| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying into territory where he should not be.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall now stray back to the theme of my argument before my hon. Friend intervened. As the hon. Member for East Surrey accurately pointed out, the Bill makes it possible to provide free licences for millions of people on social benefits. That is excellent. I told the Chancellor on the night that he announced his comprehensive spending review that I supported his comments about licences because it was an excellent move. However, it is also the thin end of the wedge.
I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for East Surrey that the independence of the BBC will be eroded. The BBC is capable of being hostile to us all without any particular incentive. I do not believe that the Bill will affect its independence, which would not be compromised if many more millions of people got free licences, or if the licence were ultimately abolished. The Bill does not provide for that, it provides for giving information that will lead to free licences for those aged 75 and over. It also creates the basis for many more people to have free licences.
As the country's prosperity increases under this Government and the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, many more people will be able to have free television licences. I am delighted that the basis for that has been created today in the Bill. Although I support the Government with joy in every Division, I shall go into the Lobby with particular pleasure if the Tories, through folly, force a Division even on closure.
Mr. Winnick: I hope that they do.
Mr. Kaufman: I, too, hope that they do, because I would like the names of the people who tried to block the measure to be recorded in black and white. However, I do not believe that they will dare.
11.7 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I do not intend to delay the House for long because the measure is sensible and uncontroversial. It is a matter for other hon. Members if they wish to detain the House; that will become apparent in due course.
The Bill will enact a measure that is welcome to all parties. It will provide free television licences for those aged 75 and over. The Secretary of State has shown that the method is sensible and I am convinced that it is the best way in which to achieve the Government's objective.
It is a pity that pensioners aged between 65 and 75 will not receive free television licences. I hope that the Government aspire to move towards that when the economy allows. I believe that the economy already allows for it, given the amount of money that the Chancellor has stashed away. Perhaps the Secretary of State will put in a claim for some of it to help pensioners aged between 65 and 75 who feel excluded from the measure. By saying that, I do not detract from the measure, which is welcome for those aged 75 and over.
Some hon. Members have mentioned pension levels. Although they are not the subject of tonight's debate, I hope that I can respond to one point. Some hon. Members claimed that although the measure is welcome,
it is no substitute for a decent state pension. I wish to put on record that I share that sentiment. However, earlier this year, hon. Members, including Conservative Members who made that point, had the opportunity to support a Liberal Democrat motion stating that the increase of 75p in the pension was inadequate. However, not one Conservative Member supported that motion in the Lobby. Perhaps those with that sentiment might consider how to vote when similar motions come before the House.The Bill's principle is correct as is the method, which is to make it as easy as possible for a person over 75 to obtain a free television licence. The Secretary of State is right to say that the alternative method--production of documents--would be bureaucratic and expensive. Bringing such documents together might be a worry for some people of that age, so it must be sensible and right to use the easiest method possible.
What are the possible drawbacks? I do not agree about the alleged implications for the BBC's independence as I do not believe that there are any. Government pressure--not pressure from this Government--is generally put on the BBC during the licence fee negotiations. That is the key point at which Government pressure may be applied and I have seen no evidence of it. This arrangement will make no difference whatever to the BBC's income. If anything, it will enhance it by guaranteeing that pensioners over 75 will have a TV licence and that the money will be refunded by the Government. There are no such implications: as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, the BBC World Service has been funded directly by the Government for many years and I have seen no evidence that it has been unduly sympathetic to the Government of the day. The BBC's independence is well established and has been continuous. We should all be proud of that, and the drawback does not exist.
The civil liberties implications, which were referred to by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) from the Conservative Front Bench, could be a drawback. I recognise that the Bill will infringe civil liberties to some extent, but as a member of Liberty and someone who is committed to civil liberties, I have no worries. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said--I beg his pardon if it was not him--it might help if the extent of the information to be used were codified.
Mr. Bermingham: I am at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's point. How can asking a person's name, address, date of birth and national insurance number infringe civil liberties? For example, when the hon. Gentleman applies to a loan company or to anyone else, they ask for those details. Although they may not ask for his national insurance number, they may ask about his employment and employer. There is no infringement there; what is the infringement here?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that I speak in support of the Government; I am not attacking them. I should not have given way to him and I always regret it. I shall try not to do so in future.
There could be a civil liberties implication, but, as I said, I do not regard it to be of such magnitude as to warrant any attempt to hold up the Bill. However, it is important to quantify the extent to which information will be used to ensure that there is no extension without parliamentary authority and accountability. The Secretary
of State nods; there is no disagreement over that. If we are to discuss civil liberties implications for the country, we might consider closed circuit television, the use of DNA testing or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. Those could impinge far more than the Bill, whose impingement is minuscule.On cost, the Secretary of State gave a figure of £344 million and £24.3 million for administration. If the £24.3 million is to be refunded automatically to the BBC by TV Licensing, I am keen to ensure that there is an incentive to minimise the administration charge. If it is to be repaid by the Government, whatever it is, what is the incentive to minimise? I hope that they have a mechanism to ensure that the charge is realistic, not a method of raising funds by the back door. Will the Minister address that point?
Will the Minister also deal with the point about the 75-year-old who buys a licence at full cost, despite any campaign that the Government may launch, putting information through every letterbox? Some people may do that for one or two years until they realise that they qualify for a free licence. That may be unlikely, but it could occur. Will such people be able to reclaim the money for the licence that they did not legally need to buy? Will they be able to say that they made a mistake and have bought a licence for two years, and ask for their £208 back? Will that be possible under the arrangements in the Bill?
I have read the Bill carefully, and it refers to restrictions on a person using information that has accrued. The Secretary of State alluded to that obliquely, but can the Minister confirm that the BBC is covered by those restrictions, and that it will not be allowed to use for other purposes, such as marketing, the information provided solely for this narrow purpose?
Mr. Chris Smith indicated assent.
Mr. Baker: The Minister nods. I was certain that that would be the answer, but I wanted to get it on the record.
The hon. Member for East Surrey was derided by Labour Members when he raised a legalistically important issue. He asked about the legal position of someone who qualifies for a free licence but does not possess a licence. What is the position of such a person?
Those minor questions need to be answered, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that they are important in their own right. The Bill is sensible. It enacts important legislation to give pensioners over 75 a free television licence. In the judgment of the Liberal Democrats it does that in a sensible way and with the minimum of bureaucracy. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Government should any maverick Conservatives call for a vote on the Bill.
11.17 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in welcoming the Bill. I particularly welcome this measure as it is estimated that it will affect 5,500 of my constituents, who will receive a free television licence on 1 November this year. The Government are beginning to sort out part of the legacy left by the Tories in 1997. I hope that this is the first step in altering the structure of the concessionary licence
scheme, which generates many complaints, especially from people in non-qualifying accommodation who have neighbours who qualify. The scheme is unfair and unsatisfactory.The independent review panel chaired by Gavyn Davies, which reported in July last year, was asked to consider whether an alternative was available. It concluded that
- the current Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary scheme should be retained, despite its obvious drawbacks, since no superior alternative, funded from the licence fee, has been found.
It has been brought to my attention by borough councillors in my constituency that there has recently been a review in the Rotherham borough by the television licensing authority. More than 200 people have been informed that they no longer qualify for a concessionary television licence. The vast majority of them have qualified for years. The review was prompted by inquiries from other residents. The 200 were informed by letter on 13 March this year that their properties are now deemed by the television licensing authority to fall outside the common and exclusive boundary criteria.
One of the four possible changes suggested by the review panel was
- to remove the restriction that the scheme must be a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary.
I feel that the licensing authority has handled the matter badly. I accept that it is independent of Government, but will my hon. Friend the Minister look into the anomaly as a matter of urgency, and establish whether an internal review could take place inside the authority to--at the very least--stop it from proceeding with the change affecting people who will become eligible for free licences in the autumn? Putting pressure on those people to find money now, when for years they have not had to find more than £5 for their concessionary licences, strikes me as insensitive, to say the least.
I congratulate the Government on the Bill. I hope that it constitutes the first step towards clearing up the mess that we inherited from the Tories--a mess that has caused a great deal of anger and frustration to many of our constituents for far too long.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |