| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.21 pm
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): I am glad that the Government have finally introduced the measure that I proposed in a ten-minute Bill on 15 July
1997. As the House will recollect, the then Minister--the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)--explained to me that it was not current Government policy to adopt my proposal. I argued then, as a green new Member, that it was those aged 75 and above who depended most on their television sets, and that they were also the poorest members of society. That is an entirely pragmatic argument. I calculated then that the cost would be about £290 million; we have heard what it is today. I stress that I do not think there is the same case for free licences for those aged between 65 and 75, some 70 per cent. of who are relatively well off--often a good deal better off than families bringing up children.However, I do not understand why the Government have chosen this machinery with which to implement the measure. The arrangement seems to be that people must have a licence, and the Government are to pay. Would it not be much cheaper and simpler if people sent their licence applications along to the Department of Social Security and the Department, which has the records, settled the matter directly with the licensing authority? The Government are going all round the houses by requiring the DSS to give information to the BBC and the BBC to come back with it, whether or not the issue of confidentiality is material. I do not know why such a convoluted route has been chosen to deal with the simple issue of the Government's paying for licences.
Do the Government intend at some stage to extend the free licence to those aged under 75, or to other categories? Other hon. Members have made much play of that possibility. If so, what is the justification in terms of those who are most in need?
Finally--for it is late--what, if any, new ramifications are involved? I believe that there may be requirements for all pensioner benefits to come into operation at a standard age at some time in the future.
11.24 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I, too, welcome the Bill in general, but what a shame that it has not been funded either by greater efficiency in the BBC--which I am sure that the Secretary of State would also have liked--or by alternative means of financing the BBC, such as sponsorship or even advertising on Radio 1 or Radio 2. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)--who has now left--did not argue, as he normally does in his Select Committee, for the total privatisation of the BBC, rather than its being another burden on the taxpayer.
I am still concerned about the whole issue of funding by the taxpayer. I cannot help but accuse the Secretary of State of being a man--and, indeed, part of a Government--who breaks principles and then builds on the breaking of the principle. For example, some years ago, the principle of additionality was broken when the national lottery was applied by the Secretary of State to fund health and education, which would normally be paid for by the taxpayer.
The principle was that the BBC's domestic services at least should be funded by the licence payer. Now, about 15 per cent. will be funded by the taxpayer. Although the spokesman for the Opposition said that he did not see any difficulty with that, I do. As I said in an intervention on
the right hon. Member for Gorton, John Reith, later Lord Reith, knew in 1926, as people know now, that it would be easy for the Government to say that they would pay less or more in a particular year to the BBC for funding. There would be the threat of blackmail.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hope that, just for the record, my hon. Friend will clarify his reference to the spokesman for the Opposition. I think that he was referring to the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend--I was referring to the minor Opposition, the Liberal Democrats. I certainly did not mean my hon. Friend, who is far too sensible to have made the points made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).
Mr. Bermingham: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the logicality in what he has said? He suggested that, if the BBC became totally privatised, it could rely on sponsorship, advertising and such things. If that is so, who pays the costs? The answer is the purchaser of the goods, the advertising and everything else, which means that, eventually, the costs rise for the elderly and there is no concession.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) will not respond.
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the financing of the matter be outside the scope of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate. It is not part of this debate, and I have so ruled.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not argue with the ruling that I have just made.
Mr. Bermingham: I am going to ask a question on the ruling. Can the occupant of the Chair please explain the following? If we are debating the financing of the BBC, how can a question--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that that is not what we are debating. The Bill is concerned with the transfer of information from the Department of Social Security to another body. That is the sole scope of the debate. What the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is outside the scope.
Mr. Fabricant: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am concerned about the actual cost of the services. I would have thought that, if they were subcontracted to private firms, a cost saving would result, but it seems, unless I have misunderstood the Secretary of State-- I may have done--that there will be an approximate 10 per cent. collection charge. That seems extremely high. I hope that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting can clarify the matter, particularly as there
will be no collection: once the information is provided by the Department of Social Security and its similar bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be no collection charge. Therefore, I cannot see why 10 per cent. is the amount that has been determined by the Government as the cost for maintaining that system.I share some concern about making the database available to third parties. I accept that it is only dates of birth, names, addresses and national insurance numbers, but that, too, creates a dangerous precedent. I welcome the Bill's provisions on the high penalties that will come into play if people give information out, but we all know that information is leaked. There are high penalties--under Labour or Conservative Governments--when firms have subcontracted to print White Papers and other Government documents, and information from those documents has been leaked. I should like to know specifically what rigorous controls Ministers will apply to ensure that the information provided by the Bill does not leak out.
I should like briefly to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who argued that the BBC World Service has been funded directly by Government. If memory serves me right, that funding was established, in 1936, as grant in aid from the Foreign Office. However, as the Opposition spokesman my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, the BBC World Service is not a domestic service, but an international service. Arguably, therefore, the Government may not, for political reasons, wish to intervene--at least on a daily basis--in the editorial decisions of the BBC World Service.
In 1926, the founding principle of the British Broadcasting Corporation was that BBC radio news--which is now BBC radio and television news; in addition to new media, such as BBC Online, that are also funded by the licence fee--was concerned on a minute-by-minute basis, let alone a daily basis with domestic political affairs. It could therefore be argued that, in domestic matters, the Government might well have an interest in interfering with BBC editorial control. It was for that reason that the licence fee was designed to be at one remove from daily interference by the Government.
I do not wish to detain the House. However, I should like to say how very much I welcome the Secretary of State's comment when I intervened on him and he said that people over 75 who live with their younger families could bring to their whole household exemption from the licence fee. My mother lives 100 yd from me, in Lichfield. She is 89 and spends some time watching television. Now, I have an incentive perhaps to ask her to move in with me; then again, perhaps not.
With all the slight doubts that I have expressed, I wish the Bill a fair wind.
Mr. Chris Smith: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not one of the legislation's purposes to impose such an awful prospect on his mother?
Mr. Fabricant: I shall not thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I thought that encouraging older people to live with their families might be part of the Government's social exclusion policy, and that the concession might be quite an incentive in achieving that objective. I am shocked that the Secretary of State, who
usually takes such a lateral--even joined-up--view of government, has not discussed that possibility with the social exclusion unit.Nevertheless, as the hour is getting late, and as the right hon. Member for Gorton is keen to climb into his cot, I shall detain the House no longer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |