass, which goes to all. No one, including any Conservative Member, has argued that free bus passes should go or be means-tested. The same applies to prescription charges. Men and women over 60 do not pay for prescriptions--for men that is a result of European Union rulings. No one says that that is wrong, or that richer people over 60 should pay.
The same should apply to the television licence. As people grow older, they watch more television. For the elderly and those who find it difficult to get out in the winter, television is a means of communication with the outside world--that is certainly true of those with few close relatives. Television is important to them.
Some argue that the free licence should be extended to all pensioners. That was the purpose of my private Member's Bill in 1987. However, I believe that the Government can justify their position. They are being criticised already over the money involved--£300 million or more, according to the hon. Member for Ryedale. As a first step, there is every justification for starting with people aged over 75, even if there will be complaints from those under that age.
Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I am not quite sure what the attitude of Conservative Members is towards free television licences for the over-75s. During the Budget debates, the measure was described by Opposition Front-Bench Members as a hollow gimmick. Is it a hollow gimmick? If it is, why will they not vote against the regulations?
When my Bill was debated in 1987, David Mellor, then the Minister of State, Home Office, argued strongly against it on behalf of the Conservative Government.
He said that if pensioners had free television licences, those who had black and white sets would want colour sets. He argued that pensioners who had evaded the licence fee--although, in the main, it is not pensioners who do not pay the fee--would receive a free licence. He said that, if my measure became law--horror of horrors--those who had no television set would want one after all.
As for the cost, Mr. Mellor argued, in his sarcastic, mocking tones, against all that Labour MPs were trying to do. He said:
Time and again, during all the years when we were trying to obtain that elementary justice for pensioners, Members of the previous Conservative Government--with the full support of their Back Benchers--voted against us. They made it quite clear that such a measure would not be introduced.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
When the hon. Gentleman made that proposal in 1987, he was about the same age as I am now--in his mid-50s. Why should the general taxpayer pay for my free television licence if I was a Member of Parliament aged more than 60 or 65? On pay of £49,000 a year, we do not need one.
Mr. Winnick:
If the hon. Gentleman is having a little dig at me, I point out that I had not reached the age of 54 when I introduced my Bill, so I could not have been acting out of self-interest. No Conservative Member has yet accused me of acting out of self-interest. I am pleased to say that it will be some years before I qualify for a free television licence. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
I conclude by quoting myself--if I may do so on just one occasion--during the debate on my Bill. I said:
Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun):
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. My brief contribution will be restricted to the increase in the licence fee.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), the hon. Member for Worthing, West
(Mr. Bottomley) and others who, like myself, are all friends of the BBC. Those who normally take part in these debates and contribute in a slightly different tone have absented themselves from the Chamber tonight. It is pleasant to be in the company of those who appreciate the value of the great institution that is the BBC.
I will resist the temptation to quote myself, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North did just that. That might become a habit in the House, and it is not one to be encouraged. As I said in the broadcasting debate, I am against a digital licence fee. I argued for a licence fee that is set against an independent assessment of the financial needs of the BBC. As I understand it, that is the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I welcome that and I welcome the increase in the licence fee for a number of reasons. I shall come to them shortly.
I wish to deal with a fairly narrow point. I want to explore and test the core argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in opposing the increase. In response to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on the licence fee on 21 February, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) recognised the achievements of the BBC
The hon. Members for East Surrey and for Ryedale have not argued that the BBC should not be funded by a licence fee. On the contrary, they have sought to argue that that is how it should be funded, but within the five-year settlement agreed by the previous Government and the BBC in 1996. They have argued that despite the fact that the broadcasting world is changing rapidly, with what the hon. Member for East Surrey has described as an explosion that has arisen from the rapid increase in access to multi-channel digital television--an explosion that
The Opposition have opposed the proposal to increase the licence fee by a modest 1p or less per day, which I accept for some people is a significant increase. However, they are prepared to join us in celebrating the achievements of the BBC and to argue in favour of retaining its funding mechanism. I exclude the hon. Member for Worthing, West from those comments because, for the first time, I heard him expound an alternative method for funding the BBC. I am far from satisfied that funding the BBC out of any form of taxation would not directly threaten its independence, but I shall read his words in Hansard tomorrow and consider his proposal carefully.
What is the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the increase in the licence fee? The hon. Member for Ryedale has expressed a view similar to that of the hon. Member for East Surrey, who said:
Opposition Members say that all we have to do is to dig into the money mine beneath this Chamber and Parliament will provide the £400 million.--[Official Report, 16 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 528.]
That was his estimate of the cost.
What I am advocating is fair and justified. If I am defeated in a Tory-dominated House of Commons on a whipped vote of Cabinet Ministers, I shall carry on the campaign with my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall not give up, because we believe that we are right. If we do not get this concession for pensioners from a Tory Government, we shall ensure that it comes from a Labour Government.--[Official Report, 16 January 1987; Vol. 108 , c. 511.]
It is done. There was no election promise--nothing in the manifesto--but many of us were determined that if we could persuade our ministerial colleagues, especially the Chancellor, to introduce the measure, we would do so. I am extremely grateful that the Chancellor has taken that action. I am also grateful to the Minister, who has campaigned ardently in ministerial circles for this concession to pensioners. Once again, that demonstrates the difference between a Tory and a Labour Government.
9.34 pm
in setting a benchmark of quality in national and international broadcasting.--[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1243.]
To that extent, the official Opposition recognise what many Labour Members recognise: the BBC is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly described as
the UK's most important cultural institution.--[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1239.]
In fact almost the whole House, with one or two notable exceptions, recognises the importance and role of the BBC.
raises fundamental questions about the current and future role of the BBC.
Although the circumstances surrounding the BBC have changed rapidly and exploded around it in the past five years, the Opposition have argued that the deal that was struck in 1996 should be adhered to.
It is simply not good enough that he--
that is the Secretary of State--
should oblige the licence fee payer to stump up more money for the BBC in the absence of a clear and modern definition of the BBC's role.--[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1243.]
The hon. Member for Ryedale used similar words tonight.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |