HC Deb 24 June 1980 vol 987 cc420-2
Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 14, line 27, at end insert— '(5) The provisions of Schedule 2 of this Act shall not come into force until an order has been laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State and has been approved by an affirmative resolution of each House.'. I wish to put a brief case about the levy. Even at this late hour, it is a case worth putting. I shall try to put my case in two minutes. We deployed the general case about the local broadcasting levy in Committee. We lost that case, and for the moment that is that. The Minister will recall that in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which I shall quote, as it will save time, we said: If, as the Government expects, an expanded system of independent local radio is successful, it is also likely to be profitable … it is right that the public should have some share in them. There is no disagreement on that matter. The paragraph continued: In the early years, this share will take the form of finance for the expansion of independent local radio by means of cross-subsidisation through the rental system. Thereafter, however, this share of the profitability … could be of a more direct nature, in the form of a levy similar to that which applies to … the independent television companies. We said that proposals for the eventual introduction of such a levy would be included in legislation. There is no disagreement about the need for a levy, but the point of the argument in that paragraph is the same as the Government's argument. Rental should be cross-subsidised through the rental system.

1 am

How will the expansion go? If it were about 80 per cent. I could see the case for the levy being introduced. Will the levy be right? We are experiencing inflation. How much profit will be earned by companies? When private companies are not making profits, will they advertise as much as before? We are talking of a form of taxation. The Government should justify the introduction of the levy.

Mr. Brittan

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for putting the argument so succinctly. I shall reply in similar form.

There is a wide measure of agreement about the levy and its application, but should there be a requirement for parliamentary procedure before the levy is first brought in? We believe that there should be no such requirement, since the rate of the levy is expressed in the Bill and the House takes a view about the levy when it passes the Bill. Changing the level of levy is another matter. Different procedures would then be appropriate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to