Television Licensing (Hansard, 25 May 1984)

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

I welcome the opportunity to raise a subject that has frequently been debated in the House and which will probably continue to be debated into the foreseeable future. The subject of television licensing has been debated on a number of occasions in the past. It is a well-worn, well-trodden path. It resembles a well-loved walk in the country. The path is familiar, but there is always something new and interesting to see. However, one has to know where one is going and to keep in focus the object of the exercise.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is very sympathetic. He understands the problems, and has a great knowledge of the whole subject of television licensing. He knows what it is about and, perhaps, where it is going.

In past debates the emphasis has been almost exclusively on the needs of pensioners and the disabled, and the introduction of a concession or rebate. The time is now ripe for a far more fundamental reappraisal of what we understand by television licensing. What is involved is the funding of the BBC. We live in a world of rapid and unpredictable technological change on a vast scale. I remember the days of the cat's whisker, and the days when one stumbled from the village store with huge accumulator batteries and went home to listen to whatever the first Mr. Billy Cotton chose to provide. Alas, he is no longer with us. We are now in the days of ultra-supersonic multieverything—the days of noise and flash—and yet the BBC is still funded in a way which was originally established — by accident and not design — in 1922. Marconi was not interested in how much was obtained for the BBC. He was interested in how many radio sets he could sell.

We have progressed from 1922 to 1984, when the medium of communication is no longer the cat's whisker. The radio licence has been lost along the path. It was abandoned in 1971 when it became apparent that it was impossible to identify and control those who had radios when so many radios were in use. We are now approaching an era when it will be impossible to control television either, or to justify doing so in order to provide an income solely for the BBC.

Our television receivers are licensed to receive only BBC programmes. The money to supply independent television programmes comes from external sources. The speed of change should concern my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am confident that he recognises that if change is not made immediately, it will have to be made in the not-too-distant future. Whenever we talk about changing the method of payment for the BBC, two arguments immediately spring up. The first is fiscal and the second concerns political influence. I shall deal with the second.

It is suggested that if the BBC were funded other than through the general licensing system it would be influenced and biased. I do not believe that for a moment. I do not believe that there has been any deterioration in the ethical or professional standards of BBC sound radio since the abolition of the radio licence in 1971. I also believe that the television licence will ultimately have to be abandoned. I do not believe that professional people in the media are so mincing that they can be manipulated by 1429 Government. Journalists in the BBC and the IBA present what they feel they should present. That will continue, irrespective of how BBC television is funded.

The BBC is funded by the licensing system and the licence is determined by the Government. It is a political decision. I should like to draw attention to what the late Richard Crossman wrote in his diary regarding political influence in determining how much people will be asked to pay for a licence.

He wrote: This afternoon I had to chair the committee on BBC finance, knowing in advance there was no chance of supplementing the licence fee by a degree of advertising. The fee has to go up by at least El and Harold"— Lord Wilson of Rievaulx— hates to do this for fear of electoral unpopularity, although we pay less in Britain than in any other country in Europe for by far the best radio and television service. . . . After this yet another Cabinet, this time on the BBC, where John Stonehouse has already publicly committed himself to an increase in the licence fee and an extension of hours. This time we decided to have no increase in the licence fee and no extension of hours but to develop our local radio stations. We would simply postpone the increase in the licence fee until 1971, after the election. Wilson was saying that we would demand that the BBC should do everything but we would not give them the means to do it". Politicians of the past have done much to influence the income of the BBC. That will continue to be the case if it is funded by a licence fee.

Who pays for what? The law is unclear and imprecise. It says that a television licence shall be held by a householder for his television set. I have recently been in corespondence with my right hon. Friend on the subject. In reply, his Departmemt wrote: "You asked about television licensing of portable TVs. Strictly speaking the licensing requirements do not distinguish between portable and non-portable sets. What is portable? Is it something that can be carried? Is non-portable something that is cemented into the wall and therefore cannot be taken away? That is something that the Minister must explain. There is a differentiation between battery-operated and mains-operated sets. One need not pay a licence fee for a battery-operated set, but one needs a licence for a mains-operated set. But no one has determined whether one needs a licence for a combined mains and battery-operated set.

Furthermore, it is said that a licence is required at the licensee's address. But members of the family attending full-time residential courses at school, college or university may have a television set, without an additional licence. provided that it is battery-operated. No one can justify the current position.

Let us consider those who do not pay their television licence fees. There is about a one in 12 chance of being caught if one does not pay the licence fee. If one is that unlucky person who is caught, the average fine is £55, as against the licence fee of £46. So it is no a bad bet not to pay the fee, and more and more people will tread down that path. I do not wish to induce people to break the law. I want the Government to face reality and to understand that, at some time or other, someone must grasp this nettle. Television today is far too important and much too fundamental a part of everyone's life for the BBC to be funded in the nonsensical way that it is.

I was horrified to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say during the debate on cable television on 8 May: It might be necessary for the corporation to draw upon licence fee revenue, with my consent, to settle its debts; but the 1430 BBC understands that such a use of licence fee funds would not be recouped through a subsequently enhanced fee."—[Official Report, 8 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 755.] If the BBC is to enter cable television in a meaningful way, and it burns its fingers, how much will have to be paid by the licence holders? No one knows.

One thing I know is that, if I have a television set in my Rolls-Royce, I do not need a licence. However, if I am an old-age pensioner living alone in my own home, having to pay excessive rates and water rates, simply because my wife and I worked hard and saved throughout our lives. I am forced to pay the full amount of a television licence. If I am fortunate enough to live in accommodation provided by the local authority, the chances are that I will have to pay only 5p for the licence. What nonsense. Any business man — even the shoe-shine man outside the station down the road—will tell us that if it costs him lop to shine a pair of shoes, but he get only5p per pair, he will quickly go broke. It costs much more than 5p a licence to obtain the amount of money that the BBC needs from the limited number of people who pay in full for their licences. The number will grow, because I recognise tint some elements of the legislation have not yet been tapped to the full. Some of those elements are known to the Minister.

In the letter that I received, it was pointed out that under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, local authorities have the right to help disabled people through assistance with their television licences or their rental. Unfortunately the available statistics do not differentiate between paying the licence and paying the rental.

I am sure that many of my colleagues will read what I am about to say when they come back from the recess with surprise, and will say that they did not realise it. My right hon. Friend may not appreciate too much my illuminating this fact. In the last year for which statistics are available, it is shown that the number of people who had help with their television licences or rentals started with one person in Hackney receiving that blessing, 28 in Lambeth and, in my constituency area of Cleveland, 30 in all.

Throughout the country as a whole, 18,493 people received assistance from their local authority for their licence or rental. I imagine that most people wished that they lived in Rotherham because out of that 18,493, no fewer than 12,726 lived in Rotherham. If the percentage in Rotherham were extended throughout the country, someone, somewhere—I believe that it would be the long-suffering ratepayer — would be financing the television licensing and rental for a great many more people.

It is time for a review and for a look at what television is today. It is time to understand the technological changes that have taken place, particularly since Annan reported. His report is the basis for much of today's argument, but when it was carried out video had not even been thought of, let alone introduced, and I understand from today's report from the Consumers Association that 30 per cent. of householders have one. It is time that this nettle was grasped.

It should not fall entirely on central Government to fund this, because it would involve an enormous amount of money. The Goverment should be exploring opportunities for revenue from advertising, VAT or other external 1431 sources. I understand the problems, but I do not believe that because there are problems we should not attempt to face up to them and try to overcome them.

Last weekend, many millions of people throughout . Scotland and England watched the cup final. Many advertisers had the opportunity to sell their wares to millions of people without a penny piece being received by the BBC for it. If I am asked how technically this problem can be overcome I say that if the Performing Rights Society can monitor every piece of music that is played for more than two minutes on any part of the airwaves and obtain revenue for it it cannot be beyond the wit of the BBC and the Government to do the same sort of thing to obtain money from the advertisers.

There are a number of elements to which I draw the attention of the Government. Television licensing today is outmoded and outdated. It is time that we looked at this problem and attacked it by a commercial approach as to what the BBC is about, particularly in relation to cable, satellite and the need to understand that an old person on his own or in a home frequently has only one link with the outside world—television. How often have we learnt in the past of old ladies who starve themselves to death to feed their cat or dog so that they have company? Today that company is not necessarily a cat or a dog but the television set.

Local authorities will listen to what I have said today about Rotherham and want to take the matter in hand. It is right for the Government to do so beforehand. Today is, as I said at the beginning, a walk down a path which has frequently been trodden in the past but which will be trodden more frequently and in more depth over the next few years as technological change comes along. Who could have believed, when a schoolboy who carried huge accumulators home, dragging one's arms down, that today we would have power packs and all the other modern aids?

I am sorry that I have restricted the time left to my right hon. Friend to reply. The Government must at this stage forget political popularity and political aspects of influence. The financing of the BBC is no different from the financing of anything else. It might have been 50 years ago, in a nice esoteric sort of argument, but today we are talking about a means of communication that is too important to go by default.

There are altogether 180 enforcement officers. How many people, in a tower block full of offices from top to bottom with a chairman's office on each floor, each with a television set, were fined the £55 last year for not paying their television licence fee? I suspect none at all. I suspect that enforcement is entirely directed to those areas of the community where in the main people are finding it hard to pay for their television licences. That fee has stood still now for three years. Those people will find it even harder if there is an increase to anything like £80, £90 or £100 which the pundits are currently predicting.

I do not wish the standards of the BBC to deteriorate but those standards will go down because its income is finite. Unless we increase licence fees there will be no more money. The BBC has already introduced breakfast television. There is talk that it will introduce mid-morning television. It cannot do that without money. If that money has to come from a limited number of people I ask my right 1432 hon. Friend to think seriously about the matter and to examine external opportunities to bring money into the BBC.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the cheerful and well-researched speech which he has just made against the licence system. It is right that the matter should be aired, but he has not left me a great deal of time in which to reply. I agree that the criticism which he voiced in a fairly thin House will be voiced more frequently in future. We shall enter a period when this matter will be substantially discussed, particularly, as is probable, if the BBC come before us fairly soon and ask for an increase in the licence fee from next year.

We are talking about a sum of about £700 million which is the cost of the home services of the BBC—radio and television. All are financed from the licence. Obviously the question must arise as to how, if the licence were abolished, that substantial sum should be raised. My hon. Friend touched on that point. I think that he was suggesting a mixture — something from taxation and something from other sources.

I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, certainly not my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor, would be willing to take that on. The idea that the cost of television should be moved from the licence to taxation runs counter to Conservative philosophy that people should be able to keep as much of what they earn as is possible to spend on what they choose. Putting up taxes to pay for television would not only require my right hon. Friend to raise a large sum in extra taxation but would also run counter to the thrust of his latest Budget. The same would be true of transferring any quantity of the sum to the rates through local authorities. In effect, it would also be bound to bring the BBC's spending under direct Government control.

My hon. Friend dealt with that argument, but not in the way that I would put it. If the Government provide the BBC with money through taxation, they will inevitably and rightly be answerable to Parliament for the BBC's home services, just as they are for any other form of spending. The resulting inquisition is something that those who value the BBC's independence have always quite reasonably sought to avoid. Of course, one could add other things to the mix, as my hon. Friend quite fairly said. Advertising and subscription, for example, have been looked at in the past and no doubt, as my hon. Friend said, they will be considered again in the future. It would be silly to say that the system will never be modified, but the licence system is much easier to criticise than to replace.

As my hon. Friend knows, the present licence fee runs until March 1985. So far, we have received no application for an increase from the BBC, and if and when it comes it will need to be carefully considered on the basis not just of what the BBC needs to finance itself, but of what we think the licence holder can reasonably be asked to pay. I should make it clear that we have no plans over this time-scale to propose any basic changes to the system.

I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the licence fee system provides a very wide range of programmes at a pretty low cost to the viewer. We are talking of two television and four national radio channels to all but the most remote parts of the country, at a cost 1433 to the licence fee payer of about 12…5p a day. The licence is not more expensive in real terms now than it was a few years ago. In fact, after taking inflation into account, a colour licence costs rather less than it did in 1969, and the monochrome licence is a little more than half of what it was then.

The licence fee is paid annually, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friend is right—indeed, my postbag bears it out—that many people find it hard to pay the colour fee of £46 in a lump sum. That is why we have all manner of schemes to enable people to pay the cost of their licence week by week, or month by month, in convenient amounts. About one-fifth of all licence fee revenue is paid in savings stamps. We are now introducing a complementary scheme, which will allow people to pay monthly advance instalments towards the cost of their next licence in cash at post offices, and we hope that that too will help to overcome the problem of having to pay the fee annually.

My hon. Friend perfectly fairly analysed the rough edges of the system. I wrote to him yesterday on some particular points that I tried to elucidate. If there are any further such points to be clarified, let them by all means be raised. I am not denying that there are those rough edges. The one that worries me most among those that my hon. Friend referred to is the 5p concessionary licence for retired people in certain residential homes and sheltered accommodation. I received more letters on that than on any other subject, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It dates from 1969 and I would like to meet the Minister who approved it, and explain to him clearly where it has landed us.

Of course, the concessionary scheme exists. If we abolished it, it would be very harsh on the old people who now pay only 5p. We are constantly under pressure to extend it, including perhaps, as is often proposed, to all pensioners. But even if it were practical to provide a 1434 concession limited to households consisting only of pensioners, about £160 million would be lost in revenue per year, and the fee for others would have to be increased, for that reason alone, from £46 to nearly £60.

I do not deceive myself. Even if we could in some way find the money for that, which we cannot, there would still be people just outside the concession who would write to my hon. Friend and me saying that they were just as deserving as those receiving it. We would simply have shifted the borderline. As my hon. Friend knows, we are proposing improvements in respect of the disabled, the definition of sheltered accommodation and hotels. My hon. Friend did not mention them, but, as he knows, that is one of the rough edges that we propose to sort out.

It is right that we should consider constantly ways of improving the detailed administration of the collection of the licence fee in which my hon. Friend has shown such a healthy interest. I accept that the collection of the fee costs a good deal. I have mentioned some of the proposals for making improvements. If we can find sensible ways of achieving detailed improvement which do not require Government subsidy—I must set my face against that form of subsidy—and which have a neutral effect on the revenue of the BBC, we shall take them.

I acknowledge that this is a matter of high public concern, concern which may grow as we enter the phase of the cycle when a licence fee increase begins to be discussed. We shall always be open to suggestions, and I do not doubt that all manner of suggestions will come forward in the foreseeable future. We believe that the present system, for all its imperfections and rough edges, continues to be the most effective way of providing a series of services—for example, the home services of the BBC—of a high standard which are popular and which, we believe, provide a good service for many.