Free Television Licences

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had with the BBC on possible sources of funding before the BBC announced their plans to cease providing free television licences for those age 75 or older.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am over 75. Why have Her Majesty’s Government allowed—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Naseby]

Sorry—old age. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government discussed funding with the BBC in 2015. We agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession would transfer to it in June 2020. To help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over two years so as gradually to introduce the cost to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed that this was a fair deal for the BBC. The future of the concession is therefore the responsibility of the BBC. The Government are clear that they are disappointed with its decision.

[Lord Naseby]

Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that, in effect, the BBC is victimising 5.5 million pensioners whose sole real leisure pursuit, unless they are really active, is to watch television and listen to radio? It is no source of help to them to be told that the poorest will be means-tested. Does my noble friend recollect in 1986 the Peacock report recommending that the BBC accept some advertising and sponsorship? Have the Government brought to the BBC’s attention the fact that £140 million of BBC income worldwide now comes from advertising and sponsorship? If that is good enough worldwide, why is it not good enough to be implemented at least to some extent in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, under the 2015 funding settlement it was agreed that responsibility would go to the BBC in return for an increase in its licence fee that was guaranteed and index-linked for five years. The director-general promoted that agreement and that is why we are disappointed with the BBC’s decision. As for the Peacock report, which as my noble friend said was 33 years ago, the funding model was considered then, but it was also considered again as part of the charter review. I am afraid to say to my noble friend that only 1.5% of those consulted agreed that having advertising on the BBC was a good idea.