TV Licences for Over-75s

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree. The Government have picked a fight with over-75s for no particular reason, and for no particular benefit that I can see. But not taking responsibility for this matter simply will not wash.

I ask the Minister, since when has the BBC become an offshoot of the Department for Work and Pensions? The BBC is a broadcaster. It should not, and must not, be charged with deciding how much support our pensioners should receive from wider society. The UK Government have undoubtedly abrogated their responsibility for TV licences, and have left the BBC to decide whether it will impose this charge on the over-75s. The BBC will have £745 million less to spend annually on programmes—the combined budget of BBC 2, BBC 4 and BBC Radio 3 —if it continues with the free TV licences. Options being considered range across the BBC taking on the funding, seeking partial payment or removing the concession entirely, putting it in an impossible position.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. The fact is that this benefit given to elderly pensioners is a benefit—I speak as someone with an interest, because I think I am the only person here who is over 75 and actually receives the free television licence—but a benefit should be paid for out of progressive taxation, whereby the rich pay most and the poor pay least. As everyone under 75 pays for our licences, some of those people are very poor indeed, effectively having to pay some contribution towards broadcasting, which should be paid for by the state.

[Patricia Gibson]

I agree. When we move away from progressive taxation we move into a system that is extremely unfair, and not the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

Former BBC director-general Greg Dyke suggested that leaving the BBC to pick up the tab would impact on programme quality. He said:

“Let’s not kid ourselves this won’t have an impact on what the BBC will supply. It will.”

As well as the impossible choice that has been foisted on the BBC as the UK Government seek cover, this policy means that the Tories are rolling back on their manifesto pledge to maintain pensioner benefits, including free TV licences. How can older people—indeed, anyone—trust what they say in any future manifesto pledge?

Let us remember that the reason that all households with someone aged over 75 have been entitled to receive free TV licences, funded by the UK Government, is to help tackle pensioner poverty and isolation. The Tories have decided to cease funding completely from next year. If the free TV licences are scrapped, the consequences for my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, of whom more than 9,000 will be affected, will be far-reaching. Combating loneliness is very important when it comes to health outcomes for older people. To try to contract out that responsibility to the BBC is cowardly, fools no one and sets a dangerous precedent.

According to the BBC’s own figures, scrapping the over-75s concessionary licence will take an average of more than £22,000 a week out of the pockets of over-75s in every single constituency, and we know that many thousands of pensioners already struggle to make ends meet. Age Scotland’s “money matters” project found that four in 10 people over the age of 50 report feeling financially squeezed, and its survey on the housing needs of older people found that six in 10 pensioners who live alone report difficulties paying their fuel bills. We know that 70% of over-75s have a long-standing illness and 29% live below or just above the poverty line. Make no mistake: this Government are effectively asking our older people to choose between switching on the heating or turning on the TV. Having another bill to pay will push many more below the poverty line, or deeper into poverty. As of 1 April, the cost of the colour TV licence increased to £154.50. Age UK has warned that scrapping the concession would push 50,000 over-75s into relative poverty. That should cause the Government to hang their head in shame.

The financial strain can be further exacerbated by any disability or long-term health conditions that an older person may be living with. The proportion of adults with a long-term, limiting health condition is increasing as the population ages. More than four-fifths of people aged 85 or over have reported that their daily lives are limited by a long-term health problem or disability. That is important, as there are numerous extra costs associated with having a disability or long-term health condition, such as having to get taxis more often to get out and about, and extra heating costs. Many rely on their television for companionship and entertainment. For the considerable number who do not have the internet, TV helps them to stay up to date with what is happening in the world.

The Government have told this House repeatedly that they cannot pay women born in the 1950s their pensions because we are all living longer. Well, given that the Government recognise that we are all living longer, they cannot shirk their responsibilities and abandon those who are living longest. The Government cannot have this both ways. The goalposts cannot be shifted depending on which particular group of society they wish to shaft at any particular time; it is simply not good enough.

For many older people, their television is not just a box in the corner—it is company. Television is a lifeline, particularly for those who are most vulnerable and older. If mobility issues mean that someone struggles to get out and about, the TV helps them to stay connected. When money is a constant worry and that is stressful, it is an escape. When people spend their days alone, it gives them something to look forward to, and they often identify closely with TV characters and personalities. Figures show that over-75s watch an average of 33 hours of television each week, compared with eight hours a week for those in their 20s. Imagine the loss of that lifeline for so many of our poorer pensioners, who simply will not be able to afford the cost of a TV licence.

Let us not forget—this has not been mentioned yet—that every year people are fined for non-payment of their TV licence. To potentially prosecute people in their 80s and 90s is completely unacceptable, and it could well happen if these free television licences are abolished. I ask the Minister: is this an example of addressing the “burning injustices” that the Prime Minister once spoke about? I believe it is vital to support our pensioners. Not only is the UK state pension the lowest in the developed world relative to wages; it has been further damaged by the Tory Government’s plans to reduce eligibility for pension credit, leaving some couples out of pocket by £7,320 every year. If we throw in their contempt for women born in the 1950s regarding increases in the pension age, it is clear that the Government have no intention of honouring the contribution that our elderly population have made over the years.

The BBC is a broadcaster. Public welfare is not its remit, and it should not be expected to decide whether older people have free TV licences or not.

Alcohol Harm

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this important debate and I warmly thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing it.

The costs that alcohol imposes on our society—the social cost, the health cost and the cost to families and communities—simply cannot be counted, because of course that cannot always be measured in pounds and pence. Across the UK, alcohol accounts for 10% of our burden of disease and death, and it is one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death. Alcohol is 60% less expensive now than it was in 1980, and everyone knows that when the price of a commodity goes down, consumption goes up.

I will share with the Chamber today the alcohol-related challenges that we face in Scotland. NHS Health Scotland has reported that in 2014 retail sales data demonstrated that alcohol sales in Scotland were 20% higher than in England and Wales. Scottish sales of low-cost vodka are more than twice as high as those in England and Wales. It is estimated that one in three Scots are affected by a mental health problem each year, with depression and anxiety the most common illnesses. Alcohol and problems with mental wellbeing are closely related.

We in Scotland therefore have much greater and more pronounced challenges than the rest of the United Kingdom. The damage that alcohol is doing to our population is extreme, so bold solutions are required. In Scotland, such bold solutions have not been shied away from. The overall strategic approach in Scotland is different—I would argue that it has to be different—from that of the rest of the UK. A whole-population approach is required to reduce the harm caused by alcohol.

The important point is that, in addition to analysing existing data such as alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions, our approach uses sales and price data from market research organisations to examine the relationship between price, consumption and harm. The effects of specific policies have also been examined, such as the policy on multi-buy discounts—it is worth noting that such discounts are now banned in Scotland. Scotland is the only part of the UK to produce such detailed information on alcohol, including sales data.

Whether we are talking about alcohol, gambling, obesity or lack of physical activity, we need to consider how all of our high streets and neighbourhoods can support good health, rather than contributing to our ill health. For example, we know that deprived areas have 40% more places to buy alcohol than more affluent areas. The more widely available and easily accessible alcohol is, the more we drink, and therefore the more harm that is caused.

As well as knowing that 20% more alcohol is sold in Scotland than in England and Wales, we know that Scottish male death rates are approximately 50% higher than those of other UK countries, while women’s mortality is 30% higher in Scotland than in other UK countries.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think this statistic is true: life expectancy in central Glasgow is the lowest in the United Kingdom.

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed. That appalling and very sad statistic is one that has touched my own family, as I will come on to explain. Alcohol continues to cause premature deaths in some of our most socioeconomically deprived areas and we must take action—I will go on to say how the Scottish Government have taken action.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention came at a very personal moment in my speech. Indeed, I have a very personal stake in this debate. By all accounts my own father, of whom I have no memory, was an extremely heavy drinker. Was he an alcoholic? He probably was, but alcoholism was not readily talked about in working-class communities in Glasgow in the 1960s. I did not witness my father’s heavy drinking, because he died when I was nine months old, not least because of his heavy drinking. My husband’s father was an alcoholic, which led to his early death. In Glasgow, where both my husband and I grew up, such deaths were not unusual in the past, and even today alcohol-related deaths are still more common in our communities across Scotland than many people would think.

Here is the main point: I am extremely proud of the fact that against much opposition—some of it, unfortunately, on tribal grounds—the Scottish National party Government in Scotland took a very bold decision. They decided that the damage that alcohol was doing to our population, our families and our communities could no longer simply be measured and talked about and that action was needed. What else could kill 22 people each week in Scotland, cause 670 hospital admissions each week in Scotland, cost Scotland £3.6 billion each year and not require bold action?

Such action came in the form of minimum unit pricing. In our supermarkets and similar outlets, alcohol can cost less than bottled water; in some cases, it sells for as little as 18p per unit, which is disgraceful. There is clear evidence from research that shows there is a direct link between changes in minimum pricing, and changes in alcohol harm and consumption. Estimates show that a 10% increase in the minimum price of alcohol is associated with a 32% reduction in the number of deaths that are wholly attributable to alcohol. Work undertaken by the University of Sheffield shows that a minimum unit price of 50p is estimated to result in 121 fewer deaths a year, a fall in hospital admissions of just over 2,000 a year, and a fall in hospital admissions of just over 2,000 a year by year 20 of the policy.

Minimum unit pricing is more effective than taxation, because it is better able to target the cheap, high-strength alcohol favoured by the heaviest drinkers. Such a public health measure is supported by Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. I know that England is looking at this measure and I urge everybody in this Chamber to support its introduction. It is bold, but it needs to be bold to help deal with the blight that alcohol has cast over too many of our communities.

Global corporations in the alcohol industry fought a hard legal battle against Scotland’s introduction of minimum unit pricing, but the measure was passed with overwhelming support in the Scottish Parliament. It has been tested in the European courts. The appeal against it in the Supreme Court, following victory for the Scottish Government when the measure was tested at the Court of Session, is the final stumbling block to the introduction of the policy. I hope and believe that it will be resolved by the summer at the latest and introduced in short order thereafter.

Responding to the points made by the hon. Members for Congleton and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), in Scotland we have already reduced the drink-driving limit to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. That means that the rest of the UK—this is a cause for great alarm—has the highest limit in the EU, alongside Malta. I urge the Minister to follow the lead of Scotland and the rest of our EU partners. Reducing the blood alcohol level for drivers saves lives.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

When I first wandered into the Chamber today, I thought I had come into the wrong debate, because the Annunciator shows the title of the debate as “House of Lords reform”. Neither my colleagues nor I believe that there can be any reforming of something that is so deeply undemocratic and rotten to the core.

There is no doubt that the general public across the UK are deeply disengaged from and alienated by much of what goes on in this place. It is dangerous for democracy when the very people it is intended to serve lose so much interest and faith in it. We can come up with warm words and grand ideas about how to tackle that, but perhaps the single most important thing we can do to repair some, although not all, of the damaging rift between those of us who serve and those whom we seek to serve would be to hear the calls—a deafening din in Scotland—to abolish the House of Lords. It is no better than a carbuncle on the face of democracy across the United Kingdom, and there is a deep sense of frustration with it across communities in Scotland. It has already been pointed out that this archaic, outdated and medieval and anachronistic institution has no place in any state that purports to be a modern, enlightened and forward-looking democracy. Just to be clear, we do not simply object to the personnel in the House of Lords, although we do; we do not recognise its legitimacy or its right to legislate over the citizens of the UK.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree very much with what the hon. Lady is saying. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) suggested earlier that this subject never came up on the doorstep. Does she agree that that is because people’s first concerns are jobs, housing, poverty and the health service? However, if people are asked about the House of Lords, many would say that we should abolish it.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. When people talk to us on the doorstep, their priorities are of course job security, benefit sanctions and putting food on the table, but if we scratch the surface, we find that the House of Lords is universally hated, across the UK in my view. There might be small pockets of support among what might be called traditionalists, but for the ordinary man and woman in the street, the House of Lords is an affront to modern democracy.

What I am about to say has already been mentioned earlier in the debate. That is one of the disadvantages of being so far down the speaking list. It is bad enough that the House of Lords is unelected, but it really is quite incredible to think that we are the only state in the world apart from Iran that has clerics pontificating on legislation. That further illustrates the absurdity of this relic.

Despite all the plaudits and feeble attempts to justify the other place, perhaps by those who have pals or cronies there or those who seek to retire there themselves when the voters reject them, it cannot be justified to retain those who are unelected. They have often been actively rejected by the voters. It is arguably worse that some of them have shied away from presenting themselves to the voters at any time at all, despite having political ambitions. That really makes the House of Lords a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and other colleagues on securing this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on her speech. Like her, I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said in a very honest speech.

I am of the left. The Conservatives accuse some of those who oppose TTIP of being on the left. Well, I am of the left. I call myself a democratic socialist, but as our party defines itself in its constitution as a democratic socialist party, I think I am in the right party and I am happy and proud to be so.

Those who support TTIP should read “Fighting TTIP, CETA and ISDS: Lessons from Canada” by Maude Barlow on behalf of the Council of Canadians. Everything they say will be shown to be wrong when they read that.

TTIP must be opposed with all possible force as a dangerous attempt to negate meaningful democracy. It is designed simply to hand economic power to global corporations and to prevent democratically elected Governments from acting in the interests of their peoples. It has been negotiated largely in secret between private corporate representatives and bureaucrats, with no real democratic political involvement and certainly no representation from workers and their trade unions. On the continent of Europe millions of workers are aware of the dangers, and it is vital that the people of Britain, especially the working people of our country, also become properly aware of the dangers before it is too late.

I mentioned Europe and have seen evidence of the growing resistance to TTIP there. I was recently in Brussels, on the day of the European Council, when the Prime Minister announced his intention to write his famous letter to Donald Tusk. What was also significant on that day was the complete lock-down of the political centre of Brussels to protect politicians from a massive anti-TTIP demonstration. There were police road blocks at every turn, with water cannon at the ready and public transport services in the area closed down. I could not persuade a taxi driver to take me anywhere near my destination, and the metro was not stopping at the station serving the political district. Most significantly, there seemed to be an effective news blackout of the demonstration, so the political and bureaucratic establishment was doing its bit to protect the interests of the corporate capitalist world.

There will, of course, be all sorts of public reassurances from that same political establishment that TTIP will be benign and beneficial. That is a lie. If TTIP eventually becomes established, there may be some superficial qualifications, which will simply be pushed aside when the private corporations get their way. There is a parallel in the European Union’s hypocritical and empty commitment to workers’ rights and trade union rights—the sham of so-called social Europe. The Viking and Laval cases show that when push comes to shove, employers’ rights override any supposed worker rights. The Greek bail-out required the Greek Government to restrict trade union and worker rights as a condition of the bail-out, and there is more of that to come.

Now we see the nomenklatura of the European Union seeking to sell out workers’ rights, trade union rights and citizens’ rights to control their own lives and their societies through their elected democratic Governments. We are moving towards the referendum on Britain’s EU membership, and millions of trade union votes will be a significant factor in that referendum. The TUC is strongly opposed to TTIP and my own union, the GMB, is likely to recommend a vote to leave the EU if TTIP goes ahead. If 6 million public sector trade unionists fear that TTIP is going to happen, with the likely threat of privatisation of our public services without redress, and the threat to the services they provide and their livelihoods, they will vote to leave the EU.

I have argued that the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic, although some of my colleagues may disagree. If the Commission does a deal with the US and the corporations, that will confirm what many of us believe—that the EU is an agent of the global private corporate world.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the threat to public services. Given that the people of Scotland were told by the Better Together campaign that the best way to protect Scotland’s NHS was to vote no in the independence referendum—the People’s NHS is organising a very effective campaign in Scotland—does he agree with the position of the First Minister, who has asked the Prime Minister specifically to exempt the NHS from TTIP?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would certainly support that.

Over 10 years ago Tony Blair wined and dined American health corporations in Downing Street as a prelude to what has been happening. Private companies, with the connivance of the current Government, are even now buying into bits of the national health service to make a profit, cherry-picking the most profitable bits and leaving the difficult bits for the public sector. I believe that it is time for us all, especially in the Labour party, to wake up to the dangers and reject TTIP before it is too late.