Television Licences (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration yesterday laid before Parliament his report on the cases put to him by a number of hon. Gentlemen concerning their constituents

626W

speed) on 27th November 1974.—[Vol. 882, c. 185–88.]

who, though they already held television licences which were not due to expire before 31st March, took out new television licences in February and March this year at the then existing fee, after I had announced increases in the licence fees and before those increases had come into effect.

This report will no doubt be examined by the Select Committee. I do not want to anticipate the Select Committee's consideration of the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings, and I should normally prefer not to make a statement on such a report until the Select Committee had had the opportunity of making its views known. In this instance, however, the licences of some of the licence holders 627W concerned who have not yet complied with my request to pay an additional sum are due to be revoked at the end of this month, under the arrangements of which I informed the House on 16th June last. I owe it to them, as well as to other licence holders, to make clear without delay the position following the Parliamentary Commissioner's report.

A major criticism which the Parliamentary Commissioner makes is that in February and March, after the publication of newspaper articles drawing attention to the financial advantages for some licence holders of taking out new "overlapping" licences at the old fee, before their current licences had expired, my Department failed to take sufficient steps to give effective publicity to its intention to ask the licence holders concerned to pay the difference between the old and the new fee and, in the event of a licence holder failing to pay the additional fee, to revoke the overlapping licence and refund the fee paid.

At least with hindsight I think that this is a reasonable criticism. As the Parliamentary Commissioner reports, the specific decision not to take the initiative of arranging a written Parliamentary Question on this early in February was made by Ministers. I accept responsibility for that decision, and I should like to apologise to the House, to the hon. Members concerned and to their constituents who were caused what the Parliamentary Commissioner has called "needless distress and confusion" as a result.

But having regard to the legal advice I received the Parliamentary Commissioner does not call in question my clear duty to collect fees on the basis of the policy which had been decided upon; and specifically he does not question the basis of the arrangements of which I informed the House on 16th June. Accordingly the arrangements which I announced on 16th June still stand.

The licence holders concerned were notified individually of those arrangements after my announcement. Most of them have since paid the additional sum for which they were I hope that the remainder will now do so. The National Television Licence Records Office is today writing individually to 628W them, reminding them of the arrangements which I announced on 16th June and enclosing a detailed note on how these arrangements affect individual categories of licence holders. This reads as follows: Any colour television licence holder whose previous licence expired on 31st March 1975, who before that date took out a new licence with effect from 1st February or 1st March 1975, and who has not paid the £6 for which he has been by the end of this month, will have his licence revoked from 1st December 1975. It remains open for any such licence holder to pay £6 between now and the end of this month; if he does, the validity of his licence will be extended to 31st March 1976. Those colour television licence holders whose previous licences expired on 30th April or 31st May 1975, who took out overlapping licences before 31st March, and who have not paid £6 before 1st January or 1st February 1976 respectively, will have their licences revoked from the respective date. If they pay an additional £6 in the meantime, the validity of their licences will be extended to a date twelve months from the date of expiry of their previous licences. Anyone who after revocation uses a television set without having first obtained the appropriate licence will render himself liable to prosecution under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Where someone was the holder of a black and white television licence due to expire on 31st March 1975, and took out a new licence from 1st March 1975, that new licence is due to expire on 29th February 1976. That is in fact the date upon which the licence would fall due for revocation, on the basis of money's worth at the new rate. There is therefore no question of revoking such licences. If, however, any such holder chooses to pay a further £1 between now and 29th February 1976, the validity of his licence will be extended to 31st March 1976. Those whose black and white television licences are recorded on a computer, and who took out overlapping licences, have by mistake had the validity of those licences extended to 31st March 1976. A few of those concerned have without any prompting from the Post Office paid an extra £1 to cover this extension of validity. The Home Secretary hopes that those who have not hitherto done so will now do likewise.