Free TV Licences: Over-75s

Julie Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend knows, the question of replacing the licence fee with a subscription model or any other model was considered relatively recently and the licence fee model was considered still to be the best one to pursue. I do not believe this is the right time to review that question.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

It is not the BBC’s responsibility to guarantee free TV licences for the over-75s any more than it is the energy companies’ responsibility to provide the winter fuel payment. The Conservatives’ manifesto was very clear: they committed to protecting free TV licences for all over-75s. Some 3,600 pensioner households in my constituency have been betrayed. What message would the Secretary of State like to send to them? How can they trust a word the Conservative Government say ever again?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong. It is the BBC’s responsibility to decide what to do about the licence fee concession; it says so in the Digital Economy Act 2017. As it happens, this is the sequence of events: the Digital Economy Act passed and received Royal Assent before the 2017 general election. She is simply wrong to say that it is the Government’s responsibility. It is not; it is the BBC’s decision to make.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Julie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

That is a completely different point, and let me explain why—[Interruption.] Calm down; give me a moment. The original response—the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) made this point, very fairly—was that it is about universality. The justification for providing free TV licences regardless of wealth is that they are a universal benefit.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) pointed out, however, eligibility for a free TV licence over the age of 75 was introduced only in 2000. There is no way that anyone could say it was a fundamental tenet of the welfare state contract—something that someone would expect to receive in exchange for their contributions—unlike treatment on the national health service, which has been there since just after the war and is very clearly based on the principle of paying into the system, sharing risk and receiving. I think most people accept that point.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

Did the hon. Gentleman stand on the Conservative manifesto that promised to retain free TV licences for over-75s?

[James Cartlidge]

I did, but this is a debating Chamber—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) does not agree. I hope that she makes some original points when she comes to speak. I simply say that there will probably be a general election at some point in the next few years, and possibly before 2022. In this Chamber, we should debate policy; that is what we are put here to do.

I happen to think that one of the biggest questions we face concerns the fact that people who are going into work today will not receive an occupational pension, because such pensions have disappeared. Many retired people—good luck to them; my parents are in this category —receive good occupational pensions. Some of those people, although not most, would be regarded by many as relatively wealthy. In my view, therefore, we must look at the principle of taxing benefits that are paid out as so-called freebies—of course, the money has to come from somewhere—according to the recipients’ means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

In 2000, the Labour Government took the very positive step of exempting the over-75s from television licence charges. Millions of people have benefited; 5,220 pensioner households currently benefit in my constituency. In 2017, the Conservative manifesto promised those people and their families, in Burnley and Padiham and throughout the country, that that benefit would continue. That promise has been broken, those people have been betrayed, and I have heard nothing from Conservative Members to mitigate that.

The decision to outsource the commitment to the BBC is a betrayal. Shockingly, the decision was made in a closed room with no public consultation and no consideration of impact. More than £150 a year may not seem like an awful lot to Conservative Members, but for pensioners on a fixed income it is a substantial amount. Age UK estimates that more than 2 million pensioner households will cut back on food and heating to pay the licence fee, while others will give up their TV altogether.

Does the Minister understand that for many people over 75, particularly those who live alone, the TV is literally a lifeline? Loneliness and social isolation are reaching epidemic proportions, and older people are far more likely to be affected. Many rely on their TV for companionship: the Campaign to End Loneliness has found that 40% of old people cite TV as their only source of companionship. For those who are housebound, the TV may be the only voice that they hear; without it, the long, lonely evenings will be even lonelier. But it is more than that: for so many people, switching on the television set represents their only connection with the outside world. Less than 50% of people in the over-75 age group have access to online news, and the majority are unaware of social media and the vast array of online services. To all intents and purposes they are digitally excluded, so their access to TV is even more important.

The Government have outsourced the delivery of their manifesto commitment and are now sneakily and shamefully trying to outsource responsibility. There is a pattern here: the Government have a habit of outsourcing services but with no funding to go with them. We need look no further than the shifting of public health responsibility to local government—another short-sighted Tory shambles, which is destined to lead to more problems and an increased financial burden on the NHS.

The BBC has been placed in an impossible position. The cost of providing free TV licences for the over-75s currently amounts to £745 million a year, which equates to 18% of the BBC’s service budget. A budget reduction of such magnitude, at a time when operational costs are rising and competition from Sky and Netflix is increasing, is unsustainable and can be managed only by reducing the channels and services offered to customers. The BBC is at the forefront of the UK creative industries, with an enviable reputation right across the world. Forcing it to take this financial hit is a blow to the entire industry sector, which contributes more than £100 billion a year to the UK economy.

I am also mindful that withdrawing this benefit will be yet another blow to the economy in my constituency. Withdrawing free licences for all over-75s will take £785,610 out of Burnley. If the benefit were means-tested instead, and only those pensioners who claim pensioner credit were allowed to keep their free licences, the cut to Burnley would still amount to more than £500,000. It really is a scandal. The Government must think again.

The central point is that it is not the BBC’s responsibility to fund this benefit. Free television licences for the over-75s are a social benefit, which should be funded by the Government. The Government are trying to shirk their responsibilities. This is yet another broken election promise that makes an absolute mockery of their claim that austerity is over. If austerity is over, they should do the decent thing, keep their promises, fund this universal service and give our senior citizens the support that they deserve.

Football: Safe Standing

Julie Cooper Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am proud to represent Burnley, not least because of our fantastic premier league team, the mighty Clarets. Burnley were founding members of the Football League. They finished seventh in the premier league this season, and next season, for the first time in 51 years, they will compete in Europe—a tremendous achievement for a town of fewer than 100,000 people. I put on record my thanks to our manager Sean Dyche, the players, the board and everyone at Burnley football club.

On behalf of all Burnley football fans—I must declare an interest because I am a season ticket holder—I support the introduction of safe standing areas. I have been going on Turf Moor since I was six years old and for many years, I stood on the terraces with my dad and brother. The atmosphere was terrific even though, as a little girl, I was regularly lifted off my feet as the crowd surged forward.

It was clearly right that steps were taken to make stadiums safer after the Hillsborough disaster. Now, however, it is time to revisit the issue. It is a fact that many fans prefer to have the option to stand; some fans would like to stand throughout the match and others would like to stand for parts of the action. In all-seater stadiums, the situation is that some fans stand for long periods, which leaves fans behind with no option but to stand as well, so large numbers of fans are standing with no rail to hold on to. In an animated crowd, there is a real chance that fans will fall forward over the seat into the next row, which could create a domino effect that pushes more people forward. It is incredibly dangerous.

Introducing designated safe standing areas with rails would be a sensible option for fans who wish to stand. There are many examples of that, as we have already heard. I would like clubs to be given the right to introduce safe standing areas as part of a package that would include a requirement to ensure that people in seated areas remain seated throughout the game. I would also like clubs to see it as an opportunity for some increased capacity and to offer less expensive match tickets. Football used to be the people’s game, but many people have been priced out. I want to see more families and children enjoying the beautiful game in the certain knowledge that their safety is prioritised.

[Several hon. Members rose—]