Concessionary Television Licences for State Retirement Pensioners (Hansard, 6 May 1986)

§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for State retirement pensioners and others. In 1982, I presented a similar Bill, upon which the House divided. The Bill was accepted by 187 votes to nil—a clear expression of the will of Parliament on this issue. I presented similar Bills in 1983 and again in 1984, so this is the fourth time that I have done so.

The statutory authority for a concessionary television licence is contained in the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) Regulations 1970. An extension of that scheme was introduced in 1978 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Following representations in 1983 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), a further extension was made to provide for physically and mentally disabled persons living in local authority residential accommodation and residents in categories of sheltered homes in which elderly persons were present and already in receipt of a concession.

Each increase in the cost of a television licence makes the position for those who do not receive the concession compared with those who do so much worse. In addition, as expected, the reduction in central Government support to local authorities, plus rate-capping problems, has meant a reduction in the local authority help that used to be available. That is shown by the fact that, of the 17,161 persons receiving local authority help, 12,555 are in Yorkshire and Humberside, 11,518 of whom are in one authority alone—Rotherham. My own authority' s small but welcome contribution suffered because of Government cuts.

Pensioners are debarred from the present national scheme simply because their accommodation does not come within the rules, although the circumstances in which they live are the same as or little different from those of people who are eligible. While 635,000 persons in the United Kingdom benefit from the 5p residential rare concessionary television licence, 4.8 million exclusively pensioner households—some in the public sector, but most in the private-rented or owner-occupied sector—do not. Clearly, that is inequitable, and it is a matter of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members and to all pensioners and pensioner organisations.

Without doubt, the right approach would be to increase pensions to such a level as to enable pensioners to pay the cost of a television licence without a concession, but it is evident that that happy position will not be reached yet. Therefore, action has to be taken by the Government. My Bill makes that possible.

To include in the concessionary scheme all exclusively pensioner households would cost about £220 million and would at the same time protect the present recipients of the concession. To raise that income by increasing the cost of all other licences would be an unfair burden on the unemployed, the sick and other low-income families. However, it could be raised, either by increasing the basic 39 rate of income tax by only 0.2p, or by increasing VAT by only 0.24 per cent. But why not dispense with television licences altogether, thus avoiding all possible anomalies, at a cost of £952.5 million? That could be raised either by increasing the basic rate of income tax by only 0.8p or by increasing VAT by 1 per cent.

There are other ways of raising the income. About 98 per cent. of general households have a television set, but £80 million is not paid because people do not pay their television licence fees. Why should there not be a flat rate for all television licences for all households, except those who do not wish to take part in the scheme? The checking of the other 2 per cent. who say that they do not have a television, but probably have one anyway, would be simpler.

My Bill, if supported by the House and allowed by the Government to proceed, would give us the opportunity to discuss the issue and the means of funding, while protecting present recipients. The Bill is fair and equitable to all, which is not the present position. The Bill may not be allowed to proceed, but my presenting it is a reminder to a future Labour Government, if they are returned to power, that a past Labour Government promised to phase out television licences for state pensioners and others in the lifetime of a Parliament. I am reminding them of that promise.