The BBC, now responsible for the collection of the Television license fee, is contemplating the abolition of the concession for over-75s.

 

It is, of course, absolutely the case that there are very many elderly people that rely upon television – although much of it provided not by the BBC but by the now readily available abundance of other channels – for their main source of entertainment. It is also a fact that for a significant number of those the concession – they are not “free” as the cost is effectively borne by those paying the fee – is a valued contribution to annual domestic income and one without which they might feel able to enjoy the programmes that attract them.

 

Whether it was wise of the Government to transfer the funding responsibility directly to the Corporation is a moot point: making the BBC accountable for its own finances at a time when some cost-centres within the organisation appeared to be fiscally incontinent may have had a salutory impact upon the seemingly endless expansion of broadcast, on-line and other services and it has gainsaid the accusation that “Governments control  the editorial output of the BBC by tightening its purse strings”. On the other hand Whitehall cannot expect “Auntie” to cut her skirts according to her cloth and then complain when `cost-savings` have unintended consequences. We cannot, after all, expect management staff or `star` salaries to be reduced or expansion of the empire to take place when there are softer targets that are available.

 

There is, though, another aspect to this.  Why do I, or, to pick a name at random, the Today programme`s excellent inquisitor John Humphreys, as a men in full-time employment, receive “free” television licences?  Or, for that matter, a winter fuel allowance?  Why are we entitled to “free” prescriptions and why do we not pay National Insurance contributions?  We pay taxes, of course – quite a lot of them in fact – but as people live longer and the retirement age climbs higher and people not only expect but want and are physically able to work later into their lives should we not challenge the idea that after an arbitrary number of years we should receive at no charge things that other working people have to pay for?

 

`Means testing` is regarded as unacceptable but we are all, in some way, means tested already. Those with incomes above a certain level do not receive certain social benefits and all of those working  or with significant occupational pension or other sources of revenue  have their taxes based upon standard or higher rate tax depending upon their `means tested` incomes.

 

I have no desire whatsoever to remove concessions or benefits from those who, at any age, need them and indeed spend a significant amount of time seeking to ensure that my constituents receive the payments to which they are entitled.   But in a real world where money does not grow on trees and where every pound that the Government and its associated bodies spends comes out of the pocket of a taxpayer it is, surely, time to at least restrict the issuing of concessionary TV licences and winter fuel allowance and free prescription charges to those who are not paying income tax at the higher rate? That, at least, would be a rough but ready way of better targeting the resources that are available to those that really deserve them.

​

​

​