TELEVISION LICENCES (PENSIONERS)

HC Deb 21 February 1973 vol 851 cc488-577

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

I beg to move That this House considers that all retirement pensioners should be entitled as of right to free television licences.

Mr. Speaker

I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions.

Mr. Silkin

There is, I am aware, a strong case for abolishing the licence fee altogether, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) may touch on this later in the debate should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but I propose to deal with the immediate problem of the retirement pensioner. I know that successive Governments over the past 10 years have spent a great deal of time considering the matter, and sucessive Governments have rejected it, but I make no apology for raising it again.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said as recently as 29th November 1972: I cannot speak about what has happened in the last 10 years in this connection. I have been in my present position only since April this year and I am bringing a fresh mind to inquire into the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 400.] I have been in my present position only since December, so that, if anything, my mind is even fresher than the Minister's. What troubles me about the Minister is that, while his mind may be fresh, his objections are more than a little stale. He says that free television licences would create anomalies. But almost in the same breath he tells us that Local authorities already have the power to assist elderly people with … the cost of television. In other words, either he has no objections to anomalies in principle, or else an anomaly ceases to be an anomaly if it is done by a local authority.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Or by this place.

Mr. Silkin

Or by this place.

Then the right hon. Gentleman moves from anomalies to cost. What worries him, it seems, is not so much the cost of the concession, which, after all, is likely to be less than one-fifth the total licence fees, so much as the means of meeting the cost. He sees only one alternative. He says gloomily: Any concession would lead either to a cut in the BBC's services or higher licence fees all round."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1973; Vol. 849 c. 386.] Apparently this fresh mind of his is limited just to considering that stark alternative, and that alone. It never occurs to him that there may be other possibilities. Perhaps I may help him——

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling-shire)

Notwithstanding the freshness or otherwise of the minds of the Government or of the Opposition Front Bench, I think the House is entitled to know why, when the Labour Party had five years of power, they did not introduce this concession. As a member of the Labour Party for probably more years than most hon. Members—for 40-odd years—I have a right to ask whether or not we are scraping the bottom of the barrel of old-age pensioner sympathy in introducing a motion such as this when we had the opportunity to rectify it when we were in power.

I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend will tell me, as a member of the party, why we did not put some such measure into operation and why this hypocrisy is now being brought before us. The House deserves an answer to that question. The old-age pensioners should not be the plaything of political parties in this House.

Mr. Silkin

In what was, I think, a very brief intervention, and a helpful one, my hon. Friend asked why it was not done by successive Governments. It is a very fair point; I concede it straight away. Why was it not done? I hope in a moment or two to say why, whatever the situation was five or 10 years ago. The House can be reassured that I will deal with it. I hope in a few minutes' time to show why it has become more immediate and more imperative that something should be done now.

If I may say so to my hon. Friend, if he had listened to my speech before making his intervention he might have come to the conclusion that whoever is to blame for wrongs in the past—and I attach no blame at the moment to the Government; I had not even really started my speech—surely the duty of this House of Commons is to nut a wrong right. Even if it is put right five years later, it is still better to put it right now than never to put it right at all.

I was suggesting to the Minister of Post and Telecommunications that he was being a little pessimistic when he saw only two possibilities of dealing with the cause of the problem. There is a variety of choices open to him. I wonder whether I may suggest one out of the dozen or so which I think are available to him. The House will recall that in the Budget Statement last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished as from 6th April 1973 the investment surcharge on unearned income. Even if the Chancellor were unwilling to reverse this unsolicited gift of £300 million, I cannot believe that the surtax payers whom he proposes to benefit would be reluctant to make a contribution out of their bonus to help retirement pensioners.

What would it come to? The total cost is £25 million or so. So it works out at 8½p in the pound for each of them. Why does not the Chancellor ask them? He may be surprised at the answer. I think, incidentally, that he would get a more sensible and more understanding reply than that given by the Minister on 29th November 1972. He said at the time: I am sure that if any old-age pensioner … were asked if he was in favour of having something for nothing, the answer would be 'Yes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 400.] Some of us would take the view that a tiny concession like this one is a mere token return on a lifetime's service to the community.

All these objections are trivial, whether they concern anomalies, whether they concern the means of paying for this concession, whether they are an argument such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) has advanced, about who was to blame and who was not to blame——

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Is the lifetime's service to be rewarded by a black and white licence or a licence for colour television?

Mr. Silkin

A colour television licence presupposes a colour television set. I do not know how many retirement pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have colour television sets. There are not so many in mine.

Mr. Cooke

Would it apply to all licences?

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

Answer the question.

Mr. Silkin

Of course it would be all. I am merely saying that it would be quite immaterial. Surely the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has sufficient intelligence to grasp that small point.

The heart of the Government's case is embodied in the proposed amendment, namely, that the Government continue to reaffirm what they call the policy … of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind …". Certainly if the pension were to be raised to such a level that it took into account all the additional expenses of life, apart altogether from those of mere subsistence, the argument for a separate licence concession would not be so strong. I fully accept that. But the pension does not cover all these expenses. It does not even approach doing so.

When Lloyd George created the retirement pension in 1908, the pension was 5s., and the average wage was 25s. Thus, the pension represented one-fifth of the average wage. Today, the pension is £6.75, and the average wage is £35.82, which means that the retirement pension is now less than one-fifth of the average wage. There has been a depreciation in the last 65 years in relation to average earnings. I readily concede that the average wage today buys somewhat more than the average wage did in 1908, but nevertheless, the pensioner today has one fact of life above all others in common with the pensioner of 1908 and all succeeding years: in all working families food is the major item in the budget, but for the pensioner it occupies, as it always has done, a dominant position. If anything, things are worse today in this respect than they have ever been.

Our social security arrangements for the elderly are now in a state of crisis. Even if the price of food were to rise only gradually, pensioners would still form a deprived section of the community. In the last two and a half years, we have seen a rise in food prices which dwarfs even the previous Tory price rise of 1954 which had held the record up to then. There has been a 25 per cent. rise in the price of food.

Is it not a basic truth that the retirement pension is limited purely to subsistence rates? Throughout the history of the pension, the cost of living has been rising, each rise being followed at intervals—it has never been anticipated—by a cash increase in the retirement pension. The pension never catches up, as the comparative figures in 1908 show. The pension never gives the opportunity for a full life to pensioners. It aids existence, certainly, but it does not support living.

In order merely to exist, 2 million out of 7 million retirement pensioners are dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit. In addition, one-half of elderly widows and nearly 1 million spinsters live alone, together forming the most deprived section of the pensioner community. Of those who do not receive supplementary benefit, there are 3 million pensioners of both sexes living precariously, just £1 or £1.50 above the level.

The Government admendment rejects the concession. Cash, not kind, is what it purports to advocate. If the Secretary of State were talking of a real sufficiency of cash, I should support him. But he is not. He is juggling with words. He knows as well as I do that if his Social Security Bill becomes law, 2 million or 3 million people will still be dependent on means-tested benefit for two generations to come.

In one respect, the motion and the amendment are in agreement. The amendment starts, at least, by recognising the importance of television for elderly people. It could hardly do otherwise. The latest figures show that on any day 78.4 per cent. of the population view some television. Ten years ago, when this argument first started, the figures were 10 per cent. lower, and at that time it may well have appeared that television was a luxury. It is not so today, and not so especially for the elderly. It has assumed an importance in their lives which we all have to take into account.

Saint-Beuve, the French critic, once said that, despite the drawbacks of old age, it was still the only way of living for a long time. There are many drawbacks to old age today, and it is up to all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, to ensure that the avoidable drawbacks are eliminated. Despite the growth of medical care and research, we cannot altogether eliminate the physical handicaps of old age, but there are other handicaps about which we can easily do more. Of these the greatest is the loneliness which comes from being out of touch with the community. Television is the town crier of the twentieth century, bringing people together and keeping them, above all, in touch. To the elderly person it is a lifeline to the modern world, a means of keeping abreast of the many baffling and fast moving changes which are so typical of life today. Yet for so many that lifeline is missing.

It is not that there is a lack of good will in the community as a whole. On the contrary; there is a universal desire to help. Some months ago, before I was given my present responsibility, I received a letter from a schoolmaster in Bolton, the first paragraph of which read: I was interested to hear that you are promoting a campaign to provide free television licences for old-age pensioners. It may interest you to know that at my school we repair and rejuvenate televisions to give away to the elderly and disabled. However because of the high cost of the licence, many pensioners are unable to accept a set. It is a pity that we can find volunteers to help our work, only to be left with some televisions which Bolton social services department is unable to distribute. I imagine that that state of affairs could be found throughout the country.

Does the Secretary of State deny, in the light of that letter, that retirement pensioners are being penalised? Here is an example of a community effort which all of us must applaud—a school with a social purpose, young people being encouraged, and willingly undertaking, to do work on behalf of the elderly. Such a project can be of benefit to young and old together, yet it is defeated by the simple inability of so many elderly people to pay for a licence.

That is the background of the matter which we are debating, not the smug and specious make-believe world of the amendment but the stark reality of life as it exists for so many millions of our fellow countrymen.

When we ask for this small concession we are trying to turn the key to a fuller life. The test of civilisation is how communities treat minorities within their ranks. Whether they be minorities of race, colour, creed, religion or, as in this case, age makes no difference. Compassion, like patriotism, is not enough. There must be imagination as well. Let us forget the precedents of the past, if there be any, and make our own precedent: a fuller and a better life for the elderly in the community. In that spirit, I ask the House to support the motion.

4.27 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden)

I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) drew attention to the degree of understanding on both sides of the House about the importance of television for elderly people. For many, as he said, it is the sole or principal source of entertainment, and for those who are confined to their homes or for reasons of infirmity are largely immobile it is their main means of contact with the world about them.

Television is not the only matter of special significance for the retired, and there are some who might not place it at the head of their list of priorities. Food, warmth, clothing, contact with other people through the telephone or some other link—all these, too, may be of special significance for elderly people. Clearly, the precise need varies from one individual to another, and it is primarily for this reason that our social security system has been built up to provide both adequate resources in cash and flexibility in their disposition.

The present demand for free television licences for all or for certain categories of retirement pensioners stems not so much from any widely held view that this should have priority over other claims on available resources. It arises directly from the existence of a special arrangement whereby residents in certain homes get their licences at reduced rates, while others have to pay the full amount. There is no doubting the bitterness which has been caused by the present arrangements, and for this reason I have been reviewing the whole position. The special 5p licence now available to about 170,000 people resident in certain old people's homes has undoubtedly given rise to many anomalies.

Mr. John Silkin

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the argument antedates the 5p licence by many years? My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) has made a helpful reference to this.

Sir J. Eden

Certainly. I was not talking about the generality of the argument. I was talking about the present campaign, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, for a free television licence, a campign which the substantial correspondence and representations to me leave me in no doubt owes its origin primarily to the existence of the special 5p licence. When that licence was introduced by the Labour Government in 1968 it was not intended to be a welfare concession. Ironically, its primary purpose was to put right previous anomalies which had come about in the licensing requirements of those homes.

Therefore, at the outset of my review I recognised how important it was, when considering any possible changes, to ensure that in trying to get rid of one set of anomalies I did not create others elsewhere. If it were to be merely a case of transferring the bitterness felt from one sector to another, it would be better by far to leave things as they are. That, as things have turned out, is the conclusion of my review.

The first thing I did was to see whether the problem could be wholly or partly solved by extending for the purposes of the special licence the definition of old people's homes. I considered, for example, whether it would be a good idea to extend the scope of the special licence to cover any housing provided specially for old people regardless of whether there was any community facility. But it would have been impossible then to defend the distinction between that kind of housing and other houses whose occupants happened to be retired people.

Another idea was to exempt all homes where there were regular visits from a warden or a similar service, but that would not help those not in receipt of such services, who may be less well able to pay for their television licences than those who get it. Extending the definition of a qualifying home would only give rise to further anomalies and more bitterness. Then I considered various ways of extending the categories of people benefiting. None of these has offered a satisfactory way out.

There were various possibilities. The first was that all retired people over 70, for example, should benefit. That would cost about £20 million a year. That is a refinement of the idea of free licences for all pensioners. Not all the over-70s are worse off than many people who would not benefit, particularly many slightly younger retired people.

Another suggestion, which has appealed to many people, is that all pensioners receiving supplementary benefits should be allowed reduced licence fees. That would cost about £8 million a year. The concession would do nothing for the poorest of all, those who cannot afford television. Some pensioners receiving supplementary benefit would, because of the concession, be slightly better off than some others who just failed to qualify for supplementary benefits.

Then there was the proposal that all pensioners living on their own should be given a free licence. That is along the lines of the amendment in the name of a number of my hon. Friends. It would cost about £7 million a year for homes containing only one pensioner and about another £5 million a year for homes containing two pensioners. Again, those without television would not benefit, and not all who benefited would be in need. It would be particularly unfair to exclude some households with non-pensioners living in them, such as a widow with a disabled daughter living with her.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what he has just said about the cost of the concession for which I have asked with the figures given by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), on 30th June 1971, when he said that the cost of half-rate licences to all old-age pensioners would be £12½ million?

Sir J. Eden

The cost of allowing all old-age pensioners to pay a half-rate licence fee of £3.50 would be about £12 million-£13 million. The figure that my hon. Friend asked me to reconcile with the figure she quoted was the cost of giving a free licence to all pensioners living on their own or in two-pensioner families. That is considerably less than the cost of giving a free licence to all pensioners, irrespective of where they live. The point may become clearer when I come later to the question of the cost of giving it to all pensioners.

Again, in the case about which I have been speaking, those without television would not benefit. One other aspect that I found difficult to accept was that it would involve considerable checking on the validity of claims. Without that checking it would be difficult to confine the concession to pensioners and genuine dependants.

Even the extreme solution of abolishing the concession altogether would have given rise to further bitterness and a sense of unfairness. I found that whichever way we turned we were forced back to what has always been the basis of our social security system, that the proper way to provide for the needs of retired people is through benefits in cash, not kind.

That was the view of the Opposition when they had responsibility for these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, the question pre-dates the introduction of the special 5p licence. The matter was well summed up, amongst a number of other comments, by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who said as far back as 19th February 1965: I am sure that it is by far the best policy, on the whole, to provide old people with adequate money resources and to allow them to take their place in the community and choose the disposition of their resources like other people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1594.] That view of the Government in those days was supported on many separate occasions by the right hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) and Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) when they held the office of Postmaster-General. Each in turn was confronted with the same problem as that with which I have been trying to grapple. They came to the same conclusion after their own studies and review that the best way to deal with the needs of the generality of retirement pensioners was through the social security system, with payments in cash.

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that is is a basic Conservative philosophy that help should be given to those most in need rather than on a flat-rate basis, and that the proposal of hon. Members on this side that television licences should be given to those on social security supplementary benefits and those living alone, who are most in need, is worth considering?

Sir J. Eden

I have tried to say that in approaching possible solutions to the problem along those lines I had no alternative but to conclude that any possible course of action would exclude many people whose needs were greater than those who would be helped by it.

Mr. Skinner

The Minister has now established that it is primarily a matter of money. As people in the surtax bracket will be endowed with another £300 million on 1st April, cannot the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to extract from that sum enough money to allow the pensioners to have free licences? The rest could go in the form of food subsidies if the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The pensioners would then benefit twice over.

Sir J. Eden

That goes slightly wider than the terms of the motion.

I cannot accept the proposition that because television is important to all old people, and because some cannot afford to pay the licence fee, all old people should have a free television licence. To do that, as the Opposition now ask, would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, cost from £25 million to £30 million—it is not possible to be precise about these matters. That is about one-fifth of the BBC's revenue. It would mean putting about £2 on to the licence fee to be paid by everyone else to make up the loss of revenue to the BBC.

Some advocate an even more radical solution. Some recommend that there is a possible way out by changing altogether the sources of the BBC's revenue. A number of possibilities arise here, some of which I have studied. Another course is one evidently favoured by the hon. Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), which is to devise a system by which the BBC would be financed from general taxation.

That, too, was considered and rejected by the Labour Government, who announced their decision in the White Paper on Broadcasting of December 1966, paragraphs 8 and 9 of which read as follows: 8. The Government have completed their enquiry into the BBC's finances. Practically speaking, the only possible ways of providing finances for the BBC are: by direct Government subvention, by the sale of advertising time in the Corporation's services, or by the licence fee system. 9. A Government subvention would be liable to expose the Corporation to financial control of such detail as would prove incompatible with the BBC's independence. The money would, of course, have to be found from general taxation. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Woolwich, East has the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair he will develop the points of his amendment.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

May I just correct the Minister on this point? He spelt out the three alternatives which the Labour Government rejected. I would reject all three of them. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the amendment carefully, he will see that it is based on none of those three.

Sir J. Eden

I shall listen with great care to what the hon. Gentleman says.

Having said this, I am sure that the whole House will agree that a change of this kind is a proposition of very far-reaching significance. It would be quite wrong to slide it in as a sort of afterthought so as to escape from the anomalous situation created by the old persons' homes licence.

There are a number of ways in which retired people and others who have difficulty in finding the amount of the television licence fee can be helped. There is the savings card scheme which encourages the purchase of national savings stamps at 10p a time to go towards the cost of a licence. There are the discretionary powers available to local authorities in Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which provides at local level, where it is much more effective, for the assessment of priorities in meeting individual requirements for help in kind.

Above all these, however, is the determination of this Government to ensure that all pensioners continue to enjoy a rising standard of living. Our record of care for the elderly is well known. Of course we would like to have done even more than we have already achieved. As we move to a system of annual reviews, all pensioners can have full confidence that their interests will be well served by this Government in the years to come.

Payments in cash are the right way to help, through the social security system, those who deservedly make a claim on our compassion. What is more, Labour Members well know that to be so. In the light of their own past statements, and in the light also of the inadequacy of their own actions when in office, the Opposition's motion is doubly unwarranted. Indeed, the whole exercise smacks of hypocrisy and opportunism, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

I wish to intervene briefly to reinforce the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—the senior right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate—and to say that I found the Minister's argument very depressing. I do not think that we should be saying that the Labour Party is hypocritical to raise this subject. Certainly, the Labour Party is not saying that the Tories have dragged their feet. Can we not discuss the matter on its merits?

It is fortunate for the Government that the amendment in the names of some of the Minister's hon. Friends was not called because, if it had been selected, it would probably have been carried tonight.

I cannot accept the argument that because some people who can afford the licence fee would benefit if the concession were granted across the board, therefore this concession should not be granted to all pensioners. On that basis we would not have old-age pensions.

It is also strange to claim that it is all right to have a concessionary 5p licence fee for an old people's home when probably old people's homes are financed by local authorities, anyway, but that it is totally different when someone is living entirely on his own and when he can much less afford to pay the licence fee than can those who are living in an old people's home.

I declare that I have in two different contexts what might be called an interest. First, I am chairman of a charity called the National Benevolent Fund for the Aged in which my fellow trustees include the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). One of the two activities of this charity is to install television sets in the homes of old people. We do that on the advice of the social workers in the borough in question. I had the very great privilege last week of seeing the 250th set installed. I shall say a few words about that, about the way in which this is of immense importance to old people, and where I think that the Government could help. I shall also mention where I think the Government could find the finance for the concessions which are being sought.

Secondly, I am associated in the West Country with a relay service which operates radio and television, and therefore I suppose it could be said that, remotely, I have a financial interest in the subject under debate.

Mr. Skinner

Another one?

Mr. Thorpe

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so delighted to hear that he and I are not exactly on the breadline. Before he leaps to his feet I advise him to read the article in the New Statesman tomorrow.

Mr. Skinner

I do not believe that rubbish.

Mr. Thorpe

Turning to serious matters, I have always taken the view that one should set one's face against concessions to old-age pensioners, because I believe that the more concessions there are, the stronger the excuse for any Government to give a pension which is not adequate to meet the real requirements.

However, I believe that we are moving into a situation in which pensions are never likely to catch up with inflationary tendencies unless and until they are tied to the cost of living so that they are automatically increased if the cost of living rises. We are a long way from that yet. It happens in some countries, and I think particularly of Government servants in France whose pensions are directly linked to the cost of living.

Although it is true that we have an annual review of pensions—a definite improvement which I welcome—the mere fact that 2 million out of 7 million pensioners receive regular social security benefit indicates that the hopes of those who were involved in phase 2 of our welfare state—I think particularly of the days of the late Lord Beveridge, who believed that supplementary benefits should be a very rare exception and not the rule—have not been realised. Today, for a large number of pensioners it is the rule.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph)

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority, but I must ask him to accept a correction of one thing he has said. The annual upratings, and all previous up-ratings under both Governments, at least keep pace with the cost of living. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to do more, but we do keep up with the cost of living. I am not asking for more than that as a concession from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe

Of course I concede that when the annual review takes place and when the pension is increased, if that be the case, it is probably true that at that moment it has sought to catch up with the cost of living. But I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the rate of inflation is such that the increase then made is very soon overtaken by inflation, and not until another 12 months have elapsed does a further review take place. On that, I do not think that we differ in terms, and I naturally accept what the Secretary of State said.

There is a case now for making an exception to a rule which I have always firmly held—no concessions but an adequate pension—because of the inflationary factor to which I have referred.

A television set costs our charity roughly £25 a year for installation, maintenance, rental and general overheads. The circumstances in which the charity with which I am connected seeks people in whose homes it may install a television set are, first, that they live alone, because there is by definition a greater element of loneliness; secondly, that they are people who by no stretch of imagination can afford to rent, let alone buy a television set; thirdly, that they are people who will probably have neighbours whom they will invite in to share the television set when it has been installed.

That is an interesting element. Our experience is that an old person who for the first time gets a television set will often invite the neighbours in to share it. In that way they begin to build up the companionship which they lacked before. I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he wants to be assured, perhaps he is concerned with finance and not with the merits of the argument—that a television set provides a totally new dimension to an old person. Not merely is it a window on the world, not merely does it give old people an interest in what was perhaps previously a drab existence, it also provides a degree of companionship that they never had before. Therapeutically it is of immense importance and value.

I make a suggestion about how it is to be paid for. I am subject to correction, but I understand that the Government place 20,000 television advertisements each year with the IBA and the BBC. I am told that the health, safety and welfare advertisements are carried by IBA without charge, but that advertisements concerning family income supplement, recruitment to the Army and other subjects are paid for by the Government. I understand that the IBA is paid approximately £3½ million a year by the Government, whereas the BBC is paid nothing.

There is scope for examination of the idea that advertisements placed by the Government with the IBA and the BBC should be costed and paid for. This might well provide a source of income to the IBA and the BBC which would compensate them for a reduction, or preferably a total remission, of the licence fee that is paid by the pensioner.

At present the BBC is subsidising the Government because the Government get their advertisements free, and the IBA is partly subsidising the Government because many Government advertisements are carried free. Here is a way in which the Government could pump money into the two corporations and thereby release money which need not have to be found out of central Exchequer funds. By paying the BBC the full cost of Government advertisements we should go a long way to making up the deficit.

This is a very rich country. We have an enormous Budget——

Sir K. Joseph

indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorpe

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but of course we are a rich country. The average GNP in this country is very high compared with that of many other countries. If this were something that the country wanted to do, we could more than afford to do it out of Government resources, and we could do it tomorrow, as the Secretary of State knows very well. When we think what we are spending on other causes which should not be so high on our list of priorities, the cost here would be roughly double the cost of the research that has been carried out on the lavatories in Concorde.

The Government's compassion is not in doubt, and their sense of the importance of this is not in doubt, but I believe that the Treasury has twisted their arm a little too strongly. The Government must have courage to stand up to the Treasury Ministers. If they do, I suspect that they will have the backing of the majority of this House behind them.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll)

I shall not keep the House for more than my customary five or six minutes in making a few comments relevant to the debate.

I oppose the motion for several reasons, and I agree to a considerable degree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). That is not difficult, because in this area we can all agree with a considerable part of the argument.

The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was asked, rather unkindly, by his hon. Friend why he had chosen this moment for the debate. Having been in the Government and in the "Shadow Cabinet", I know only too well that impending by-elections concentrate the Opposition's mind on suitable Supply Days for popular themes. This I understand, and I do not expect any political party to ignore what is perfectly good honest politics.

I object to the motion partly on the same grounds as those advocated by the right hon. Member for Devon, North. I am totally against the principle of concessions to old-age pensioners. I am sure he will agree that once one starts on television there will be the telephone and tobacco—we have been through a number of them. Only this week two of my constituents have written to me saying how difficult it is for them to get help with their telephones. But once one starts on this track it is only too easy for politicians, on whichever side of the House they sit, to go gently down the slope.

What makes me much more inclined to vote against the motion is the simple question of priorities. We are all to some extent affected by what we see and hear every day. In my constituency the vast majority of people get no radio, a few get BBC1 and a handful get BBC2. Yet this House has voted for extra channels and new types of radio all of which have taken vast sums of money to produce, while in a large part of the west coast of Scotland and the north of England there are many thousands of people who have no television, whether they are young people who want to listen to educational programmes, whether they are old people, or whether they are people living alone—whatever their conditions may be.

If the Government feel at any particular moment that they have £10 million or £15 million extra to spend on doing good in the country as a whole, those people who have nothing should have a higher priority than the broad generality, as the right hon. Gentleman would call them, of the old-age pensioners all over the country. He shakes his head, but if he had as many old-age pensioners as I have in my constituency, many of whom cannot even get a radio, I think he would agree with me that to give extra television to a whole range of people rather than to those who, as in my constituency, have none would not be fair.

So I think this is a genuine argument, and it is one on which the BBC should have spent more time and more thought and more money over recent years.

There are a great many people who want to speak in this debate and, no doubt, there will be various points of view, but it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who opened the debate, who said that the Government should be judged by the way they treat minorities. In a great part of Scotland and some part of England the minorities are people who have at the moment totally inadequate television or radio facilities.

My right hon. Friend said, and was echoed in an intervention by another of my right hon. Friends, that we would have liked to have done more in the way of improving living standards. I merely at this particular moment would say to very many people in the country that whether or not we are able to do more for our old-age pensioners depends on the attitude which they take in many of these industrial disputes.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) made a very powerful speech in favour of more consideration for the old folk of this country, and I follow him in a great deal of what he said, but I find myself unable to support the Motion as proposed from this side of the House unless I have certain assurances from the official spokesmen. In the first place, I am opposed to payments in kind and subsidies in kind to particular groups within the community. In the second place, I am in favour of reform of the television licence system, and any such concession as we are considering this afternoon could put off a long needed reform. The concession of 5p to which the Minister has referred is an example of just that. It adds to the complication of the problem when concessions are brought in.

If concessions in this area are allowed they could well be allowed in many others. They could be allowed on tobacco duties, on beer prices, on telephone installation or rental charges. This aspect of the matter is particularly relevant to what my right hon. Friend said about the need for old folk to be in communication with the rest of the community. If he were proposing a concession on telephone installation charges he would have a very powerful argument. I would oppose it, but it would certainly be stronger, in my view, than that for the concession argued for today.

We could argue for concessions in clothing prices and—particularly today—on food prices, which are going up all the time, and old-age pensioners are in a worse position than almost any other section of the community in trying to afford those prices. We could ask for concessions in electricity and gas charges and on coal prices. There is no end to the list of cases which could be argued in favour of special concessions to be made for the old folk.

If any of these concessions are given someone has to pay for them, either the general taxpayer or the consumer. They are not provided out of the air. Therefore, these concessions become a form of hidden taxation on the rest of the community, and I am against hidden taxation. I think everyone should know exactly what taxation is being raised and what his contribution is to it.

Furthermore, if these concessions are made they are open to objection on four main grounds. Firstly, they can be abused. I think the Minister has this in mind. It could be difficult to identify whether an old-age pensioner is actually living in his or her own home. When I was a Minister examining this problem we were conscious of the possibility that many households would be able to produce old-age pensioners as being in sole occupation of houses and get the concession when, in fact, the pensioners had families residing there with them. Are we to have an army of inspectors to check this? We are entering very dangerous ground if we do that.

Secondly, such concessions lead to administrative costs and a certain amount of bureaucracy.

Thirdly, if the concession is allowed to old-age pensioners, why should it not be allowed to other deserving groups—to the disabled, the unemployed, the widows? All these groups deserve our consideration, and some of them are worse off than the old folk.

The fourth and main objection—and it applies to all minority groups—is that it treats a minority as second-class citizens. I am opposed to that.

Minority groups, whether of old-age pensioners or of the disabled or of any others, deserve to have payment in cash of a sufficient value so that they can pay their way and carry their heads high in the community. I remember the position when the old-age pensioners were allowed a concession on tobacco. It really degraded them. Moreover, many of them who did not themselves smoke sold off the concession on the side illegally. It was degrading for them as well as for the society which made them the concession.

Mr. Rost

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that at the moment there is an anomaly whereby some pensioners are getting the television licence at 5p and that many of them are less in need than others who are not getting that?

Mr. Stonehouse

I would agree, but if there is an anomaly we do not cure the anomaly by introducing another one, and I have a proposal which, I hope, will deal with that anomaly.

Rather than grant this concession I would favour a proper cash allowance for the old folk. Their pensions in this country are far too low; when compared for instance, with those paid in Germany, they are abysmally low. I would favour an increase of £2 a week or £100 a year, which are sums which our society can afford, and I am glad to see the Secretary of State agreeing with me on that.

Sir K. Joseph

In principle.

Mr. Stonehouse

Furthermore, there is an urgent need to consider reform of the whole way we collect the fee. It has been suggested in some quarters that the licence fee should be abolished; in other words, that it should be paid for by the general taxpayer. The BBC's objections to that are valid. It would mean that the BBC would be the creature directly of the State rather than indirectly as is the case today. I favour the BBC continuing to have its independent source of income.

A proposal which merits consideration is that collection of the licence fee should be on the rateable value of a house. It merits consideration. After all, when television was first introduced there was only a tiny minority of houses which had it. Today 95 per cent. of households have TV. It would be easy to have a flat-rate fee, not a differential between colour and black and white, which is also an anomaly, because it costs the BBC just as much to put out the service. When almost every household in the country, apart from those in remoter parts of Scotland, has a TV set, it would be administratively easy and much less expensive if it were assumed that every house had a TV set, that the licence fee automatically formed part of the rateable assessment, was collected by the rating authorities on the rates, and passed directly to the BBC. If a householder does not have a TV set he can arrange for that part of his assessment to be deleted.

This would be administratively easy and less expensive than the present arrangement. It would take away from the Post Office the job, which I know it does not like, of trying to collect this money from a reluctant public and becoming a Big Brother with its detector vans, which are an unsavoury aspect of the way that the television service is paid for.

I hope that the official Opposition spokesman in replying to the debate will give an assurance that it is not our policy to have concessions as a matter of principle, that we shall not have a proliferation of concessions being proposed, and that this particular proposal is only a short-term stopgap until something adequate can be done to increase the cash benefit to the old folk of this land.

5.12 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

The right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) made a thoroughly realistic and constructive speech. It would be almost impossible, after making such a speech, for him to go into the Lobby with the Opposition.

I have always been against help in kind for retired people on principle. I criticised the tobacco concession, which I thought was unfair and illogical, and I was extremely pleased when it was abolished. I believe that it is patronising for this House to suggest that we should spend retired people's money for them. I prefer to leave them to spend it in whatever way they think best.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

Will my hon. and gallant Friend give way?

Sir T. Beamish

No. Forgive me. I have promised to be brief.

There is no real need for free television licences for retired people. Need is a very important part of the test. Television is entertainment in the home, and cheap at the price. Many retired people can afford a television licence if they can afford a television set. Many would not have a television set in their homes for all the rice in China. They just do not want television. This applies to people in all age groups. I suggest that television cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a necessity. It was a complete non sequitur on the part of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) when he said that because local authorities have discretion to provide television licences free to certain categories, therefore everyone should have them. That does not follow at all.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Wednesbury that if something must be given in kind—as I have said, I am not in favour of that—there is a far better case for a free telephone than for a free television licence.

In short, the idea that the moment a woman reaches the age of 60, which I regard as being middle-aged—I am 56—and the moment that a man reaches the age of 65, they should automatically, at the expense of the taxpayer, get a free television licence seems a thoroughly ridiculous proposition. I regard it as a complete waste of money—£25 million to £30 million—and a misuse and abuse of the taxpayers' resources.

Why retired people anyhow? How about the chronically sick and totally disabled? Nobody has mentioned them and they are not referred to in the amendment.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) rose——

Sir T. Beamish

I will not give way. For once, I want to be brief and I am being constructive.

How about the chronically sick and totally disabled? They cannot go to the movies or to football or cricket matches. They cannot go riding or do gardening. They are stuck in their houses, possibly in one room, and often in bed. Surely there is greater need for the chronically sick and disabled than for people of 60 or 65 years of age to have free television licences. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that proposition.

Lewes probably has a rather more than average number of retired people than many other places.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford (Norwich, South)

Rather richer, too.

Sir T. Beamish

Rather richer in some parts, but very poor indeed in others. I should like my hon. Friend to go to Newhaven, Peacehaven, Telscombe Cliffs and other such areas where in my constituency he will find many poor retired people living on fixed incomes. We should be careful how we generalise.

I keep in close and regular touch, as we all do, with retired people, through the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners, the Lewes Old People's Welfare Committee and many such organisations.

Since the General Election I have had hundreds of letters from retired people, but only two asking for a free television licence. Therefore, there is no pressure for this concession.

I recognise that real poverty still exists. Some people are too proud to ask for supplementary pensions. It is sad that even now some people are unaware of their rights.

I recognise all this absolutely, but it does not alter my opinion that it is better to give help in cash rather than in kind. Both the major parties have made steady progress in tackling this problem. Looking back over 25 years, remarkable progress has been made.

The right hon. Member for Deptford was not correct in saying that the pension never catches up. He went back to 1908 to try to prove that. At the end of 13 years of "Tory misrule" the retirement pension was worth 50 per cent. more in purchasing power than at the beginning. Now we have the annual review for which old people have been begging for decades under successive Governments, but we have heard not a word of praise for the Government for that. Furthermore, we have given the biggest increases in our history to public service and armed forces pensioners. I am sure that we all warmly welcomed those increases.

I say nothing about the Socialist Government's record, because I do not want to be controversial. [Interruption.] Then I will be controversial. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their encouragement.

I regard this proposal as at best misguided and at worst thoroughly unprincipled. The Labour Party took a firm stand when in power against giving benefits in kind. Now that it is in Opposition it has decided to reverse its attitude. However, two thoroughly honest interventions have been made by two Opposition Members flatly refusing to play party politics on this important question.

This is a proposal coming from a leaderless Opposition without a shred of policy to tackle one major problem facing Britain either at home or abroad. To hide this paucity of policy they have put up a smelly smokescreen of this kind which I regard as thoroughly sordid. It is an attempt to get votes on the cheap, and it will not work.

The intervention by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) during the speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford was extremely telling when he said that the Opposition were scraping the bottom of the barrel for old-age pensioners' sympathy. The hon. Gentleman then walked out of the Chamber in sheer disgust. He was quite right to do so.

Let us not only get our priorities right but keep them right. We do not help anyone or show true compassion by wearing our hearts on our sleeves. We must beware of thinking of people in terms of categories instead of as individuals, especially in this computerised age. Above all, let us do nothing that deprives retired people of the independence, the dignity and the choice—I particularly emphasise choice—which should be theirs by right regardless of their ages.

I am confident that the House will reject this rotten motion with the contempt that it deserves.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) certainly did not wear his heart on his sleeve. He concealed it a very long way from view. He is surely wrong when he says that there are not many old people who need free television licences. It is common ground between a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is a serious problem and that many old people need help.

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) spelled it out very well. As the debate has proceeded I also think that the method of helping these old people suggested by my right hon. Friend has been seen to have many very serious drawbacks and difficulties. I cannot think that anyone can avoid feeling that.

First, there is the major point that it singles out retirement pensioners only for help when other low income groups have needs often greater than many retirement pensioners. This is a very serious weakness.

Then we have not heard yet from my right hon. Friend from where the £25 million of which the retirement pensioners are to be relieved is to come, and I should like some assurance about where it is being reimbursed from to the BBC. Are we recommending that the licence should go up by £2? I cannot believe that this is being put forward seriously by the Opposition Front Bench. Can it be that we are asking for a direct subsidy from the Government? There are objections to direct subsidies from the Government to the BBC, as several hon. Members have said. We must know what the proposal is for finding the £25 million of which the pensioners are to be relieved.

The debate so far has shown that we cannot solve this problem within the existing licensing system. I want to ask the House to look more widely at whether the system of licensing is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said a categorical "No". I agree entirely with him, though I do not agree with the cure that he proposed. As the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) makes clear, we regard the present licensing system as an inefficient and absurd anachronism.

In the old days when only a proportion of British people had sets it was necessary to devise a system by which those who had sets paid and those who did not have them did not pay. But today nearly 17 million households have licensed sets and another 750,000 have sets which are not licensed. Almost everyone has a set. Therefore, one of the two main justifications for the licensing system has disappeared and it is time that we adjusted our thinking to the new situation.

The second reason for the licensing system which is often put forward is that it defends the BBC's independence of the Government. This point was made by the Minister, and it has been referred to by a number of other hon. Members.

If we look at the facts we find that this is eyewash. The facts are, for example, that six times in the last 10 years the BBC has had to go to the Government to ask for an increase in the licence fee. That means that six times in 10 years the Governors and the Director General of the BBC have knelt in prayer and besought the Government to save the corporation from bankruptcy. This is not a state of independence of the Government.

The same problem would arise in the case of the scheme put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, who said that we could arrange for it to be collected from the rates. However, each time the BBC needed more money from the rates it would have to go to the Government to get a rise in the amount precepted. It would be in the same position as now; namely, of abject dependence on the good will of the Government for an increase to keep it from bankruptcy. The old view that somehow the licence fees insulate the BBC from the Government is eyewash. It may have corresponded to reality in Reith's day, but it does not today.

Once again the BBC is getting out its prayer hassocks to kneel before the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to save it from bankruptcy. This is wholly undesirable. It is undesirable to have the BBC beholden to Ministers. It is also undesirable that the BBC should have to live from hand to mouth for its income, never knowing from one year to the next what the second year's income will be. This inhibits planning and increases the insecurity and dependence of the BBC. It also means that public service broadcasting is starved of money. Successive Governments have found that it is always extremely difficult and unpopular to raise the licence fee. For the health of public service broadcasting we must get rid of the licensing system.

The Minister asked how it was proposed to get the money, and said that the Labour Government turned down three alternative methods of getting the money. One of the methods which the Labour Government rightly turned down was what the Minister described as a direct subsidy from the Government to the BBC. I agree entirely. That is scarcely better than what we have now. In fact, it is much the same. Once again it would mean the BBC being beholden to Ministers.

A new system has to be based on two main principles. First, the BBC's income must be secured for a long period of years ahead. It must have at least five years' security of income which perhaps can be changed on a rolling basis. That in itself is a source of independence. If the BBC had this now it would not have to go cap in hand to the Government approximately every two years. That in itself would be a source of independence and would enable the BBC to plan and conduct its affairs on a more business-like basis.

I come now to the second principle on which any new system must be based. I refer now not only to the BBC but to other forms of public service broadcasting which will develop in the years ahead I am thinking especially of local public service television——

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

We are talking about pensioners.

Mr. Mayhew

I shall come back to the pensioners in a moment.

In putting forward this second principle, I am talking not only of the BBC but of other public service broadcasting such as local broadcasting or television which we are told will come. The second principle is that it should not be financed directly by the Government but by an intermediary organisation created for the purpose. At the moment much of our theatre, our opera and our music, thanks to the Arts Council, enjoys a degree of independence of the Government even though subsidised from public taxation. The BBC should have at least as much independence of the Government through a broadcasting finance council, even though that council would also be financed by public taxation. It would not be perfect. All that I say is that it would give the BBC a great deal more independence of the Government than the present system in which the corporation is obliged to go cap in hand to the Government every two years or so.

If we proceeded on that basis we should find a number of solutions to the problem that we are discussing. First, we should save £7½ million which is at present utterly wasted in the business of collecting licence fees. We should also eradicate the loss of £5 million in evasion which we suffer with the present licensing system. It would result in a tidying up and the saving of a great deal of public manpower and money. It would give the BBC a longer-term outlook and more independence, but, above all, it would get rid of a pernicious system of regressive taxation. The £7 licence is a completely regressive tax, hitting the pensioner and the millionaire exactly the same. It is a poll tax. Not only is the pensioner hit by this but all other low income groups. Under the system of financing it through general taxation, all retirement pensioners and other low income groups would be either relieved or exempted from paying for the television services.

The television licence as it works now is a threat to the independence of the BBC; it is wasteful, inefficient and unjust, and it should be abolished.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I want to bring the debate back to the needs of the old-age pensioner in relation to a reduced television licence fee.

I was surprised that the Minister made no reference to a Committee stage in 1971 on a Bill that I had introduced to give old-age pensioners a licence at half price as of right. I shall be coming back in a moment to the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others have tabled, but first I should like to point out that I and a number of hon. Members on both sides—my Bill was an all-party Bill—are utterly convinced that there is a real need for some extra and especial comfort which only television can provide to old-age pensioners.

I was because of that fact that in 1971 I introduced my Ten-Minute Bill, which completed its Committee stage. All the evidence that I have had since then has led me to believe that my action then was absolutely right and that the need now is greater than ever.

We have heard little or no evidence today on how old-age pensioners are missing television because they cannot afford it. The Minister made one or two passing references. However, long before 1968, when the 5p licence came into effect, Tunstall's "Old and Alone" was published, in 1966. I wonder whether the Minister has read this survey of the old living alone in four centres—Oldham, Northampton, Harrow and South Norfolk.

In "Old and Alone" there are repeated examples, with which I will not weary the House—although I hope that my right hon. Friend will read the HANSARD of the Committee stage of my Bill on 30th June 1971, where he will find all the details—of elderly people who were interviewed who felt that having a TV was a window on life. The only reason why they did not have a licence was that they could not afford it.

Since that debate, I have been able to obtain more up-to-date evidence. It is entirely impartial, coming as it does from the National Council of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. After the Committee stage debate on my Bill, it wrote to me last year to say that it had asked the different bureaux throughout the country to ascertain the need for television sets among the elderly. It said that in September 1971 47 bureaux had replied and all said that the need for television by elderly people living alone was paramount. The council added that it had had to advise some of the bureaux which had inquired how to help old people to get licences to use charitable bodies such as the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association and many others. Basically, however, the council, in its long letter, endorsed the real need of old people, especially pensioners, for a television set, which they could often ill afford because of the licence cost.

The Minister was right to dismiss the Opposition motion, because it calls for complete abolition of the licence fee. The statistics that we discussed in Committee on my Bill showed that to abolish the fee for all pensioners would mean a considerable sum and would not be practicable. But I am very distressed that the Minister did not at least mention that there are other alternatives. It is not good enough to say that something has been considered and the decision taken. There are other alternatives, such as issuing a half-price licence, which has many advantages, as I believe the Minister's predecessor recognised in that Committee. It would certainly mean losing half the revenue from the licences of those pensioners who already have them, but it would encourage those old-age pensioners—over half the total—who at the moment cannot afford the fee, to be able to do so.

I was able to show in Committee that at the moment 50 per cent. of all pensioners do not have a licence. Our calculations showed that reducing the fee by half would mean that probably another million pensioners would think it worth having a licence. The figures then become much more reasonable. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will listen to this point, which I do not think he has appreciated. My point is that there will be about another million customers for a licence.

Sir K. Joseph

I assure my hon. Friend that I carefully read the entire proceedings on the Bill that he introduced, including his description of this view of his.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Would my hon. Friend agree that the Minister—I am sure inadvertently—replying to an intervention of mine, misunderstood what I had said? I also had the honour to serve on the Committee which considered my hon. Friend's Bill. We were told then that it would cost £12½ million to have a half-rate licence for all pensioners. but the question I asked was whether that would not be reduced——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. Is this a question to the Minister or to the hon. Gentleman who has the floor?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

No, Sir. I am asking my hon. Friend whether he did not consider that the Minister had misunderstood what I had said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

May I remind the hon. Lady that many hon. Members want to speak and that she should be careful with her inteventions?

Mr. Farr

I have more or less grasped my hon. Friend's point, as I think has the whole House. There is no doubt that the £12 million estimate in Committee would be considerably reduced, by the number of new customers who could afford a television set if the licence was available at half price, to a figure nearer the estimate which I made after many weeks of calculation—an annual cost of £7½ million to the Exchquer.

The Minister is misguided if he thinks that this agitation has occurred simply because of the 5p licence. Tunstall's "Old and Alone" was written in 1966, before the 5p licence was thought of, and he illustrated many tragic cases. There is a good deal of bitterness, however, being caused by this situation. People cannot see why those in council warden bungalows who get this 5p licence and possibly own their own motor cars should be in this position, while people next door in their own homes cannot afford to have a TV set.

Something must be done. Old-age pensioners are helped in many ways by society today. They can have free or reduced bus fares. Many communities give them free or reduced admission prices to football matches and cricket matches and to sports centres, and help them in many other ways. They get free medical and dental services.

I ask my right hon. Friends to open their eyes to the prospects that lie ahead, let the old-age pensioners enter a new dimension in this country, and give them a half-price television licence.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract)

I, too, shall be brief and to the point. The motion is short, sharp, clear and certainly to the point. It needs no clarification from me. It seeks to correct an anomaly which has existed for a number of years by the granting of reduced price television licences to retired people who live in accommodation which is either private or administered by local authorities under three Acts—the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Insurance Act 1948 and Part V of the Housing Act 1957.

The latter Act states that in order to get the cheap licence one has to live in a home having communal facilities and supervised by a warden. We now have the opprobrious phrase "warden accommodation". The difficulties have been increased by the different interpretations of respective head postmasters. Some old people get the reduced licence fee and others do not, although living in similar accommodation.

I served on the Committee of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). which sought television licences at 50 per cent. of the full licence fee—which was then £6—for retirement pensioners. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and the late Jack McCann, I tabled an amendment to reduce the licence fee still further, to 5p, in order to bring it into line with the requirements of the people of whom we are talking—the people in private or local authority-administered homes. We defeated the Government, although it was a Private Member's Bill, by six votes to five. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government did not allow time for the completion of that Bill's remaining stages.

That was about 20 months ago. The anomaly continues to operate within a cocoon of irritation. It would have been interesting to have a debate in the House, as we are having today, to see how the House would have divided then.

Even some Government Members are fed up with this state of affairs. It has continued long enough; hence the motion, which if accepted, will put the whole conception of licences on a more equitable basis. The present situation divides pensioners into the "haves" and the "have nots". This has caused a great deal of resentment and bitterness.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been deluged with mail on the subject. I have had as much correspondence on this topic as I did at the time of the passing of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. That indicates the importance and seriousness of the problem.

Many solutions have exercised the minds of hon. Members. The last solution, to which I listened carefully, was the one proposed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who asked a Question last week to ascertain the cost to the Treasury if licences for old-age pensioners—he called them "elderly citizens"—were reduced to £2. The reply was that it would cost £20 million. Although that would be helpful, I do not agree with it because it would continue the present anomaly and it would be only a short time before we were all under pressure again from old people to bring the licence fee down to 5p. In Committee the Minister's predecessor said that it would cost the Treasury about £l2½ million to give a licence at 50 per cent, and double that to apply a 5p rate.

Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harper

No. Save the applause and everything else until later.

I agree that these figures are out of date, as they were given about 20 months ago but as the number of retired pensioners over the age of 60—including widows—on 31st December 1972 was 7.9 million, of whom 2.2 million are in receipt of supplementary benefits, this means, at a rough estimate, that it would cost the Treasury between £30 million and £35 million. This might be further reduced, taking into consideration the loss of £5 million through the licence fee dodgers, who have already got free television, and the cost of collection, which is approximately £7 million. I ask the Minister to give us the correct figures. I may not be correct within a million or two.

To allow free television licences would be well worth the cost involved, and the revenue loss to the Treasury could be taken out of general taxation. Dear me, we are talking about £40 or £50 million here, when the first thing the Government did on coming into office was to give away £300 million to those who already had enough money and at the same time raise prices of school meals and take away the kid's milk. I do not want to be controversial, so I leave that matter there.

My last point, which has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), concerns the word "concession". The Minister has repeatedly said, in letters and answers, today and previously—he says it in his sleep—that it is not a concession. He says that it is a matter of definition. The Minister's predecessor said in Committee on the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill that the television licence was for homes and not persons. But he also said: If one has two homes"— for instance, one in the North and one in the South— and a television set in each, and one travels between one and the other and never operates the two together"— one would have to be a Houdini to do that— only one television licence may be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June 1971; c. 19.] That is two televisions for one licence. The definition is what counts.

I realise that. The Minister realises it. We all realise it. But do the old-age pensioners realise it? They understand only that it is a concessionary licence for some and not others. If the Minister tried to explain this to old-age pensioners he would certainly get the raspberry from them. One would not blame them. They might do a "Harvey Smith" if they were told about this. The Minister will not get away with that lame clarification.

I concede that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) tried hard to correct the anomaly when he was Postmaster-General but he only made matters worse.

The only way that this matter can be resolved so that we can get out of the mess and not create further anomalies is to grant free television licences to old-age pensioners and to all the rest of us. We should take the money which has to he found from general taxation. It could be put on other taxes. Ultimately that would be fairer to everyone concerned.

If the Government decide not to accept the motion I shall press for the subject of the abolition of television licences to he high on the priority list of a future Labour Government which, needless to say, I should rather have sooner than later.

The Government could give serious consideration to the amendment, which would be acceptable if pensioners got a proper living pension. I, too, on principle, am against fringe benefits. But it may be 30 or 40 years before pensions can be raised sufficiently to do away with fringe benefits and we can say to pensioners, "Stand on your own feet. You have a good pension, which is a living wage." Until then, we shall have to have the fringe benefits.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe (Middlesbrough, West)

I agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) that we want a much better deal for the pensioner. We want the gap between the annual pension increase and the annual rise in the cost of living to be widened much further, so that the pensioner receives a substantial rise in his standard of living. The Conservative Government have done much more in this respect than did their Labour predecessors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that television is a comfort to the pensioner. I feel that it is both a comfort and a necessity to the vast majority of pensioners. So far in this debate nothing has been said about the demand by pensioners. I say this in the context of the situation on Teesside, where we have a strong pensioners' association and a very active pensioners' lobby.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services knows only too well that there is strength in that association, because he met its members last Friday and gave them almost an hour of his time. The Teesside pensioners have held rallies well over 1,000 strong. I attended a recent rally. Hundreds of pensioners came to this House by bus to lobby their hon. Members. Undoubtedly the strongest chorus of protest I heard at the town hall rally that I attended was on the issue of the haphazard unfairness of the TV licence concession. No doubt this feeling has been sparked off by the 170,000 pensioners who pay £6.95 less than the rest. This feeling will continue so long as this anomaly continues.

The Government amendment suggests that the situation can be adequately dealt with under the powers in the 1968 Public Health Act but the trouble is that local authorities do not regard television licences as a priority and have not a great deal of money to spend. Help could be given to the 1,800,000 pensioners—approximately a quarter of all pensioners—who are in receipt of supplementary benefits if the Supplementary Benefits Commission was empowered to help with the cost of television licences and not just to disregard grants from voluntary bodies. This would have the advantage of bringing in those who are severely handicapped and others who, though not on pensions, are possibly in greater need than many pensioners. These categories are not covered by the Opposition motion; indeed, they are not covered by the other amendments.

The problem we have to examine is that which is highlighted in the Government amendment. First, we say "cash" not "kind"—but "kind" is just what these 170,000 pensioners receive, regardless of need. However many Christmas bonuses we give, the 170,000 pensioners involved will be that much better off than are the pensioners paying £7.

When we talk of helping only those in need we come up against another feeling of unfairness which is equally rife—the feeling that we exalt the feckless, penalise those thrifty people who have saved, and discourage those families who have shouldered the responsibility of supporting elderly relations when they should be applauded and given every help. In bearing this responsibility such families save the taxpayers the cost of providing specialist accommodation for elderly relatives.

It is no good retreating behind the argument that the £25 million or £30 million can be better used by adding 5p to the pension, or in other ways as priority dictates. The demand for this concession, and action on this anomaly—an anomaly largely created by the Labour Government—exists, and we cannot ignore it. I am sure that eventually the Government will tackle the problem by waiving the licence fee for those who have to live on pension and have savings up to a certain limit. Obviously there would have to be such a restriction because it would be ludicrous to provide a licence to the few capitalist pensioners who have colour television. I consider that the Government will eventually recognise that television is regarded as a necessity. But since there are non-pensionable categories such as the disabled and others in equal need, if the powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission are extended those people can also be helped, and the creation of new anomalies can be kept to the minimum.

5.57 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly highlighted the anomaly between the 5p concessionary television licence and the £7 which all other retirement pensioners have to pay. There is no more hurtful grievance than that which is based on the feeling that there is no reason for discrimination between two groups of people who in general have the same needs and the same resources. I believe that there was a strong case for concessionary television licences to the elderly before the introduction of the 5p licence, but that case has been considerably sharpened since that time.

This gives force to the campaign now being waged among retired pensioners' organisations for a concessionary licence for all pensioners treating them all on the same basis. Hon. Members from all constituencies must have received many communications such as that which I now have before me—in this case from an association in my constituency called the Fishlake Over-Sixties Club. It is a petition that contains 30 signatures and is worded as follows: We urge you as our Member of Parliament to plead the case of the senior citizens with regard to television licences. We understand that in certain circumstances a reduced rate is available and we feel that such concessions should be for all pensioners. We ask you to press Her Majesty's Government to eliminate this preferential treatment and to apply the reduced rate to all pensioners. That puts the case in a nutshell. The disparity between the 5p and the sum of £7 for a licence has caused widespread resentment.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has taken account of the fact that if the Opposition's proposal were put into effect it would give a free licence to 1.7 million households in which there is a young and active family with a pensioner living in the household, and would mean that they would be relieved of paying £11.9 million, which would increase public expenditure by that amount.

Dr. Marshall

I regard that as a spurious intervention on a quite different point. I am referring to the situation in which some people enjoy a great benefit which is denied to others.

Some people are eligible for the 5p concessionary licence but do not take it up because they feel they would be making use of an unfair advantage. There are people in warden accommodation who feel that because they are in such accommodation they already have a benefit, and that it should not be added to by claiming the 5p concessionary licence. Two pensioners can live in the same road in almost identical property, one with the concessionary licence and one without. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) said, differences of interpretation by different head postmasters can cause anomalies on the boundaries between postal districts. A certain class of accommodation on one side of the boundary will entitle the pensioner to qualify while the identical property in identical conditions on the other side will not. That causes a great deal of bewildered resentment among those who find it difficult to understand all the ins and outs of regulations on these matters.

The oddest situation that I have discovered was in the borough of Spen-borough, in the West Riding. In that borough there is a block of flats the ground floor of which was constructed and financed to house elderly people. Because of that the occupants have a warden to visit them from time to time, and they qualify for the 5p licence. The people living immediately above them, who are also old-age pensioners and who have to go up a flight of stairs to reach their flats, are living in property which had been built as normal council property and are therefore unable to qualify for the 5p licence.

It is imperative that all retirement pensioners who need a television licence should be treated on the same basis, and that all the present discrimination should be wiped out. The only way in which this can be done is to bring them all to the level of the present concession. Yet because the 5p concessionary licence is a nonsense, in that it costs more than 5p to collect, this leads to the only logical conclusion that all old-age pensioners who need a television licence for premises where they are the householders should be eligible for a free licence.

The argument put forward by the Government is that this would be impossible, because it would be too expensive, but at the same time the Government are saying that they would not wish to see an increase in benefits in kind—that they want to see cash benefits. Well, let us provide the cash by a grant to the BBC to finance concessionary licences for all old-age pensioners. In trying to advance the argument that pensioners should be paid in cash rather than in kind the Government are hiding behind a smoke screen. If the money is to be available it should be channelled in this way, because that is how the pensioners want it. They want help in the form of a free television licence. The Government can then leave the question of the level of the pension to another day.

6.4 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister said when he commented on the Government's record on social services and with the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when he commented on our record on uprating pensions. I should like to take issue with the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, however, when he said: I am sure that if any old-age pensioner … were asked if he was in favour of having something for nothing the answer would be 'Yes.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 400.] I could not disagree more because, as one of my old-age pensioners said to me: "We don't want owt for nowt". When our local council offered the old-age pensioners free travel in spite of their protests that they did not want it, they held a conference attended by 350 old-age pensioners, of whom only 14 voted in favour of free travel. It was precisely for that reason that I put down my amendment. My old-age pensioners are proud and independent, and they do not want owt for nowt, but they cannot afford the full rate for the licence. I raised this point with the previous Minister for Posts and Telecommunications in Committee on the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), and I was told then that if we advocated a half-rate television licence for old-age pensioners many families who had old people living with them would be given free television as a result. I believe that if families shoulder their responsibilities in this way they are entitled to all the help they can get, because they are not only saving the country money; they are preventing unhappiness.

It was in an attempt to meet this point and to reduce the amount of cash that would have to be spent, on the principle that I prefer half a loaf to no loaf at all, that I sought to amend the motion, although my amendment, which if accepted would reduce the rate for pensioners living alone or with another pensioner, was not selected. The figures we were given during the debate on the Bill were for all old-age pensioners to have half rates—not for the proposal that I put forward, which would be half rates for pensioners living alone or with another pensioner.

I share the view that television is not a luxury. The killer disease in old age is not necessarily cold or hunger. A person is much more susceptible to cold and hunger if he or she is miserable. One hon. Member made a very important point when he said that television brought in a new dimension, because it meant that pensioners would invite their friends in and would get out of the terrible cocoon of lineliness which is the curse of old age. That is why I believe that the Government should make a concession tonight. I am not in general in favour of benefits in kind, but this is one thing that old people need.

I see that one of my hon. Friends the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is brandishing a card upon which it is possible to stick stamps to pay for a television licence. But old people are already putting stamps on a card to pay for their electricity, and I am at the moment trying to get the gas authorities to introduce a scheme to do the same thing. Old people cannot afford to stamp a third card for a television licence. I beg the Minister, who is so considerate to old people and to all those in need, to treat this as an exceptional case and try to meet our point.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will forgive me if, because of pressure of time, I do not take up her points in detail. I am, however, much attracted to the first part of her amendment, which provides that the concession should go to a pensioner who is living alone or with another pensioner. Her amendment is spoiled by the reference to a reduced rate. The Opposition amendment speaks of free licences, which is what I support.

The hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) made speeches in stark contrast to what we heard from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who said that he had looked at the various anomalies that would be created by the abolition of the television licence fee for old people and then systematically found excuses to reject each of the arguments with all the initiative and energy of a mesmerised rabbit. This is an important issue for old people, and I ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to look at the matter in a slighly different light from that cast by the debate so far.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to television as the town crier of the twentieth century. It is, indeed. I suggest that television is a prime social service. It is one of the best and most effective means of communication with old people that the Secretary of State for Social Services and the community in general have. It is also one of the cheapest. It is far cheaper for the right hon. Gentleman to get in touch with old people by means of television than by the circulars which his Department issues, because he knows that the information is going into their homes. That, in itself, is a very important aspect of our consideration whether we should create a licence-free service, because of the enormous benefits that television can bring to old people, and not only for entertainment. Of course, we want old people to enjoy television. Indeed, I do not think that enough attention is given by either of the channels to the aspect of entertainment for old people.

There is, however, another aspect. Many people facing retirement after working 40 years or more are at a loss to know what to do with their time, and their wives are certainly at a loss to know what to do when their husbands are under their feet all day. Television could use the time when the test card is on the screen to put out programmes of direct help and benefit to old people. That should be a free service. It ought to be provided as a social service. There are many benefits to which old people are entitled but which they do not claim. I know that this is a worry to the right hon. Gentleman. They do not claim these benefits because they do not know about them. Television could be an enormous help in enabling old people to receive this information.

I should like the television medium to recognise that there are 7 million pensioners and they all have needs. I should like the Government to recognise that in television they have the most important link and means of communication that any Government Department could wish to have, direct with the homes of people who need a service. In addition, television provides people with a contact with the outside world, which is likely to make them less lonely. If more old people had television sets there would be less likelihood of occurrences such as we have had in my constituency, when people have been found dead in their homes, months after they have died. That sort of tragedy occurs in this country because of lack of communication and loneliness. Television is a most important means of communication, and for that reason if for no other the Government ought to look upon it as a social service.

It is nonsense for the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to advance the argument that if free television licences were available to old people those pensioners without television sets would resent the fact. Nothing could be further from the truth—any more than that a person who has not got a wireless set resents the fact that no licence fee is required for radio. Incidentally, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) that that concession did not exist during most of the years when our party was in government. The proposed concession would not cause resentment, any more than a person with a dog resents the fact that a person who owns a cat does not need a licence. Therefore, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman advanced a nonsensical argument.

I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will look upon this motion in a kindly way, and that he regards television as a vital means of communication in this modern age.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

All who have listened to this debate will accept that on both sides of the House there is recognition of the importance and value of television in the lives of old people. Having said that, I think the debate has clearly shown almost from the start, when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was totally torpedoed just over his left shoulder by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) in a valid intervention, that the Opposition motion is, to say the least, highly dubious in present circumstances.

Two of the most valuable speeches were made by the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), both of whom made serious contributions to the debate. If we face the situation practically, we must appreciate that everything that could be said has already been said on this matter——

Mr. John Mendelson

Sit down then.

Mr. King

—and I am therefore going to be brief. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) enjoys interrupting people who are trying to make serious contributions. I, as a relative newcomer to this House, have observed that he enjoys interrupting nearly every speaker regardless of the point which is being made.

I am concerned that one point has not been mentioned, although it was referred to obliquely by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) said quite rightly that we must be fair to all pensioners. We recognise that there is an anomaly in connection with old people's homes but, as the right hon. Member for Wednesbury said, we do not remove one anomaly by creating an even bigger one.

The situation is that if we gave free television licences to all old people, a benefit would be given to 80 per cent. of all pensioners and the House would be ignoring the claims of 20 per cent. of the pensioners who, for reasons of their own, do not have television sets. Some perhaps cannot afford to do so; others choose not to have television, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, some cannot receive it anyway. It seems to me that it would be wrong if we went for this benefit in kind in this way and ignored the equal rights of 20 per cent. of all pensioners to some benefit.

Mr. John Silkin

Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a return to radio licences, because there are 2 million deaf people?

Mr. King

The right hon. Gentleman knows that with radio licences, obviously, a very much smaller sum is involved. That is certainly not what I was advocating.

It seems to me that we are concerned about the level of benefit for old people, and that is of fairly general concern throughout the House. I am not fighting in an obstructive way and saying that there is no case for help but I object strongly to the idea of giving help purely to those who have a television set at the moment. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is to reply to this debate because it seems to me that this is much more a matter for him than it is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I believe it is within the Department of Social Services that the proper answer to the problem lies.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget Statement on 6th March we shall hear a much more constructive and fairer answer to the problem. It seems to me that in tackling the general problem of the income levels of old people assistance should be provided regardless of whether they have a television set or not, so that the benefit will be enjoyed equally by all pensioners. This would be a much fairer method of helping old-age pensioners. It is by this method that I hope the Government will be able to help, rather than by giving selective help of the kind advocated in this motion.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

The hon and expansive Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) came to the House with much trumpetings, evident in his maiden speech, that he would campaign and fight for free television licences for old-age pensioners. In the mornings, he comes on our radio, and each week he talks to the Press, calling us all clowns and accusing this honourable House of being a circus. The hon. Gentleman's coverage outside the House is expansive. I only hope that Rochdale will note that his coverage in the Chamber tonight is not.

There are hon. Members on both sides who take seriously—far more seriously than does the hon. Member for Rochdale—the problem of the anomalies in the present situation. We recognise that in trying to help old-age pensioners through the introduction of the 5p old people's home concessionary licence, the Labour Government created an arbitrary border- line which has led to difficulty. It is all very well for us to explain among ourselves the working of the concessionary licence scheme and the way the borderline operates. Old-age pensioners simply do not understand it and, frankly, I do not blame them.

As several hon. Members have pointed out, an adventurous go-ahead local authority and an adventurous postmaster can apply a wide interpretation of the Wireless Telegraphy Act Exemption Regulations, in a genuine attempt to be helpful, but anomalies are still created. In my own constituency, both the Nuneaton Borough Council and the Bedworth Urban District Council have tried to extend their warden coverage so as to bring the maximum number of old-age pensioners within the concessionary television licence scheme. The trouble is that in trying to help in that way they have given rise to even more grievances and grumbles. The truth is that all those who try to work the present system and help old-age pensioners come up against the arbitrary borderline.

I put the question directly to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications: let us assume that an adventurous local authority decides that all its old-age pensioners in a certain part of the town or in a certain scheme shall be covered by the warden service, and that all old-age pensioners shall have access to communal facilities. This state of affairs can be found, for example, at an old people's day centre providing meals, refreshments and the rest. What happens when a local authority tries to use the definition in the regulations to cover a whole area or category of persons in that way? It seems to me that the local authority and the postmaster would be perfectly within their rights in trying to push this definition. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter further, since many authorities and local councillors now find themselves in a difficult position, wondering how far they can extend the concession.

If the Minister argues that even more anomalies would be created by further action he could not be more wrong. There could not possibly be more anomalies than we have now. If he has any doubts about that, let him try to explain some of the anomalies in the present system to old-age pensioners.

I come now to a constituency case which I have previously tried to air in the House without much success. A constituent of mine, a Mrs. Storer, moved into Edyvean Walker Court, Nuneaton, and, very conscientiously, on 9th May last purchased her own television licence. The warden applied for a concessionary licence for the whole scheme, and it was granted on 22nd June—six weeks later. Because she was conscientious, Mrs. Storer had bought her licence in advance. She need not have done it. She, too, could have been a television licence dodger. However, under the regulations which the Minister promulgates, she cannot get a penny of her £7 licence fee back.

In the face of borderline cases like that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to stick to his regulations. He cannot defend them, and I urge him to look at the matter again. What is more, when he does so I urge him to reject the approach that only supplementary benefit pensioners ought to have free television licences. We have quite enough means testing in this country, and to put the television licence on means test as well would be utterly regressive.

I take the point made by various hon. Members about the financial difficulties of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I answer in this way: if we can give a block grant to the National Coal Board so that it may cope with the consequences of redundancy payment schemes for mine workers and a block grant to British Rail to help with the social costs of running communally necessary railway lines, why should we not give a grant to the BBC to cover the cost of concessionary licences to old-age pensioners? There are several precedents already in relation to our existing statutory corporations, and I suggest that similar assistance could be extended to the BBC.

If we are concerned about the BBC's finances in the longer term, it would be possible to make capital grants from Government expenditure to the corporation for the building of aerials, transmitters, and so on, leaving the BBC as independent as it is now.

I acknowledge that we are talking the language of priorities, but a Government who can give £300 million in tax relief to surtax payers, and can think of spending £3,000 million on building an airport at Maplin which no one will want in 15 years' time, and of carving up London with ringways costing £2,000 million, yet cannot spend £25 million for this purpose, have their priorities sadly wrong.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

The debate has been notable for short speeches, and I hope not to break the sequence. It has been notable also for the way in which what I would call rather sickly emotion has been kept out of the argument. We all recognise the problem, we are concerned to solve it, and it is a question of the method which is the matter of opinion.

My position is that I wish to help those who are in need and cannot afford to buy a television licence because their income is inadequate. I cannot support the motion because I have never understood why, for example, a retired field-marshal should have his television licence free, as he would under the Opposition's proposal. I wish to be somewhat more selective. I believe, as most Conservatives do, that one should give aid to those who are in need.

Mr. John Mendelson

That is no argument. How many field-marshals are there?

Mr. Marten

I wish that the hon. Member would keep quiet or rise to his feet and intervene in the proper way. He should have the sense to realise that I was giving but one example of many such persons. I am in favour of helping those who are in need.

The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), which was not selected, refers to pensioners living alone or with one other pensioner and she has dealt with that aspect of the matter very well. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) when he says that television is now an accepted part of the life of old people. For the elderly, it is a window on to the wide world outside.

It is my wish, as I say, to help those who find it hard to pay. But I recognise the other side of the argument which has been put by the Government, though I have some criticism of their amendment for its use of that awful expression which Ministers in either Government use when they intend not to do anything—the argument that "successive Governments" have not done something, so they will not do it, either.

We are politicians. I do not mind whether the Labour Government did not do it, or whether we have not done it. If we do not do it now, if the Opposition get back they will have to do it after today's motion, so it is coming anyhow. Why not set about it now? I speak here as a democrat. Over the effluxion of time, in, say, 15 years, the Opposition have a good sporting chance of returning to power.

So the argument that successive Governments have been against such a scheme is really a non-argument because it is an argument for never changing anything. As my right hon. Friend knows, in my constituency I have promised my old-age pensioners that I will fight for something to be done. I shall not retreat at the first whiff of grape-shot in a debate like this; and, unless I get a major concession to what I and my colleagues want, I cannot support the Government amendment. I make that clear.

I want to deal with the question of benefits in cash but not in kind. This is really a curious argument because it has already been admitted that local government can give these benefits in kind. If local government can do it, why cannot the central Government do it? Even the local social security offices give benefits in kind. If a pensioner suffers from great coldness, the local social security office will provide a chit for him to get coal. That is a benefit in kind. It will give supplementary benefit to someone whose children need clothing, but if the money is spent on drink instead, it will give a chit for the clothing instead of cash. Those are but two examples where the principle has been breached already, so there is no reason why this benefit for the television licence should not be paid.

If one asked people with television sets whether they were in favour of the proposition that old-age pensioners, within wide or narrow limits, should be helped, everyone would say "Yes". I suggest, therefore, that we challenge them to give help. We should suggest that they could help pensioners by paying a little more for their own licences—it would not be more than about 50p a year—so that they would all feel that they had helped. In other words, there would he a surcharge in order to help old-age pensioners. In this way, there would be no charge on public funds at all. We would not be going out with the begging bowl for pensioners, which they would not like. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do some research into this proposition and find out how much it would cost at various grades of reduced licence fee—for example, at £2 instead of £7. We would then see how much the various reductions would increase the ordinary licence fee.

The other option, which my right hon. Friend himself mentioned, is that perhaps some other way should be found of financing the BBC, thus abolishing the whole licensing system. I have not yet heard mentioned a method which makes sense, however. The reality of the situation is that the BBC, if we are to change the system, must be self-financing like the IBA. I am not a great television fan but I do not object to the advertising on the IBA. Indeed, quite a bit of it is amusing. But concession to the old-age pensioners on the licence fee is coming—I am sure of that—and I wish the Government would give an assurance that they intend to do something about it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley)

I will not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) directly, although I agree with a great deal of what he said. Almost every hon. Member has referred to cash benefits or benefits in kind. This is something of a myth. Almost all of us would like to see the pensioners getting a high enough standard of living to be able to afford without difficulty the television licence, but we all know that that is not likely to happen in the near future.

In the rather subtle changes in our very complicated society, we get periods when certain measures which cannot affect the general public too much can nevertheless affect various pressure groups. With that in mind, certain concessions have already been accepted. Many fringe benefits have been readily accepted by old people and given readily by Governments and local authorities. Concessionary fares are a good example.

But there are exceptions. Some hon. Members opposite have said that television is a luxury, but I think that the majority view in the House is that it is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Indeed, for old people it is more than that. It is often a means of making life tolerable to them, of keeping them in touch with the world, of avoiding loneliness. Anything we can do to help is obviously right, as so many hon. Members have pointed out.

The Central Statistical Office shows that, while 78 per cent. of our people watch in any day, it is the old people who watch television most among all adults. They rely on television. We all get tragic cases when elderly constituents tell us that they could get a television set second-hand but could not afford the £7 licence. That is a tragedy in this affluent society.

There are changes in society which make the situation worse. They make great problems for old people. We have witnessed the growth in car ownership and the freedom this has given to so many people. But it has coincided with a reduction in public transport facilities. The people who suffer from that are mainly the old. They do not own cars. They are stranded when there are no buses. The rundown in public transport has in turn increased the necessity for old people to have television.

By a strange coincidence, which often happens in life, television has itself also created conditions which make it more necessary for old people to have television. It has created a society in which people stay at home—a self-reliant society, as one may call it in a generous mood, or a selfish society, as one may call it if one is feeling ungenerous. But the pattern is there throughout. Community life has been put under great strain. Talk to any organiser of any voluntary society and he will tell one of the low degree of support and of the difficulty in running his organisation because people are so home-bound and watch television so much.

So, the old person is stranded. He cannot travel much out of his community because of poor public transport. If he stays within his community, the chances are that there is nothing outside his home for him. The result is that he has to say at home. That is all the more reason why old people need television. It keeps them company and passes away the hours. Many old people cannot afford the licence fee. We must do something. Obviously, there is bitterness between different groups of old-age pensioners, but that has been expressed already in the debate and I need not repeat it. It is the duty of the Government to try to ensure that all the elderly people who want and need television are able to have it.

Various difficulties have been pointed out, but in the end we have to look much more deeply at the method of funding the BBC and try to find a different method. I was attracted by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) of some form of general taxation to be paid to a broadcasting council for the financing of the BBC, but the basic point is that licensing is out of date. I suppose that 95 per cent. of people have television. Let us save the £7½ million spent on administration, the £5 million involved in licence evasion and the £30 million which will be needed in giving concessions. By the time we have done that there is not very much left out of the £135 million. Financing by means of, say, the income tax system would mean that the low-paid and the pensioners would pay nothing for their television and the field-marshal would pay something. That is the way to do it.

Whilst we are waiting for that day to come, let the Government act, and act now. During Question Time two or three weeks ago I described the Minister's decision as being mean. I do not detract from that statement at all, because in comparison with the £2,500 million for defence and the £3,000 million for Maplin, people regard an expenditure of £20 million or £30 million as chicken-feed. The Government should act now.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

Bearing in mind his legal connections, I was somewhat surprised when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) invited us to forget precedents and the lessons of the past. I would not for one moment advocate that we should feel ourselves bound not to accept the proposition put by the Opposition simply because previous Governments have not accepted it, but it would be nonsense not to acknowledge that some very important lessons are to be drawn from the precedents, and some important lessons to be learned if we consider what has happened when the House has supported the introduction of this sort of concession.

I invite the attention of the House to the history of the tobacco duty concession, which was introduced by Dr. Dalton in 1947 after he had put up the tobacco duty by 43 per cent. and had acknowledged that if nothing had been done to help the old-age pensioners a most appalling burden would have been placed on the shoulders of those old-age pensioners who smoked. It is very instructive to read the HANSARD reports from that year right through until the time when the concession was abolished. In no time at all the Chancellor of the Exchequer was being attacked by numerous people who said that it was grossly unfair that only old-age pensioners should have the concession, and in no time at all he was being attacked from both sides of the House by those who said that it was grossly unfair that smokers should be helped by the State when non-smokers were not so helped. It was eventually agreed that the whole thing was nonsense, and the concession was abolished.

If this proposed concession were granted I would bet my bottom dollar that within a year or two we would find the Chancellor of the Exchequer being attacked from all sides by people advancing just the same arguments, and saying how unfair it was, for instance, that old-age pensioners should have a free television licence, whereas the disabled war pensioners did not get the same concession.

Returning to the tobacco concession, it is most interesting to look through HANSARD over the years and to find that, in the same month, on one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether he would extend the concession to disabled war pensioners, on another occasion whether he would extend it to all Service pensioners and to widows, and on another occasion whether he would issue tobacco tokens—I cannot quite see why—to teachers, policemen and civil servants. On yet another occasion he was asked to give tobacco concession tokens to everyone over the age of 65 who had drawn money from the National Assistance Board. The history of that concession on its own illustrates the difficulties and dangers involved in granting a concession in kind.

I do not want to become involved in a party political dogfight, but I must point out that the proposed concession was not granted by the previous Government, and did not appear in the 1970 manifesto. To refer to only one statement made by a member of the Government of that day, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in 1964, when he was Postmaster-General, that he had concluded that it would be wrong for him to seek powers to make a concession which would create serious anomalies. I urge the House to agree that if this concession, advocated by the Opposition, were granted it would lead to serious anomalies.

I think that the Government are opposing the motion not on grounds of finance but—I hope and think—on grounds of fairness; on the ground that it would be unfair to grant this concession to a limited category of people and to refuse it to all these other categories, such as the disabled, the war pensioners, the war widows, and the rest.

I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who, in his amendment asserts that the cost of a television licence inflicts hardship on many low income groups and not only on retirement pensioners. I also agree with him that in view of the incidence of evasion of payment of licence fees and the cost of collecting the licence fees a very good argument can be made out for changing the whole system of financing the BBC.

At the same time, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the BBC should be financed out of general taxation. I would go the whole hog and say that there is a very good case for advertising on at least some channels. I cannot see how the public would suffer if, instead of the BBC indulging in the most nauseating self-advertising—"Beautiful BBC", "Wonderful BBC", and the rest—it advertised something useful. The vast bulk of rubbish on BBC would not become any worse rubbish by being interrupted by a bit of advertising.

The present system is quite incomprehensible to the bulk of the population. The average man cannot see why the BBC should be financed out of licensing and the ITV not. When asked for the licence fee the average man is quite likely to reply, as, indeed was said to me by a constituent, "I can't pay, so will you please adjust my set so that I can just watch Granada?"

I recognise that there will not be such a massive change in the financing of the BBC in a matter of months or even years, but at least I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion that I made some time ago, that when the licence fee is as high as it is now there is a case for payment by quarterly instalments. The average working man does not walk about the place with that many pounds in his pocket, and should not normally be expected to pay £6 or £7 in one fell swoop. It is often said that this point is met by the fact that the Post Office issues a card which can he stamped by the person, enabling him to save up for the licence, but I do not agree that that meets my point.

I agree with those who say that in our present society a television is now a necesisty for old people, so that there is a very good argument for a substantial and generous increase in the old-age pension at the next review, simply as a recognition that these large expenses are now necessary expenses and not luxuries.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Our society treats its old people very shabbily. It often rejects them from family life and keeps the bulk of them in poverty. It subjects many to loneliness and isolation.

Today, we can do something about that. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we have made provision for television for some—unfortunately, the few. We should go on to tackle the problem for all old people. The old are very badly treated. They pay out almost a whole week's money for their television licence. If the average family paid on the same basis it would cost it £28.

We can demonstrate that on average the old receive less for their licence fee than the average family does. The pensioner's set is likely to be watched by far fewer people. It is more likely to be old, and not to be able to receive all channels. Of the 1 million 405-line sets that will remain in 1975, many will belong to pensioners. The pensioners are therefore often paying more for the service they receive than are the average family. The present system is very unjust.

The licence fee makes a difference to whether pensioners can afford a television set at all. The figure of 95 per cent. of families having television sets has been quoted. In a Standing Committee the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) once said that one-third of pensioner households did not have television sets. We must ask why there is that difference between 95 per cent. ownership on average and only 66 per cent in pensioner households. To some extent it will be because television is a new-fangled thing, but there is ample evidence that the reason for the difference is that the old cannot afford the licence. Many of them will not go into debt to find the licence fee, and they will not practice evasion.

Therefore, it is clear, particularly as the Supplementary Benefits Commission refuses to treat television as an essential, that there is need to deal with the problem of television for the elderly.

I am aware of the objections that the Government make. Despite concessionary bus fares and other concessions, objections are still raised to payments in kind. It is also true that if the licence were increased to £9, as at least one Conservative Member has suggested, some low-paid workers would be penalised.

I am attracted to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). The television licence should be abolished for all and the cost of the BBC service met from general taxation, because then the charge would not be regressive. My only proviso would be to make the term of any rolling grant longer than the length of a Parliament; I would make it seven years. That suggestion should be examined by an inquiry into broadcasting.

Until we have that inquiry, something should be done urgently for pensioners, because they are the people that were unemployed in the 1920s and 1930s and suffered deprivation and hardship during the war. The least we can do is to maintain the quality of their retirement as much as we can.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Finance is obviously the basis of the opposition by the present Government and the previous Labour Government to further television concessions to the elderly. It is said that it would be necessary to add £2 to the present television licence fee if help were given to the elderly to meet the cost of their licence. The answer is to change the source of the BBC's revenue. The Minister has said that the sale of advertising time would change the control of the BBC and make it lose its independence. I do not regard that prospect with horror, because I do not believe that the BBC has always demonstrated responsibility in programme content or balance.

The fear has been expressed that the community would look upon a television licence concession as something to be had as of right. I do not accept that. Some people are still too proud to ask for supplementary benefits. Some are on the borderline.

One hon. Member has argued that the concession would be misused, as it was in the case of tobacco. It is impossible for a television licence concession for the elderly living alone to be abused in that way.

It has also been argued that the extension of the concession would extend an existing anomaly. Certainly an anomaly exists. In one village in my constituency there are about 15 old-age pensioners' bungalows, each tenant of which obtains his television licence at the concessionary rate of 5p. A hundred yards away, on the same estate, there are 10–15 exactly similar old-age pensioners' bungalows, with the difference that they have no warden in charge. Because of that, the senior citizens in them have to pay the full television licence fee, if they can afford to own a television set and pay the full fee, even though they are no better off than the old people who have a warden in charge of them. It is an anomaly of the worst possible kind.

Naturally, in that part of my constituency there is anger, which I share deeply, that that discrimination exists within the space of a hundred yards. That ridiculous state of affairs may be repeated in many other parts of the Province, and throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members have referred to instances where it has occurred. The concession should apply to all old-age pensioners living on their own. Most of them find it difficult enough, with the constant rise in prices, to buy nourishing and attractive food and to pay for gas, electricity or coal.

Living alone, and often moved away from relatives and friends and away from areas that they have known for years, these people need some form of entertainment and recreation. I know the difficulties that the Government face, but they should not begrudge the elderly living alone a concession that would help to brighten their lives and provide a comfort that might have a beneficial effect on their health. The health of pensioners living alone, some of them immobile, with little or no form of recreation or entertainment, might well be affected by loneliness, which is a terrible thing.

I am deliberately being brief, as many other hon. Members want to take part in this interesting debate, so I shall refer finally to the matter in the context of Northern Ireland—my own troubled part of the United Kingdom, where fear and tension have had their terrible toll. There, the elderly have particularly suffered, and not only in the areas where the fighting has occured. They know of its existence and cannot help but fear in other areas, because they never know when a bomb might go off. They do not know what is happening in streets or towns. Fear is added to loneliness. A television licence concession would bring much comfort to old-age pensioners living alone.

Leaving aside Northern Ireland, I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others. If it had been selected, I should have voted for it. In the circumstances, I cannot support the Government, and I may abstain.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

We are all agreed that, ideally, old people should have a pension sufficiently large to enable them to dispose of it as they wish. In the legislation about the Common Market we were promised the prosperity which will enable this to happen. However, we must deal with the existing situation.

I, too, quibble with the word "concession". We should think instead in terms such as "recognition" or "privilege" or "right"; because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, the old people have borne the burden of two world wars and during the depression it was difficult for them to save or to accumulate any money or property. Anything that we are today as a nation and any standard of living or prosperity that we enjoy is due to their efforts over the years. Today many of them have a job to make ends meet and they are being crucified by rising prices. We should scrap the term "concession" and think instead in terms of recognition of the service that our elderly people rendered the nation.

The pension book should be a passport to various amenities, rights and privileges—such as free public transport. The possession of a pension book should carry the right to a free television licence; because, in the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), television is a window on the world and many old people have a great problem of loneliness.

If we approved the motion, many elderly people would find either that they could afford a set themselves or that people would give them one. At present people may be deterred from handing a television set to old people because they know it will involve them in heavy expenditure. I ask the Government to ignore the difficulties and to make a start on this course.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells)

I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) that our elderly people need recognition and privileges for the service they rendered over the difficult years that the country went through. My disagreement lies in the way that it is sought to grant this recognition. By trying to overcome one anomaly the hon. Member and those who think like him would create a substantial anomaly elsewhere.

It must not be forgotten that not all old-age pensioners either want television or are able to watch it. The older people get the less likely they are to be able to watch television. Eyesight fails for the over-80s. They find it difficult to watch television, and quickly tire of watching the "window on the".

How are we to help those who need help most of all? The over-80s and the very elderly are those we want to try to make a privileged class. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a start by introducing a pension for the over-80s. If it desired to give another £25 million to old-age pensioners, the money could be devoted to raising the pension for the over-80s. I hope that much more than £25 million will be made available for old-age pensioners in the uprating Bill which I trust will be announced shortly.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said, the best way of helping the elderly is to raise the amount of cash they have in their pockets, thus giving them more freedom of choice spending it. We should not say to them, "Television is wonderful. It is a window on the world. You should have it." We should say, "We will give you the cash to enable you to pay for the things you want to buy, whether you want to go away from your home for a week and spend your money in that way or to spend it on buying more food."

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

Any pensioner reading the report of the debate will find it difficult to understand that the House is debating a principle against the background of pensioners living in difficult circumstances. No one will disagree with the proposition that what pensioners want is adequate means to buy their own facilities. Pensioners would say that they do not have adequate means to buy their own facilities.

We must debate the question of free television licences as of right for all old-age pensioners against the background of the prevailing circumstances. I recognise the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), but the financing of the BBC, although an important subject, is not relevant to this debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury said that other countries coped with this problem by paying substantially higher pensions than we pay, and he instanced Germany. Pension rates in Germany are substantially higher, but West Germany still gives free television licences to pensioners in receipt of social security.

The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) will know that the Republic of Ireland gives free television licences to certain categories of old-age pensioner, one condition being that the pensioner must be in receipt of an old-age pension from the Department of Health and Social Security under the British Government. The situation is completely farcical.

The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said that the Minister might wave in her face the fact that the Post Office issues a card which can be stamped weekly and used for the purchase of a television licence. Another practice which is not widely known is that many people, including old-age pensioners, are paying for their television licence by a provident society check. They borrow money to pay for the licence and at the end of the day the licence costs substantially more because of the interest that has to be paid on the money borrowed.

The parliamentary majority of the Government may prevail and the House may vote against the motion. All that that will mean is that the day of decision has been postponed. Old-age pensioners have a right to demand, and will demand, a free television licence as of right, because of the important part television plays in people's lives, and the day will come when the House of Commons will eventually decide to grant that right.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth)

I am unable to support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am equally unable to support the motion.

My main problem is the anomaly between the 5p and the £7, which I am quite unable to explain to old-age pensioners in my constituency. I know of two people who live in the same road, one on one side and the other 15 yards away on the other side. One pays 5p and the other £7, and no amount of academic brilliance or argument will convince them that that is fair. One will look at the other through the window and say "I am paying 5p, ha-ha, and you are paying £7."

The letters I have received all stress the unfairness of this. Mrs. Newton says: I hope you will not mind me writing. Do you think it is fair that next month I will have to pay the full amount for my television licence when someone who lives just down the road will pay 1s. Do you think this is fair? Another person writes: The pensioners at 'the Elms' are going to pay 5p, but I live in a flat and I have to pay £7, but I cannot afford it any more than they can. Is this fair? It is the word "fair" that I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister. The postscript to that letter is: My licence is due in July. It took me a long time to see the relevance of that. The next letter says: I wonder if you would tell me why some old-age pensioners pay for their TV licence 5p while others have to pay £7? Could you let me know quickly as my TV licence is due next week? The most important factor that comes out of those two letters is that an old-age pensioner does not have £7 at hand to pay for the licence. I suspect, therefore, that some old-age pensioners are not buying a TV licence and are breaking the law. I expect that for the great majority it is the first time in their lives that they have ever done anything dishonest, but they are quite unable to meet the bill.

It may be said that old-age pensioners can save up the money each week. My experience is that they guard every penny. They are the only people who know to a penny how much they spend in a week. They say to me in my surgery "This week I managed to save 3p", or "This week I bought potatoes at a halfpenny less." That attitude does not go with having suddenly to pay out £7.

I wonder why the Conservative Party does not give way on minor issues such as museum charges, school milk, VAT and this issue? Why does my party allow minor issues to lose us so much public support, when it is well known that the Secretary of State has done more in the last two years than has any Secretary of State for Social Services this century? All the issues I have mentioned together would cost the Government 12 miles of motorway per year. I ask the Secretary of State when he next goes to the Cabinet to ask for 12 miles of motorway so that pensioners can have a free TV licence. Sympathy and understanding are not enough.

The finest point that has been made this afternoon was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) when she said that the worst illness of all is loneliness. When I am in a strange city abroad I am most ill at ease. I have noticed that when I have visited old-age pensioners they cling to one physically and hold one's hand longer than is normal because they see so few people. It is vital that we should do something about this.

I am equally unable to support the Opposition motion, despite its brevity. Who put up the pensions in the last two years? Not the Labour Party. Who gave the pensioners a £10 bonus at Christmas? Not the Labour Party. Who brought in the annual pensions review? Not the Labour Party. It is hypocrisy that the Labour Party should propose this motion tonight. I well remember Disraeli's words, that Opposition is organised hypocrisy.

The Government were kind enough to make an exemption in museum charges on an amendment which I put forward. Will the Minister tonight be kind enough to consider making a small concession? If so, we on this side of the House will be able to go into the Lobby with him. If he is unable to do that, I shall be unable to support either the Opposition motion or the Government amendment, and shall abstain.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

At the beginning of the debate the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made heavy weather of this deliberate request. I say "deliberate request" because we are not just debating the motion and the amendments. This matter has grown over six or seven years. I respond to what the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said so movingly to his Front Bench by saying that for my constituents for the last six or seven years this has not been a party matter.

When the Labour Government were in office I remember being called to address and to listen to a meeting of old-age pensioners 250 to 300 strong. The Conservative agent for the area—a lady below the age of 40, who could not be mistaken for an old-age pensioner—was sitting in the front row. I asked the chairman of that old-age pensioners' meeting, "What is Mrs. So-and-So doing here?" The reply was that it was all right, that she had asked to be admitted because she felt so passionately about the concession. It was a meeting at which we all felt that the concession must he extended to all retirement pensioners.

I do not want to make any cynical party points about whether or not the same pressure has been continued. What matters is that for years it has been proposed to me, as their Member, by people of all parties and of no party. I have been urged again and again, as practically all other right hon. and hon. Members have been, to put this proposal forward at the earliest opportunity. We are doing that tonight.

Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand how people can use the time of this short debate to burden it with the question of the whole of the financial reconstruction of the BBC, or with all sorts of perfectionist arguments; whether we are going to solve almost all other social problems at one and the same time if we agree that this concession should be extended to all old-age pensioners. That is not the purpose of the debate. I cannot understand why the Minister—who, I would have hoped, would have been fighting in Cabinet to present this demand—should have made such a wooden speech as he did this afternoon.

The Government are asked now not to act in pure, cold logic. The argument which the Minister put forward—that anomalies have been created in the past—should not deter a British Government from taking action. Surely it has been a basic principle of most British Governments that they cannot go for the perfectly logical solution when a situation has grown up over the years and created certain feelings and requests among millions of our people. The fact that if this suggestion is approved tonight many people will be satisfied and many millions of old-age pensioners will feel that an attempt is being made at some cost to the taxpayer to do right by them will outweigh any fear the Minister may have that there may be another, smaller, group of people who feel that this concession should be extended to them. If, when we started building our social services, way back in 1905, this perfectionist principle had been applied, most of the essential services would never have been created.

I conclude by making one comparison. It has been announced in a White Paper published 24 hours ago that there will be an increase in total defence expenditure to beyond £3,000 million—an actual immediate increase of £500 million. This is not the day to argue the rights and wrongs of that decision, but I tell the Government that it will be difficult for our old-age pensioners to understand why another £500 million should be made available to the defence budget if it is not possible to have between £12 million and £20 million for this necessary reform. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to reconsider and to fall in with the obvious wishes of the large majority of the House.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

I could not agree with the Opposition motion that all old-age pensioners should receive the concession in this way because it seems to me that that would mean that as well as helping those in need we should be helping pensioners who are not in need and are perfectly capable of paying the licence fee themselves. It is a case of getting one's priorities right. It is totally wrong to introduce blanket legislation of this sort. On the same principle, I would be against a blanket reduction of £2, or whatever amount has been suggested. To that also the same objection applies.

Nonetheless, I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us some indication that his mind is still fresh on the matter—that it is not totally closed to the proposition of ensuring that in some way these old-age pensioners could have access to their own televison sets because the full cost of the licence would be rebated. It would mean some diminution of the loneliness which many of them feel.

I fully take the point about the old-age pension. We wish it could be increased so that it included this fee, but we all know that in spite of the 35 per cent. increase in the value of the pension—which we all welcome—we cannot expect a pension which will enable pensioners to pay the television licence fee.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one way of doing this—it would be an interim solution—would be through the social work departments, in the same way as, in certain cases, free installation and free rental of telephones is provided. The social work department could consider a case in the light of certain broad criteria and guidelines laid down by the House, in the same way as it would consider the question of a telephone installation, and it could recommend to the social security office that it pay in exactly the same way as, de facto, is already happening with telephone installations.

I am not proposing a new principle; I am merely proposing the extension of a present practice which is helpful. The proposal would give maximum flexibility in dealing with those who are living alone, those who are living below certain income levels, those who are disabled, and so on. The concession could apply not only to pensioners but to others, if the social work department so recommended. It seems to me that the proposal provides for flexibility and practicality, and I would welcome it as an interim solution of what most hon. Members agree is a problem. The cost would be more than £12 million, which would result from cutting the licence in half, but no more than £20 million.

I close by urging my right hon. Friend to consider this proposal and see whether the Department of Health and Social Security could combine with the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications in devising a way of helping old-age pensioners in need to have their licence fees rebated.

7.28 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove)

I want to make only three short points. First, the House should be crystal clear that a concession does not necessarily mean—and certainly this concession does not mean—that pensioners are to get something for nothing. Our pensioners—our senior citizens—have worked, toiled and sweated, and have given their blood all those years, and what they should be getting now are riot concessions but rights.

Secondly, on the question of kind or cash, when one talks of pensioners having enough money one observes that no one who has worked hard for his living ever has enough money for all the extras which are necessary for him to live a full life in his old age and retirement. I welcome the extension of some kind of emolument in kind, because I believe most passionately that this is a way in which we can redistribute wealth, and one way in which it can be extended to other sections of the population. There is no reason why we should not extend it to these pensioners almost immediately.

Thirdly, there is a psychological aspect. Many of our senior citizens feel that the rest of us care for them when we do something like this. There is a very strong element in the old-age pensioner section of our society that younger people do not seem to care very much about what happens to them. The mere fact that we discuss measures which are intended to help them is of tremendous psychological value to this very important section of the community.

For these reasons I urge the Government to make some concession this evening. I ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends to support most strenuously the Opposition's motion. I am sure they will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Before calling the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), I should like, on behalf of the whole House, to offer my sincere congratulations to everyone who has spoken in the debate. In two-and-threequarter hours, 25 hon. Members have spoken, averaging seven minutes each.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

Following your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the first thing I should say to the Secretary of State, who is to reply, is that what has impressed me most is that I have seen more hon. Members speak- ing and trying to speak in the debate and listening to the arguments about this subject than for a very long time. That seems to indicate that there is a great strength of feeling not only in the House but throughout the country as a whole.

It has become crystal clear to me, since taking over my particular responsibility, that the majority of people in this country, irrespective of party interests, want to do something for retirement pensioners. Many people see the motion today as one way—I do not pretend that it is the only way—of helping old-age pensioners.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and other hon. Members have said that the best way to help pensioners is to give them a greater pension. However, I argue—I hope that the Minister will accept this as a genuine contribution to the debate—that this concession, modest though it may be, is very important and would be greatly appreciated by the pensioners.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who normally deals with these problems, knows, from the dozens of Questions that have been put down to him by hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, often by his hon. Friends, that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this strength of feeling comes from a number of factors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) pointed out, not least the fact that older people at this time are having difficulty in making ends meet. They have to pay the same prices for food and clothes as everybody else. No matter what Ministers may say about price controls, pensioners claim that their income is not rising sufficiently to meet their expenditure. Indeed, during the last few months hon. Members opposite, in the exchanges at Question Time, have been suggesting that the most compelling reason for this concession is the effect of inflation on old people. Some go further and suggest that, whilst they understand the difficulty of price control on food, controlling the cost of a television licence is a matter that lies with the Government. It can be reduced or abolished for all old people if the Cabinet wishes it to be so.

I started my thinking on this matter some years ago, because in my constituency is one of the best clinics in the country for old people where much research has been done in gerontology. Those who have expertise in this subject constantly impressed on my mind that the first principle of care of the elderly is for old folk to be allowed to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. It is the duty of our society to make certain that all the necessary assistance is given for them to remain in their own homes by way of home help, meals on wheels, and so on. This point has been made by many hon. Members today.

In this context it is important that retired persons should feel part of the community. In that way TV is their link. It does not much matter whether they are watching "Match of the Day", "News at Ten", or whatever. Television is their great link. Many pensioners regard it as part of their priority spending in much the same way as they regard their rent, electricity bills, and so on.

Perhaps the Minister can confirm that, much as we are concerned about licence evasion, we do not find much licence evasion among old-age pensioners, who certainly live up to their responsibilities in this way.

It seems, therefore, that, since the presence of a televsion set in a pensioner's home is an essential item of modern living, we must ask ourselves how we can help.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, when Postmaster-General, started a concession. In fairness, that concession has been extended by the present administration. At that time it gave rise to a lot of thinking not only about the anomalies but about how best we could help old people to get similar assistance.

In 1971 the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—I am delighted that he should take part in the debate today—got an unopposed Second Reading for his Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill and got it through Committee upstairs, albeit amended, but unhappily it was allowed to die because of the time factor.

Since then there have been dozens of Questions to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications about this matter. Whether they have been for abolition or reductions, the general consensus of hon. Members is that something ought to be done in this sphere. It may be that not all hon. Gentlemen agree with the Opposition motion, but, clearly, something must be done. In common, therefore, with most hon. Members, I have given that which I like to call my mind to the problem. I have thought about it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and other hon. Members have thought about it.

I thought that BBC finances might provide the answer. This proposition certainly has a lot of attraction. The collection of the licence fee is a difficult administrative exercise. As 95 per cent. or more of the population pay tax in this way, it may be time that we gave serious consideration to the problem. I do not think that this is the right time to discuss it, because, with deference to my right hon. Friend, I think that this is rather longer term than the motion suggests. The motion is of more immediate relevance to the problem of television in the home of the retirement pensioner.

Mr. Robort Cooke

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackenzie

No. The hon. Gentleman has not taken, or attempted to take, part in the debate. I have no intention of giving way. He has not tried to make a speech.

Mr. Cooke rose——

Mr. Mackenzie

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not tried to take part in the debate.

Mr. Cooke rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules.

Mr. Mackenzie

I do this because I have been asked to speak for only 15 minutes, as has the Minister. In fairness to hon. Members who have tried to take part in the debate and are not just sitting there shouting and sniggering, I shall continue to make my speech and take no notice of the hon. Gentleman.

I thought that we could make this concession through supplementary benefit. That proposition has much attraction. In an administrative sense, it might not be too difficult, but there is one problem. As the Secretary of State for Social Services knows, there are many people who, because they have another small pension, might have an income which takes them just above the level of supplementary benefit. Therefore, it seems a little unfair to do it in that way.

I have considered every aspect. I have seen how such a concession operates in European countries, most of which operate a concession of one kind or another. But, no matter the system that I have examined, I find it difficult to draw a dividing line which will make it fair to everyone. In the end I come back to a system which is simple, easy to administer, and not a costly exercise. I come back, in fact, to the simple view which finds expression in the Opposition motion.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has argued time and again about the anomalies of a simple scheme such as I have put forward. We must ask ourselves whether a licence concession such as this will outweigh the disadvantages of the anomalies and all the other difficulties.

I am a great believer in the good driving out evil. In this case I genuinely believe that the good which will come from giving a concession of some kind would be very much greater than the problems and anomalies likely to arise from it.

The Minister has suggested some of the anomalies and difficulties. Some months ago, under considerable pressure, he decided that he would have a review. He had his review. I do not know how many people were against and how many were in favour. But it is my guess that the majority were in favour of a concession of some kind. However, he came back to this House saying how sorry he was to disappoint a number of his hon. Friends. If he could have seen their faces behind him he would have realised how very disappointed they were. He said that he could not give this concession because there were other groups of people a great deal worse off than old-age pensioners. He asked about young folk who cannot afford a television at all. It may be that there are people who cannot afford a television. I know that there are many disabled people living in difficult circumstances. But I do not know of any group of people in our society who have received more sympathy on this issue than the pensioners, and I believe that we are right to make a start on solving the problem.

The second point which the Minister makes continually, in common with some of his hon. Friends and one of my own, is that successive Governments have done nothing about the problem. So what? It may be that if this House had never changed its attitude over the years we should still have kids working down the pits. Fortunately, from time to time we change our attitudes, and to illustrate that I need only point to the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has changed his attitude on prices and incomes.

Between 1951 and 1964 there was a demand for pensions for the over-80s. Nothing happened. In 1964 the Conservatives went into opposition which wonderfully concentrated their minds. Then they became the Government once again and decided to introduce a Bill incorporating the proposal which had been made so frequently by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

The other argument sometimes used by the Minister and a number of his hon. Friends is that if we were to give a broadly based concession of this kind some of those who did not need it would get it. I understand that argument. However, I confess that I am much more concerned about the 999 retired steelworkers in my constituency who would get it than about trying to ensure that the Duke of Timbuktu or whoever it might be did not get it.

Another argument which is always put forward is that people will bring their relatives to live with them simply to get the £7. One of my hon. Friends said to me quite recently "If you think I am bringing my mother-in-law to live with me for the sake of seven quid, you are more naive than I thought." The truth is that the majority of ordinary young people want to bring their parents to live with them. They want to live up to their duties and responsibilities.

The really big difficulty, of course, concerns money. Who is to pay for it? That is the greatest obstacle. I have referred to a number of the problems, but we should not fool ourselves. The biggest problem is to decide who will be responsible for the £25 million. If the Government once solved that problem all the anomalies and difficulties that we hear about would disappear from ministerial briefs like snow off a dyke.

The Secretary of State for Social Services has the reputation of being a man of great compassion. He is also a highly skilled debater. The hope of this House tonight is that the right hon. Gentleman's heart will get the better of his tongue. No doubt he will find flaws. Over the weekend I talked to a number of people in my constituency. I found very few dissentient voices. People know the record of this Government in broadcasting. They know that it is a handout to commercial radio. If rumours be true, there is to be a further handout in terms of a fourth television channel. People are saying that in a situation where there are all these handouts it is about time that a bob or two was given at the other end.

Frequently, when I say something with which he does not agree, my Chief Whip says to me, "Put your money where your mouth is". It is a favourite expression of his. There is a great deal in that argument. It is one that we ought to consider. Our old people will not be impressed by a lot of clever arguments. They see this as a straightforward and simple issue. Their message to this House is quite clear. They say "We do not wish to hear any more hand-on-the-heart speeches and the kind of sentimental slush served up to us at Christmas dinners". They say to us "Put your money where your mouth is and give the old folk free television licences".

7.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph)

May I say what an impressively vigorous debate this has been and how strongly argued and strongly felt, as well as crisp and brief, the speeches have been?

I thoroughly understand the generous instincts of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish sincerely to enlarge the horizons of the elderly. There is no party monopoly of strength of view. Both Front Benches have had their critics. I have the difficult task of trying to present the reality of the position, which, as my right hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, is a matter of priorities.

I suggest that hon. Members have been taking too narrow a view of the needs of the elderly. I sympathise very much with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who spoke of a new dimension. But there is one dimension which hon. Members have omitted totally and which the Government have to take into account. There are some needs of the elderly which no Government can provide. They need function, they need family and they need friends. We are not discussing the housing needs of the elderly, to which the Government can contribute largely.

Within the subject that we are discussing the Government have to provide help for the elderly in cash terms and in terms of services. Most hon. Members have agreed that if cash were sufficient there would be no case to argue for free television licences. Most hon. Members have said that if cash were enough the elderly should be left to choose their own preferences. They went on to say that cash was very tight for many of the elderly.

The fact is that 83 per cent. of households containing pensioners have television sets and buy television licences. I do not lean too heavily on that. But I draw from it the inference that in the majority of cases pensioners who want television can provide it for themselves.

Hon. Members must bear in mind that there is a vast range of services vital for the elderly which they cannot provide for themselves and which the Government and public expenditure must provide. When this Government came to office we found long neglected sectors affecting the elderly in our national life. We found a hospital service in which geriatric hospitals were almost stagnant backwaters staffed by devoted, over-worked staff. We found a number of other neglected sectors. I am not pointing the finger at any one Government, because over decades these services have been relatively neglected.

Of course I am not pretending that this Government have solved the problem, but they have provided for a record growth in expenditure on the National Health Service and on local authority community services and injected an additional £250 million, on top of the annual increases, of extra money for specifically neglected services, of which services for the elderly in hospital and in the community were among the foremost.

Let me give the House—I am coming on to the question of television licences—some of the results of these priorities. Capital spending in the National Health Service on services for the elderly this year will be, in real terms, three times the capital spending on those services in the last year of the Labour Government. It is not enough—of course I am not saying that it is—but there are now more day hospitals, more upgraded wards, more staff—not enough, but more. Loan approvals for Part III accommodation are at a record level. There has been a record increase year by year in health visitors and chiropodists.

These are services that the elderly cannot provide for themselves. In the essential service of home helps, there was an increase during six Labour years of 12½ per cent. in the number of whole-time equivalent home helps. In our last two years there has been an increase, whole-time equivalent, in the number of home helps of no less than 16 per cent.—8 per cent. a year, compared with 2 per cent. Meals for the elderly are up 25 per cent. in the last two years. These are among the Government's priorities for the elderly.

As for cash, of course we all want the pension to increase faster in real buying power. Seen year by year—and we have now switched, after decades of begging from pensioners, to an annual uprating—the pension, in real buying power, creeps up. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was right to point out that over the last 20 years the real buying power of the pension has doubled.

Had we been more prosperous and successful, we could, as Germany for instance has done, have done much better for the pensioner. We are none of us complacent about it, but it does increase in real buying power. It is a fact that during these years the Tory record has been substantially better in increasing the real buying power of the pension than that of the Labour Party.

I am not arguing that all pensioners can afford television licences. I am arguing that large numbers do afford them and that, because the pension increases now year by year, there is a shade more discretionary buying power in their hands than there was.

Why do not the other 17 per cent. of pensioner households who do not have have a television set have one? I do not disagree for a moment with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), the right hon. Member for Devon, North, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) or the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) that, seen objectively, a television set gives them a possible expansion of vitality in life. But I would not altogether agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North that a television set reduces isolation. It may reduce isolation when it is a novelty in a household, but it tends later, perhaps, to reinforce isolation.

I am not denying that some cannot afford it—that is agreed—that some have needs that leave them no discretionary spending power or that some have other preferences. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has been working for some years in the cause of more accessible television for the elderly and whose devotion to this cause we all respect, quoted Tunstall's book, "Old and Alone", which admittedly was written six or so years ago. After a survey of the wishes of the elderly, Tunstall found that watching television came sixth in their list of main pleasures.

Mr. John Mendelson

Then why do they all write to us?

Sir K. Joseph

Let me develop the argument.

Tunstall reported, on page 196, that those who did not have television seemed to be about equally divided for and against television. Obviously, many of those who do not have television and are in favour of it are prevented from having it by financial reasons, but there is a minority of pensioners included in the 17 per cent. that do not have a television set who, according to Tunstall, do not want one.

Why do they not want one? My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), in a speech which my hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told me was absolutely first-class—I am sorry that I missed it—gave one of the reasons and only one. After all, 8 per cent. of what, in the Amelia Harris survey, are termed the impaired section of the population are blind or partially-sighted. Some blind people like television, but a number of blind and partially-sighted elderly people do not find that a television set is something that they particularly want.

I am simply saying to my hon. Friends and the House as a whole that we cannot assume that the entire 17 per cent. of the elderly who do not have television are prevented from having it because they cannot afford it. Table 141 in the Amelia Harris survey shows that, with increasing age, larger and larger proportions of people who have television sets no longer use them.

So some would like and would use television if they had more money, but not all by any means of those who do not have television among the elderly want one. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster must accept that, even among the elderly living alone, all income groups are represented. There are those among them who could perfectly well afford the licence fee, as well as those who could not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was absolutely right to say that the prime beneficiaries of this proposal would not necessarily be the 17 per cent. who do not have a television, because one has to have a television to pay the licence fee, but the 83 per cent. who have one at the moment and who pay a licence fee—some without strain and some with strain. There are a number of other excellent causes for which the House would like to vote extra resources. The disabled will want to know why the elderly should have a preference over the severely disabled. Why not telephones, if we are going for benefits in kind, a number of my hon. Friends have asked.

Government and local authorities have a number of needs, urgent and valid, to serve, and it is not absolutely clear to me or to the Government that this provision is the top priority. Where there are very strong arguments for a totally housebound and isolated elderly person whose life would be much improved by television, the local authority has discretion to help. But I must not conceal from the House that the local authority has a mass of competing claims for money, which, although increasing, is admittedly never enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asks: if local authorities have discretion, why not the Government? But the Government are far too remote to reach out and identify those hard cases whom local authorities can identify and help, if that makes sense in their priorities.

Mr. Marten

On this question of additional resources, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was here at the time but the proposition that I put to the House required no additional resources, merely a small surcharge on the existing licence holders to reduce the licence fee for the old-age pensioners.

Sir K. Joseph

My hon. Friend must recognise that that would mean that some much poorer people would be paying an extra licence fee to support some of the relatively better-off pensioners.

I cannot even offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) the easy way out, of undertaking to ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to give a priority to television. The Supplementary Benefits Commission, after all, has much greater imperatives in its range of needs, particularly, for instance, heating. The Government are always ready to listen to ideas. But I very much hope that before my hon. Friend decides on his vote tonight, he will have taken into account the arguments I have put forward.

I am not for a moment attempting to defend the anomaly. It causes great resentment to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and the hon. Member for Goole (Dr Marshall), who are all, I am sure, quite right. But, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said, there is not much point in removing one anomaly by creating a host of others.

I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that to give free television licences to all pensioners because a relatively small minority who cannot afford them passionately want one would be a wrong use of public money at a time when many hon. Members are criticising the Government's public spending policies.

I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends that, against the background of the extra money which the Government have put into services for the elderly and the move to annual upratings, this should not be our top priority.

Where would the money come from? The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the right hon. Member for Wednesbury made constructive speeches. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East criticised his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for omitting to tell us where the money would come from. But I shall tell the right hon. Gentlemen where Labour

spokesmen would say the money will come from: "It will come from the surtax concession." I have a list of the number of times that this surtax concession has been spent, and spent, and spent again.

Mr. Marten

The Opposition change their minds.

Sir K. Joseph

As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury says, it is absolutely proper and legitimate for an ex-Government to change their minds and their policies when they go into opposition. But it is surely unprincipled for an Opposition to make a change of policy after flatly rejecting free licences for television for pensioners when in office, and to change their policies without explaining why. The right hon. Gentlemen never explain why.

I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the motion and vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 249.

Division No. 61.]	AYES	[8.3 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Cooper, A. E.	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Cordle, John	Goodhart, Philip
Amery, Rt Hn. Julian	Cormack, Patrick	Goodhew, Victor
Astor, John	Costain, A. P.	Gower, Raymond
Atkins, Humphrey	Crouch, David	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Awdry, Daniel	Crowder, F. P.	Gray, Hamish
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Green, Alan
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Grieve, Percy
Bell, Ronald	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Dean, Paul	Grylls, Michael
Benyon, W.	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F	Gummer, J. Selwyn
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Gurden, Harold
Biffen, John	Dixon, Piers	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Biggs-Davison, John	Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Blaker, Peter	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Drayson, G. B.	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Body, Richard	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Hannam, John (Exeter)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Dykes, Hugh	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bowden, Andrew	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Haselhurst, Alan
Braine, Sir Bernard	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hastings, Stephen
Bray, Ronald	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Havers, Sir Michael
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Emery, Peter	Hawkins, Paul
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Eyre, Reginald	Hayhoe, Barney
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fell, Anthony	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Heseltine, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Hicks, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Higgins, Terence L.
Buck, Antony	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hiley, Joseph
Burden, F. A.	Fookes, Miss Janet	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fortescue, Tim	Holland, Philip
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)	Foster, Sir John	Holt, Miss Mary
Carlisle, Mark	Fowler, Norman	Hordern, Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Fox, Marcus	Hornby, Richard
Chapman, Sydney	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Chichester-Clark, R.	Fry, Peter	Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Churchill, W. S.	Gardner, Edward	Howell, David (Guildford)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Gibson-Watt, David	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Cockeram, Eric	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Iremonger, T. L.
Cooke, Robert	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Jamas, David	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Montgomery, Fergus	Shersby, Michael
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	More, Jasper	Simeons, Charles
Jessel, Toby	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Sinclair, Sir George
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Morrison, Charles	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Jopling, Michael	Mudd, David	Soref, Harold
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Murton, Oscar	Speed, Keith
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Neave, Airey	Spence, John
Kimball, Marcus	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Sproat, lain
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Stainton, Keith
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Normanton, Tom	Stanbrook, Ivor
Kinsey, J. R.	Nott, John	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Kitson, Timothy	Onslow, Cranley	Stokes, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Sutcliffe, John
Knox, David	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Tapsell, Peter
Lambton, Lord	Osborn, John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lamont, Norman	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Lane, David	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Langtord-Holt, Sir John	Parkinson, Cecil	Tebbit, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer	Peel, Sir John	Temple, John M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Percival, Ian	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Longden, Sir Gilbert	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Loveridge, John	Pink, R. Bonner	Tilney, John
Luce, R. N	Pounder, Rafton	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Trew, Peter
MacArthur, Ian	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Tugendhat, Christopher
McCrindle, R. A.	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin
McLaren, Martin	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Vickers, Dame Joan
McMaster, Stanley	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Waddington, David
Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)	Raison, Timothy	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Wall, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Walters, Dennis
Maddan, Martin	Redmond, Robert	Ward, Dame Irene
Madel, David	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Warren, Kenneth
Maginnls, John E.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mather, Carol	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Maude, Angus	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Wiggin, Jerry
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Ridsdale, Julian	Wilkinson, John
Mawby, Ray	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mills, Peter (Torringlon)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Woodnutt, Mark
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Worsley, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman	Royle, Anthony	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Younger, Hn. George
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Molyneaux, James	Scott, Nicholas	Mr. Walter Clegg and
Money. Ernie	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Dunn, James A.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Dunnett, Jack
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Eadie, Alex
Armstrong, Ernest	Cohen, Stanley	Edelman, Maurice
Atkinson, Norman	Concannon, J. D.	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Conlan, Bernard	Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Barnes, Michael	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Ellis, Tom
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	English, Michael
Baxter, William	Crawshaw, Richard	Evans, Fred
Beaney, Alan	Cronin, John	Ewing, Harry
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Faulds, Andrew
Bidwell, Sydney	Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Dalyell, Tam	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Booth, Albert	Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Foot, Michael
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Davidson, Arthur	Ford, Ben
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckfand)	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Forester, John
Bradley, Tom	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Galpern, Sir Myer
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Garrett, W. E.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Gilbert, Dr. John
Buchan, Norman	Deakins, Eric	Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Buchanan. Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Gourlay, Harry
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Dempsey, James	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Dormand, J. D.	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Cant, R. B.	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Carmichael, Neil	Driberg, Tom	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Carter. Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)	Duffy. A. E. P.	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	McGuire, Michael	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hamilton, William (File, W.)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Roper, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mackie, John	Rose, Paul B.
Hardy, Peter	Maclennan, Robert	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Rowlands, Ted
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	McNamara, J. Kevin	Sandelson, Neville
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Heffer, Eric S.	Marks, Kenneth	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Hilton, W. S.	Marquand, David	Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)
Hooson, Emlyn	Marsden, F.	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Howell, Denis CSmall Heath)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Silverman, Julius
Huckfield, Leslie	Mayhew, Christopher	Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Meacher, Michael	Small, William
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Mendelson, John	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Millan, Bruce	Spearing, Nigel
Hunter, Adam	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Spriggs, Leslie
lrvlne,Rt.Hn.SlrArthur(Edge Hill)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Stallard, A. W.
Janner, Greville	Molloy, William	Steel, David
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechlord)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Strang, Gavin
John, Brynmor	Moyle, Roland	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Oakes, Gordon	Swain, Thomas
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Ogden, Eric	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	O'Halloran, Michael	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	O'Malley, Brian	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Oram, Bert	Tinn, James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Orbach, Maurice	Tomney, Frank
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Orme, Stanley	Tope, Graham
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Oswald, Thomas	Torney, Tom
Judd, Frank	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Tuck, Raphael
Kaufman, Gerald	Padley, Walter	Varley, Eric G.
Kelley, Richard	Palmer, Arthur	Wainwright, Edwin
Kerr, Russell	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Kinnock, Neil	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lambie, David	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Wallace, George
Lamborn, Harry	Pavitt, Laurie	Watkins, David
Lamond, James	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Weitzman, David
Lawson, George	Pendry, Tom	Wellbeloved, James
Leadbitter, Ted	Perry, Ernest G.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Prentice, Rt. Hn Reg.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Lestor, Miss Joan	Prescott, John	Whitlock, William
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Price, William (Rugby)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Lewis. Ron (Carlisle)	Probert, Arthur	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Llpton, Marcus	Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lomas, Kenneth	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Loughlin, Charles	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Richard, Ivor	Woof, Robert
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McBride, Neil	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
McCartney, Hugh	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)	Mr. John Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided:Ayes 279, Noes 249.

Division No. 62.]	AYES	[8.16 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bossom, Sir Clive	Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bowden, Andrew	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Braine, Sir Bernard	Cockeram, Eric
Astor, John	Bray, Ronald	Cooke, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey	Br in Ion, Sir Tatton	Cooper, A. E.
Awdry, Daniel	Brockiebank-Fowler, Christopher	Cordle, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Cormack, Patrick
Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Costain, A. P.
Bell, Ronald	Bryan, Sir Paul	Crouch, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)	Crowder, F. P.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Buck, Antony	Davles, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)
Benyon, W.	Burden, F. A.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jack
Biffen, John	Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)	Dean, Paul
Biggs-Davison, John	Carlisle, Mark	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Blaker, Peter	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Chapman, Sydney	Dixon, Piers
Body, Richard	Chichester-Clark, R.	Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Churchill, W. S.	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Drayson, G. B.	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Raison, Timothy
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Keilett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Dykes, Hugh	Kimball, Marcus	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John	King, Evelyn (Dorsal, S.)	Redmond, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kinsey, J. R.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)	Kitson, Timothy	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Emery, Peter	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eyre, Reginald	Knox, David	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Fell, Anthony	Lambton, Lord	Ridsdale, Julian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Lamont, Norman	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Lane, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Le Marchant, Spencer	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fortescue, Tim	Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)	Royle, Anthony
Foster, Sir John	Longden, Sir Gilbert	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fowler, Norman	Loveridge, John	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Fox, Marcus	Luce, R. N.	Scott, Nicholas
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fry, Peter	MacArthur, Ian	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Gardner, Edward	McCrindle, R. A.	Shersby, Michael
Gibson-Watt, David	McLaren, Martin
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Simeons, Charles
Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)	McMaster, Stanley	Sinclair, Sir George
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Godber, Rt. Hn J. B.	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'minglon)
Goodhart, Philip	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Soref, Harold
Goodhew, View	Maddan, Martin	Speed, Keith
Gower, Raymond	Madel, David	Spenca, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Maginnis, John E.	Sproat, lain
Gray, Hamish	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Stainton, Keith
Green, Alan	Mather, Carol	Stanbrook, Ivor
Grieve,Percy	Maude, Angus	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maudllng, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Grylis, Michael	Mawby, Ray	Stokes, John
Cummer, J. Selwyn	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Sutcliffe, John
Gurden, Harold	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Tapsell, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Miscampbell, Norman	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)	Tebbit, Norman
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Temple, John M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Molyneaux, James	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Money, Ernie	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Haselhurst, Alan	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Thomas, Rt, Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hastings, Stephen	Montgomery, Fergus	Tilney, John
Havers, Sir Michael	More, Jasper	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul	Morgan, Geralnt (Denbigh)	Trew, Peter
Kayhoe, Barney	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Tugendhat, Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Morrison, Charles	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Heseltine, Michael	Mudd, David	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hicks, Robert	Murton, Oscar	Vickers, Dame Joan
Higgins, Terence L.	Neave, Alrey	Waddington, David
Hiley, Joseph	Nlcholls, Sir Harmar	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Wall, Patrick
Holland, Philip	Normanton, Tom	Walters, Dennis
Holt, Miss Mary	Nott, John	Ward, Dame Irene
Hordern, Peter	Onslow, Cranley	Warren, Kenneth
Hornby, Richard	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hornsby-Smilh.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Orr. Capt. L. P. S.	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Osborn, John	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Howell, David (Guildford)	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Wilkinson, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Parkinson, Cecil	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Iremonger, T. L.	Peel, Sir John	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
James, David	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Woodnutt, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Worsley, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Pink, R. Bonner	Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Jessel, Toby	Pounder, Rafton	Younger Hn. George
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jopling, Michael	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Mr. Walter Clegg and
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Mr. Bernard Weatherill
	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
	Quennell, Miss J. M.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Barnes, Michael	Bidwell, Sydney
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Blenkinsop, Arthur
Armstrong, Ernest	Baxter, William	Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Atkinson, Norman	Beaney, Alan	Booth, Albert

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bradley, Tom	Huckfield, Leslie	Padley, Walter
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hunter, Adam	Pavitt, Laurie
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Janner, Greville	Pendry, Tom
Cant, R. B.	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Perry, Ernest G.
Carmichael, Neil	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Prescott, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Price, William (Rugby)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	John, Brynmor	Probert, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Conlan, Bernard	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Richard, Ivor
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Cronin, John	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Judd, Frank	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Kaufman, Gerald	Roper, John
Dalyell, Tam	Kelley, Richard	Rose, Paul B.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Kerr, Russell	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davidson, Arthur	Kinnock, Neil	Rowlands, Ted
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Lambie, David	Sandelson, Neville
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lamborn, Harry	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lamond, James	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lawson, George	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Leadbitter, Ted	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Deakins, Eric	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lestor, Miss Joan	Silverman, Julius
Dempsey, James	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Skinner, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Small, William
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lipton, Marcus	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Driberg, Tom	Lomas, Kenneth	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Loughlin, Charles.	Spearing, Nigel
Dunn, James A.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Stallard, A. W.
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Steel, David
Eadie, Alex	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Edelman, Maurice	McBride, Neil	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McCartney, Hugh	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McElhone, Frank	Strang, Gavin
Ellis, Tom	McGuire, Michael	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
English, Michael	Mackenzie, Gregor	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Evans, Fred	Mackie, John	Swain, Thomas
Ewing, Harry	Maclennan, Robert	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Faulds, Andrew	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tinn, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Marks, Kenneth	Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael	Marquand, David	Tope, Graham
Ford, Ben	Marsden, F.	Torney, Tom
Forrester, John	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Tuck, Raphael
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Varley, Eric G.
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mayhew, Christopher	Wainwright, Edwin
Garrett, W. E.	Meacher, Michael	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Gilbert, Dr. John	Hellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Mendelson, John	Wallace, George
Gourlay, Harry	Millan, Bruce	Watkins, David
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Weitzman, David
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Wellbeloved, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Molloy, William	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Whitlock, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Moyle, Roland	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Hardy, Peter	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oakes, Gordon	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Ogden, Eric	Woof, Robert
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	O'Halloran, Michael
Heffer, Eric S.	O'Malley, Brian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hilton, W. S.	Oram, Bert	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hooson, Emlyn	Orbach, Maurice	Mr. John Golding.
	Orme, Stanley
Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions.