INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (Hansard, 20 December 1973)

§ The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden)
I beg to move, That it is expedient to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors, including provision authorising or requiring the Authority to contract with programme contractors for payments to the Authority and provision for the whole or any part of those payments to be paid, directly or indirectly, into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the Exchequer of Northern Ireland, and to provide for other matters supplementary thereto. In a Written Answer on 23rd July 1973 I announced that discussions were being put in hand for the preparation of legislation to change from receipts to profits the base on which the independent television levy was charged. Those discussions have now been completed, and the motion seeks authority to introduce a Bill to give effect to the conclusions reached.
The percentages which it is proposed the Bill should prescribe were announced today in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). If the House agrees to the motion there will, of course, be full opportunity to discuss the contents of the Bill, which are somewhat complicated, when it comes forward for debate.

§ Mr. John Grant (Islington, East)
I have only one question which I should like answered before we allow the motion to go through. Will the Minister give us the estimated cash yield to the IBA in a full year as a result of the proposed change? We know that there have been protracted consultations and negotiations and that some of the television companies were at one stage most unhappy with the situation. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were both involved.

§ Sir J. Eden
If I may reply with the leave of the House, it is of course impossible to give a specific answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant) because his question is 1742 directed at what might happen in the future. As I indicated, the Bill is complex only in so far as its provisions are somewhat complicated and we should need to study their full ramifications in relation to the activities of the individual companies to be able to do justice to the hon. Member's question. I can indicate a broad order of magnitude. If the system which is outlined in the terms of the Bill which I hope to have leave to introduce to the House had been applied to 1972–73, the outcome would have been an increase of £11 million on the yield of approximately £22 million, making £33 million in all.