Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Good morning. I am sorry that we could not secure a larger Committee Room, but we will have to make do with this one. I remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting. I am quite content for Members to remove their jackets if they wish to do so.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 16th January) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 16th January;

(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 18th January;

(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 18th January.

Good morning Mr. Conway. I welcome you to the Chair, and I welcome the Clerk and other Officers of the House to the Committee as we debate this important Bill and the motion before us. Mr. Conway, I am sure that you will add your normal skill and customary guidance to our deliberations. The room is cavernous, but as we know, size is no indication of quality, and I am sure that you will keep us in order during our sittings.

There have been a number of discussions through the usual channels on the programme motion. The discussions have been full and comprehensive, and I understand that all parts of the House have satisfactorily resolved that we have adequate time to discuss the important clauses, if hon. Members so wish, and any relevant amendments.

It is fair to say that, as a matter of principle, the Bill is not controversial. It has support from all parts of the House, and I am sure that hon. Members will wish only to improve the content of the legislation before the Committee and the House.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. As this is the first Public Bill Committee that I have attended in my capacity as a Front-Bench spokesman, you can imagine that I am incredibly nervous. It is therefore reassuring to have a Chairman of your standing and experience in the Chair. I hope that you will indulge me, as I am almost certain to make a series of terrible faux pas and mistakes, and that you will use your experience to guide me through the maze of proceedings.

The Minister is correct: the Opposition believe that there is adequate time to debate the Bill. However, I note, and my inexperience will now show through, that on Thursday when the Committee is due to sit at 1 o’clock, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be making an important announcement on the licence fee.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Mr. Conway, it may be helpful for you as Chairman to know that through the usual channels, there has been discussion about that point. We are more than prepared and very happy to sit until at least 10 o’clock this evening if that would help the Committee to avoid the problem that the hon. Gentleman has posed. I thank my colleagues and hon. Friends in advance for that.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

It would certainly help the Committee, but it would be a blow to the new constituency of Hammersmith, because it is expecting me to launch the new Hammersmith Conservative Association, whose parliamentary candidate will take control of that seat, and whose local authority has already reduced its council tax by 3 per cent. after taking over from a hideous left-wing regime that taxed its residents through the nose. But I digress. I should not want the House to be deprived of the talents of the hon. Member for Bath or of the Minister when the TV licence fee is debated.

As the Minister said, the Bill is important but small. It is technical, but no doubt it will give members of the Committee an opportunity to raise some important issues. It is a great pleasure to see present so many Members who contributed in such a distinguished fashion on Second Reading. I exclude myself from that praise. Although the Bill is small, it represents the biggest civil project in Britain’s recent history, as the Secretary of State herself has said. We will want to probe the Minister on many of the details of how the scheme will operate. Some issues will be raised through the amendments and others will emerge as we debate the Bill clause by clause. I echo the Minister’s sentiment that there is consensus in the Committee that the Bill is necessary, and we wish it a speedy passage.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway.

We are looking forward to relatively brief deliberations on this important Bill. The Minister says that it is not controversial, and in one sense he is absolutely right. We saw on Second Reading that there is a great deal of support on both sides of the House for digital switchover. There is also recognition that, because the more vulnerable in society will need assistance, data should be made available so that we can go ahead with a package of help for such people. In that respect, the Bill is not controversial.

However, a number of issues need to be raised, so it is important that the programme motion should allow the necessary time for the debate to take place. The Bill is about making available data for a targeted help scheme, yet its scope is so limited that we will not have the opportunity to discuss who is going to be helped by the scheme. We see in the answers to a range of parliamentary questions that the number of people who are to be helped appears to grow almost daily. At the beginning of January last year, the Minister told us that 5 million people were going to be helped, and by the end of the year the figure had risen to 7.1 million. Although we do not know who these people are going to be, we are meant to be discussing access to data that will enable us to assist them.

We are not told how the help is going to be provided or by whom, how much it is going to cost or who will pay. Perhaps that will be the subject of Government amendments following the Secretary of State’s announcement on Thursday about the licence fee. Sadly, then, there are many matters with regard to the targeted help scheme that we cannot discuss. That will make some of our deliberations somewhat difficult.

Despite the limitations of the Bill, we have the opportunity to discuss some issues that need to be sorted out—for example, whether data will be needed not just from the bodies that are listed in the Bill but from others, such as local authorities, that provide information that relates to people who will, we are led to believe, be helped by the targeted assistance scheme. We will also be able to debate whether we need to be clearer about the way in which information is provided, not least to blind and partially sighted people; whether it is right for the Bill to create an offence in respect of disclosure of information, under which a person is deemed guilty unless he or she can prove innocence—a complete reversal of the normal procedure of innocent until proved guilty; whether there should be a time limit on the sharing of data, which will be particularly significant in the current climate of debate about the Government’s proposals for a much wider data-sharing scheme; and whether more should be said in the Bill about the targeted help scheme’s being platform neutral.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It might be helpful to remind the Committee that the Bill is not about the help scheme; it is about access to information, about social security information and about the careful handling of that information. I am sure, Mr. Conway, that you will keep us in order in the course of our debates, but it is useful to remember that the Bill is about access to the information that will enable us to ensure that the scheme is effective.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I accept entirely that that is the scope of the Bill, Mr. Conway, but my point was that that is somewhat difficult for us. The Committee will be aware that what the Bill says about the scheme is in clause 5(1) which says that a

“‘switchover help scheme’ means any scheme for the provision of help to individuals in connection with digital switchover which is agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State”.

That is all we are told about the scheme in the Bill, yet we are being asked to debate the provision of data on people who will be assisted by the targeted help scheme when we do not have in the Bill any details of who those people will be. That is why I hoped for a wider debate on the details of the scheme. However, I accept that we cannot have that debate, that the Minister is right, and that the Bill is limited in scope and will be difficult to debate for the reasons I have given. The programme motion gives us the opportunity to have a limited debate on that limited range of issues, but, sadly, they are the only ones that can be debated because of the limited scope of the Bill.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I put the next motion, and for the guidance of the Committee, when it suspends tonight is in my gift as Chairman, but when it adjourns is in the gift of the Government Whip. If we are still sitting at around 8 o’clock, it will probably be wise for us to suspend for dinner because we must bear in mind those who serve the Committee and not just those who wish to take part in it.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I beg to move,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.

I welcome the opportunity to move the motion as part of the new process that I believe will help all hon. Members. It allows the Committee to report written evidence to the House and for it to be published.

Clause 1

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) Local authorities may, at the request of a relevant person, supply a relevant person with information on persons registered as blind or partially-sighted in their area for use (by the person to whom it is supplied or by another relevant person) in connection with switchover help functions.’.

The amendment stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and the excellent hon. Member for Wantage, whose first appearance in his new post we look forward to with relish. I look forward to a passionate speech from him in support of the amendment.

I said in my opening comments about the programme motion that we had difficulty in discussing various aspects of the Bill because we were not in a position to discuss the detailed arrangements for the targeted help scheme and, in particular, who is to be helped by the scheme. However, the purpose of the amendment is to make provision for those who are not registered on the Department for Work and Pensions database but who might be eligible for assistance to be identified so that that help can be given to them. It relates specifically to providing information in respect of some blind or partially sighted people who will not be covered by DWP data, which cover over-75s in receipt of disability benefits. Those people will be covered by the data collection to which clause 1 refers. My argument is that some people may not be covered and we need an alternative source of information.

Clause 5(1) states clearly that the switchover help scheme simply provides help for individuals as agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State. Bizarrely, that agreement will not come before the House for approval. It says nothing about who those individuals will be.

To find out, we have to look at the Department of Trade and Industry website or at paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum for the Bill, both of which make it clear that the targeted assistance scheme will help households in which one person is registered as blind or partially sighted. We know, therefore, not from the Bill but from ancillary documents that blind and partially sighted people will be helped by the scheme. I am sure that the Committee will recognise that it is important to have access to data about all the people in those categories.

I was not able to attend the Second Reading debate, because I was winging my way to Australia to see how well England’s cricket team would do—we all know the outcome of that—but I have read the report of it with interest. In it, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, said that

“30 per cent. of blind and partially sighted people who could benefit from the scheme will not be identified by the Department for Work and Pensions database,”—[Official Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1194.]

and he was correct. The Government do not keep a register of people who are registered blind or partially sighted but who are not in receipt of Government benefits; that information is held by local authorities. The amendment is about enabling us to access the local authority data on that group of people. Local authorities keep those data because, in many cases, they seek to give blind and partially sighted people access to civic facilities and additional assistance by way of bus passes, blue badges and various forms of social service. Therefore, we know that local authorities have the additional data that would be valuable to us.

We could deal with that situation in two ways. The first is to say to local authorities, “This is the scheme that we have in mind. Please use your good offices to identify those people and notify them that assistance is available to them, so that they can contact a central body to access it.” The second, which I believe is consistent with the approach adopted in respect of other databases, is to enable the body that has been charged with the delivery of the scheme to access those local authority data centrally.

The amendment is relatively simple, but its effects will be far reaching for a large number of blind and partially sighted people who will otherwise find that they are not being identified for the targeted help scheme and could lose out.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

It is clear from the eloquence and passion deployed by the hon. Member for Bath that he used his 48 hours on the planes to and from Australia to incredible effect. We are grateful to the English cricket team for having ended at least one, perhaps two, test matches early to enable him to prepare such a passionate analysis.

There are two fundamental points in the amendment. The first relates to the stakeholders and partners on whom the company that will be established to proceed with targeted help will be able to call for information. The second relates to the criteria governing those who will receive help under the switchover scheme.

I was lucky enough to bump into the Minister last night and to discuss the clause with him. As he will no doubt make clear in his remarks, he recognises the importance of working with local authorities when the Bill becomes law and when digital switchover scheme is under way. As the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the clause pertains particularly to those who are registered as partially sighted or blind. Paragraph 5.22 of the digital switchover help scheme documents, which are published by the Department on the digital switchover website, says:

“Each local authority keeps a register of blind and partially sighted people living in their area, but this information is not held centrally. We are exploring the best way of how to contact blind and partially sighted about the help scheme and dealing with the overlap with age/benefit qualifications (around 70 per cent. of blind/partially sighted claimants will qualify on age/benefit grounds).”

It is quite clear that the vast majority of blind or partially sighted people will fall into the relevant category for the targeted switchover scheme, and that the DWP does not hold that information. It is also clear that the Bill makes no provision to allow local authorities to hand over the information to the company that is responsible for digital switchover, and must be amended. It is therefore extremely important that we discuss the amendment and that the Minister explains in detail how he expects local authorities to participate in the scheme, given the technical, legal lacunae that prevent them from giving the information to the relevant company.

The hon. Member for Bath made it clear that there is a need to debate who will be targeted by the targeted switchover scheme. The Government have issued a draft order, similar to regulations that were passed under the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000, in which the information that will be made available by the DWP is set out. It includes the name, date of birth, address and national insurance number of subjects, whether the subject lives in a care home and whether the subject is dead. There is other peripheral information, but nothing specific on who will be targeted and which benefits they receive.

The Disability Rights Commission made a useful point in the briefing that I received for the Second Reading debate. It pointed out that the DWP is planning to target only those who have been registered as blind or partially sighted, but the process of certification begins before registration. Those who are certified as blind or partially sighted may also require a great deal of help. The DRC also made the point that there are 74,000 visually impaired people in the UK who are neither certified nor registered as such.

The role of local authorities extends beyond those who are blind or partially sighted. As several hon. Members mentioned on Second Reading, local authorities are the organisations closest to those who will need help. It would be utterly sensible for the company that is responsible for targeting digital switchover to have a dialogue with the social services under council control, to discuss the sort of information that it may need, such as a list of all the care homes in a local authority area.

On a tangential point, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, he will talk about the role that charities will play. No amendment has been tabled on the need for charities to give information to the company that is targeting help. From the information that the Government have released, we know that the large charities are keen to help and will act as digital ambassadors to their clients.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The hon. Member for Bath was right to anticipate the first appearance of the hon. Member for Wantage in his capacity as Opposition spokesman on this subject. I hope that we will be able to expedite our debates, while allowing proper time for relevant discussion of the amendments. We might even make the kind of speed that will allow the hon. Gentleman to make his Churchillian appearance in Hammersmith this evening. I am equally conscious that if we are delayed we will have to disappoint the people in Hammersmith—or perhaps spare them, but that is a point for debate.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield raised the issue of blind or partially sighted people on Second Reading. We share his concern that a considerable number of them will not be identified on the DWP database because the information is held by local authorities rather than centrally. We have worked closely with the digital television consumer expert group, which comprises leading charities representing vulnerable people including the Royal National Institute for the Blind, on how we should identify those who are registered blind or partially sighted. Those aged 75 or over will be identified from data held by DWP, but about 20 per cent.—approximately 50,000 or 60,000 people—will be identifiable only from data held by local authorities.

I know that the consumer expert group has actively supported the amendment. I have reservations about its wording, but I pay tribute to the consumer expert group for its contribution with the RNIB in particular. We recognise that allowing local authorities to disclose information on the scheme would help blind or partially sighted people by enabling the scheme operator more readily to identify those who are eligible.

On Second Reading I said that we were discussing with the Department of Health and the Department for Constitutional Affairs whether and how to make provision to permit local authorities to disclose the necessary information from their register of blind or partially sighted people. The view of the Department of Health is that because of data protection legislation, local authorities would be unable to share that data with central Government or other contractors. As such, blind and partially sighted people would be put at a disadvantage compared with others eligible for assistance. We are also discussing the matter with and seeking the views of the devolved Administrations, who are also important.

We are very sympathetic to the views of Opposition Members and of my hon. Friends on this important issue, and we are actively engaged in consultation to ensure that data on registered blind or partially sighted people can be obtained by relevant bodies; however, some issues remain to be worked though. The Government intend to continue those discussions in the next few weeks, and I hope that at Report stage it will be possible to bring back to the House the result of the consultation process. We want to ensure that the needs expressed by hon. Members on behalf of charities, the consumer expert group and others are met and that we can agree a way forward that will satisfy all members of the Committee.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I think that there will be a role for local authorities in the switchover process. It may be that social services could get involved to help people with any problems. However, as somebody from a local authority background I wish to make the point that, although the costs may be marginal, there could be a cost to local authorities. Central Governments are good at saying, “It is in the grant, they can afford it,” but during the consultation it would be useful if realistic costs to local authorities were taken into account so that they could, if necessary, be compensated.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is worth remembering that in the present case the administrative burden will not be particularly onerous. The problem relates to having the power to share the information: the registers are kept; it is a question of access to them. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, although whether it applies in the present case is moot. Again, in the spirit of wanting to work with all hon. Members I will take their comments on board. We will consider them and if it is appropriate to measure those costs, although I think it probably is not, we will bear that in mind when we bring back any proposals to the House on report.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Wantage for his impassioned support for the amendment. He has clearly demonstrated that he will make a fine figure of a man in his new post.

The hon. Gentleman may be relatively new to his post, Mr. Conway, but you are not. You have chaired and served on many Committees of this House, so you will be aware that often when a Government like an Opposition amendment but do not want the Opposition to have the credit for it, they try to persuade the Opposition to withdraw it so that they can bring back their own, almost identical amendment, at a later stage and claim the credit for it. It might be argued that that is what we have just seen. But I genuinely do not believe that it is. I have rarely heard a Minister say that he is very sympathetic, that he shares our concerns and that an amendment deals with an important issue that we must get right. I am delighted that the Minister said that. I am delighted that he has been engaged in the consultation that I know began long before the amendment was tabled. Clearly the Government are taking the issue very seriously. We are grateful to the various organisations that have provided the Government with information.

As the Minister has given us an assurance that he will continue the discussions to ensure that an amendment is produced that has a similar effect to that of my amendment but deals correctly with the data protection issue, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment, but before I do so, I wish to say two things. First, I was slightly surprised when the Minister told us that it was the Department of Health and not the Department for Constitutional Affairs that was advising him about the data protection issue. I hope that we will have confirmation that they shared that advice.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It just demonstrates how joined-up the Government are, that the Department of Health can offer that kind of advice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We have to be a little bit careful in that respect. We may see on Thursday, when we have the statement on the licence fee and learn the outcome of that battle, just how joined up the DCMS and the Treasury are.

Secondly, I want to thank the hon. Member for Poole for his helpful intervention. While the Minister may say that the costs for local authorities may be small, none the less the burdens that actions by central Government are placing on local government are increasing. Local government is under significant strain and I would hate this to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing that issue. I am also grateful to the Minister for assuring the Committee that he would also look at this. He will no doubt comment on it when he brings back an amendment on a suitable occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

No. 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘the BBC or’.

No. 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

‘( ) the person or persons duly appointed to manage and operate the switchover help scheme.’.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Mr. Conway, I hope that as I explain the importance of the amendment, you will not think that I am trying to find a clever way to debate the details of the digital switchover scheme. You will recall that I said in my remarks on the programme motion that we did not know who was going to deliver the scheme; what is clear is that we are unclear about what role the BBC will play.

The excellent Library briefing and the Department’s excellently prepared explanatory notes to the Bill contain little or nothing of the detail of the BBC’s role in delivering the scheme. Indeed, any assiduous Committee member will have looked in detail not only at the new BBC charter but at the agreement that accompanied it and came into force on 19 December 2006. Such assiduous readers will have noticed in section 39 of the agreement the following immortal words:

“The BBC must comply with a scheme agreed with the Secretary of State concerning the provision of specified help to specified categories of persons for the purpose of enabling them to continue to view the UK Public Television Services when and after they are affected by Digital Switchover.”

That is it. We have no detailed knowledge whatever of the BBC’s role. We know from clause 5(1) that the details of the scheme are to be agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State, but beyond that the BBC’s role is extremely murky.

The amendments would remove all mention of the BBC as a relevant person under clause 1. If the BBC is not to play a significant role, other than perhaps co-ordinating the provision of the targeted help scheme for digital switchover, it is unclear why it needs to receive all the detailed data that the Bill will allow to be collected and shared. If the BBC is playing a relatively minor, though no doubt important, co-ordinating role, it could be argued that there is no need for it to have data other than in aggregate form, so that it knows the total number of people who will be affected and the numbers broken down by the regions where switchover will occur.

Paragraph 5.1 of the DCMS digital help scheme summary says that

“the help scheme will be managed and operated by a single organisation or a consortium formed for the purpose.”

That gives us further reason to believe that the BBC will not be the body managing and operating the scheme. With those two bits of evidence—the absolute silence about any details of the BBC’s role and the hint in paragraph 5.1 that the BBC will not be managing and operating the scheme—I surmise that there is no reason for the BBC to receive all the detailed data to which the Bill will allow it access.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I suspect that this amendment will not be received by the Minister with the same joy as the previous amendment. It goes to the heart of the Bill, and I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath. In effect, the amendment asks why the BBC must appear in the Bill. Ostensibly, the BBC has been put in charge of conducting targeted help for digital switchover, but the Bill makes it clear and previous experience with television licence fee administration shows us that, in effect, it will not be the BBC we know and love that will conduct the digital switchover; it will be a company formed specifically for that purpose. As the hon. Member for Bath said, paragraph 5.1 of the document from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:

“It is envisaged that the help scheme will be managed and operated by a single organisation or a consortium formed for the purpose. The successful supplier will need to demonstrate a strong track record of delivering large customer facing programmes and with the logistics involved in sorting equipment and delivering in-home assistance and support.”—

so we know that it will not be Capita. The document continues:

“The successful supplier will also need to demonstrate a strong IT capability—

so we know it will not be a Government organisation—

“for the setting up and management of customer accounts tracking those eligible through the scheme and linked with a contract centre designed around and capable of meeting the need of older and disabled people.”

One of the things that concerns me is that there is no provision in the Bill for the Minister to report back to Parliament on who will be responsible for digital switchover. It would be extremely helpful to the House, and right and proper, if the tender documents were made available in the Library for hon. Members to peruse and if the Minister regularly gave the House updates on what is happening. The House should also have a chance to debate the selection of the organisation that is ultimately chosen to conduct digital switchover. Given the Government’s track record of managing large-scale projects, it is important that they should benefit from the input of hon. Members.

As the hon. Member for Bath made clear, the information that we are discussing will be disclosed by the Department for Work and Pensions, and potentially by local authorities, which will identify individuals and households meeting the eligibility criteria based on social security records. The information will therefore be sensitive, but it will be disclosed without the express or implied consent of the individuals concerned. We believe that such information should be made available only where necessary, and the clause fails that test. It is not necessary to put the BBC in the Bill to make the scheme workable. In practice, the only people who need the detailed information on individual households under the scheme are those who are responsible for contacting eligible people—that is, the suppliers.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, the BBC only needs to see aggregated information in order to administer the scheme. It simply needs to know the number of households that are likely to be contacted in any given area so that it can make proper accounting and budgeting arrangements. It does not need to see the individual data. The help scheme will not be operated or managed by the BBC, which is simply the overall supervisor of the scheme, and it is extremely important that, as far as possible, we restrict the distribution of the information.

As we are debating the organisation that will undertake the switchover, will the Minister, when he responds to the amendment, give the Committee some indication of how the digital switchover timetable is progressing? We are a mere nine months away from the launch of the greatest civil project in recent British history, in Whitehaven of all places—a town whose name that will be carved in stone for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren when they sit down to watch digital television in years to come.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about his great-grandchildren.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No. I just wanted to ask, in view of what we heard about the hon. Gentleman’s range of speaking engagements, whether he is telling us that it is his intention shortly to promote the Conservative interest in Whitehaven, too.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Wantage is tempted down that road, I remind the Committee that this is not a stand part debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep his remarks fixed on the amendment.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I was coming to the conclusion, Mr. Conway. I will certainly be visiting Whitehaven, but I know that the Minister has already accepted an invitation and I will let him go up there first.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I have to say that this seems a very convoluted way to organise targeted help. I am quite a fan of the BBC, but if one puts the BBC next to whatever organisation is set up, I do not think that the responsibility will be clear. One has to be able to answer the question: who gets the blame and who gets sacked if things are not being done properly? Will the BBC catch the blame? Are the Government trying to insulate themselves from some of the unpopularity that will result if things start to go wrong? There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the BBC should be specified in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there will be a clear line of responsibility, so that if things do not go right and delivery does not happen, we shall not find that somebody was given a very big contract worth a lot of money but we can do nothing about it.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am aware, Mr. Conway, of your strictures on how far-ranging we can be. As to whether you would be comfortable with my discussing the timetable for switchover, I suspect that you would quickly rule that out of order, although I hope that you would allow me to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Wantage in recognising the significance of Whitehaven as we begin roll-out. The name Whitehaven is already carved in stone, not least because of the excellent leadership offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. He has done extremely important pioneering work in making sure that digital switchover roll-outs in the excellent way in which I believe it will.

The issues raised by amendment No. 8—and by the amendment group as a whole—are clear in terms of the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The purpose may be deliberate, but I think that the amendments are misconceived in terms of consequence, because of the damage that they would do—first, to the groups who will benefit from the way that we intend to roll out targeted help and, secondly, to the information access that is required and enabled by the Bill. Taken together, the amendments would remove the BBC from all definitions of a relevant person with whom the Department for Work and Pensions, the Social Development Department in Northern Ireland and indeed the Ministry of Defence could share social security or war pensions information. Their effect would be to remove the BBC from the list of bodies that can receive data, and hence make it much more difficult for the BBC to play a central and important role in establishing and funding the help scheme

That issue is fundamental and goes to the heart of the Bill’s purpose. I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said and have been cognisant of their concern, which is in part well intended. I say “in part” because I think that there is also an element present that would not be unhappy if it scuppered the Government’s timetable—through Her Majesty’s Opposition. That wish is one that we have no intention of giving way to. We do not agree with the view that the BBC should not be involved in helping to establish and fund the digital switchover help scheme. Nor indeed do we agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Bath that because the help scheme is social policy the BBC should not be involved.

It may help if I briefly outline why. The aim of the scheme is to help some of the most vulnerable citizens with an area that is technical and confusing for many of us, but particularly for many of the people in the eligible groups. Accordingly, we believe that it is right for the BBC, who are world leaders in the use of television technology and which is a widely trusted organisation, to have a leading role in running the scheme. Its operation is linked to the regional roll-out of switchover and to the timings of regional dates. There are obvious links between the general communications needed to deliver switchover and targeted communications that are crucial to the scheme. The scheme will be most effective if fully integrated with the wider programme of work, which is best done by linking it with the BBC’s wider responsibilities for building digital Britain. It is therefore right that the BBC should take a leading role in making digital switchover happen.

We have worked closely with the BBC to develop the scheme, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank and commend the BBC team who led the development of the core requirements for receivers, which will ensure that equipment meets the higher usability needs of those covered by the scheme. We in government could not have done that by ourselves. Again, it is a practical example of why it was right to ask the BBC to take a leading role in this area. The scheme is integral to the digital switchover programme.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for intervening on the Minister when he is in full flow, but he has now said three times that the BBC will play a “leading role”. It would help the Committee if he agreed to specify the details and nature of that leading role. I did not table the amendments to try to delay the digital roll-out; there was no malicious intent. I was seeking to understand why the BBC needs the data. After all, we are all concerned about data being made too widely available. We should therefore limit the availability of data to only those individuals and organisations that have a legitimate need for them, in order to perform their function in delivering the targeted help scheme. I am still confused about what the role of the BBC will be and why it specifically needs the data.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise the specific contents of the Bill before us. He has perfectly legitimate concerns in this area and there will be other ways of debating the issue. I shall therefore seek your indulgence, Mr. Conway, and continue with my initial response, which may allow me in part to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the question that he raised. I will come at the end of my remarks to the specific issue that he raised.

We first proposed that the BBC should be responsible for helping to establish and fund the help scheme in the BBC Green Paper in March 2005. We clarified our proposals in the BBC White Paper in March 2006. The provisions are set out in the new BBC charter and agreement, which came into force on1 January.

The BBC believes that it should be involved. On 15 November 2005, Caroline Thomson, the BBC’s chief operating officer, told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:

“We are very keen to ensure that everyone gets digital, including the most vulnerable groups and that is one of the reasons why we have agreed in principle with the Government’s request to take part in the targeted help scheme funded from the licence fee.”

The amendments would remove the BBC from the definition of relevant persons with whom the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence in respect of war pensions could share social security and war pensions information in connection with help scheme functions. We believe that the BBC and the scheme operator will and may need access to that information. The amendments would make it much harder for the BBC to be involved in the running of the help scheme and, as a consequence, make it much harder for the scheme to help vulnerable people who may have difficulty in making the switch to digital.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is muddying the water further. In addition to talking about a “leading role”, he has said that the BBC will take part and has then gone on to say, rather cryptically, that it “may” need access to the information, rather than to give us an assurance. Earlier, the Minister said specifically that the details were set out in the charter and agreement. I have referred to the relevant section in the agreement. Is the Minister telling me that there is more detail in the charter and agreement that would help me and that I have missed? If so, could he tell me where to find it?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am making it perfectly clear to the Committee why the Government believe that the BBC should be able to have access to the information. The BBC may well contract out some of the day-to-day operations of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman made a number of semantic points about a leading role, part role and so on, but under the Bill we are enabling the BBC to do its job. It is right that it does that job precisely because of what I said earlier.

The hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately took a different view from mine on the matter from an early stage. Regrettably, the disagreement continues. However, because he has a different view from the Government, it does not mean that we shall change our position. We intend to continue to work with the BBC and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a statement to the House in which the details of the forthcoming licence fee settlement will be set out and, indeed, by implication and explication, the consequences of that for digital roll-out and targeted help, the hon. Gentleman might find the answers to some of his questions. In anticipation of that happening, he rightly probes away, trying to glean a little more information here and there in advance of the statement that we anticipate hearing from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am unable to satisfy his appetite on such matters, so he will just have to wait a bit longer until my right hon. Friend makes her statement.

The issue about the scheme being funded from the licence fee and delivered by the BBC has been debated extensively. We are willing to live with the fact that, even if I am unable to convince Opposition Members that the BBC should be involved in the way in which we are explaining, we believe that it is the best way forward for the success of the scheme and switchover if that is to work along the lines that we have outlined. The general spirit of our proceedings has been one of consensus, but the area currently under discussion goes back to a fundamental disagreement between Opposition Members and myself at a much earlier stage, so it is with regret that we cannot assist Opposition Members in their wish to amend the Bill.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I hate disagreeing with the Minister because he gets so upset, so I assure him that we shall return quickly to a spirit of consensus. It might help the hon. Member for Bath if the Minister could update the Committee on negotiations with the contractor who will carry out the switchover scheme. I mentioned Whitehaven not simply to have an opportunity to praise the outstanding efforts of the hon. Member for Copeland, nor to flag up the Minister’s imminent visit there, but to point out that there are nine months to go. Therefore, substantial negotiations must already have been completed that the hon. Gentleman can now share with the Committee.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am sure, Mr. Conway, that in respect of this specific set of amendments you would quickly rule me out of order if I were now to go into detailed discussions about the proposals for Whitehaven. I say in a sensible spirit of co-operation with all members of the Committee that we want the scheme to work. It is in the interests of everyone in this country that it works well and I am happy beyond the Committee proceedings and the Bill to sit down with all hon. Members and go through the proposals and, in so far as it is helpful—I am sure that it will be—to outline how the Whitehaven project will work. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee doing so now because it would not be appropriate. However, I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Member for Wantage, particularly if he wants to meet at 8 o’clock this evening in Hammersmith, and discuss the details of the project, explain how we propose to roll it out and outline the advanced state of preparedness that is taking place, not least because of the co-operation and leadership offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland who represents Whitehaven and those who will benefit from the switchover.

With that said, I hope that members of the Committee can see that the amendments probably have a different purpose from the genuine, noble inquiry that is related to helping the most vulnerable in our community and that the BBC is rightly recognised for the role that it will play in such matters. It is essential that it and those who represent it will have access to the information. It is therefore with regret—I genuinely mean regret—that we will have to resist the amendments if Opposition Members in extraordinary circumstances press them to a vote.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We have experienced this in the past. On this occasion a Minister has implied dishonourable intent with his tongue stuck very firmly into his cheek.

Although it was a relatively brief intervention, the hon. Member for Poole went to the very heart of what this debate is all about. He questioned the nature of the relationship between the Government and the BBC in the delivery of the targeted help scheme. He almost went so far as to imply that the Government’s intention was to set up a scheme in such a way that, if it went wrong, they would leave the BBC to hang out to dry. Were that the intention of the Government, I could perhaps understand the vital importance of the BBC having access to all of the data to at least make sure that every aspect of it was working in detail.

The Minister has failed to answer any of the questions that we have asked about the nature of the role of the BBC in delivering the scheme. We have heard that it is to play a leading role. We have heard that it is to take part. We know from the agreement that it has to comply with the scheme set out by the Secretary of State. We know from the Bill itself that it has to agree with the Secretary of State on the detail of the scheme—an interesting juxtaposition, incidentally. We know nothing, however, about what the BBC is going to do. The Minister has not been able to tell me where additional information is provided in the charter and agreement, so we are still left wondering why it is the BBC needs access to this information.

We have a bit of hope because the Minister has implied that the Secretary of State’s statement on Thursday on the BBC licence fee will reveal all this information. We are suddenly apparently going to discover all of the details of the nature of the work being conducted by the BBC. Since the Committee has the opportunity to be continuing on Thursday afternoon, and if not then at Report stage, which will be after the licence fee settlement statement has been made, we will have more information then and perhaps we will have discovered what the precise role of the BBC is. We will then have the opportunity to come back to this particular issue.

I am not satisfied at all by what the Minister has said, but I can see that I am not going to get very far now. Maybe after Thursday lunchtime we will have more information and perhaps I will have an opportunity to have another go then. At this stage, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, after first ‘with’, insert

‘, and providing information in formats accessible to visually impaired persons to,’.

The amendment is clear and self-explanatory. To be effective, the help scheme will have to communicate effectively with older and disabled people who are likely to qualify for help. To do so it has to contact them in a way that is accessible. This amendment specifically requires that the contractors will provide information accessible to all of those relevant target groups. This is necessary to ensure that the scheme is run according to the provisions of the disability equality duty that came into force on 4 December 2006 as part of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

Some requirements of that duty are that public sector bodies must promote equal opportunity for disabled people and that, in doing so, they must take steps to meet the needs of disabled people, even if those require giving more favourable treatment than is provided to other people. The duty must therefore clearly require the DCMS and the BBC, which are both covered by it, to plan to meet the needs of disabled people in relation to digital switchover.

It is recommended that 12-point print is used as an absolute minimum standard in all communications, but 14-point is much the best practice. That will make it easier for the huge numbers of people who will have some difficulty reading standard print to access information about the help scheme. Among people with sight loss, 19 per cent. cannot read their personal mail, 39 per cent. find it difficult to do so and a full 58 per cent. have difficulty reading personal e-mails. Over-75s are twice as likely to be unable to read their personal mail as those of working age. One in 12 people become blind or partially sighted by 60 and by 65 that figure rises to one in every six. A total of 2 million people in the UK have varying levels of uncorrectable sight loss and experience difficulty reading standard print, hence the importance of the amendment, which requires that all communication to those target groups should be in accessible formats.

It would be reasonable for initial correspondence to people who are registered blind or partially sighted to be in a minimum of 16-point print, although, ideally, it should be in 18-point. As well as being in large print, initial correspondence should state that letters and information can be made available in other formats, such as Braille, audio tape and electronically. The format preference should be recorded by the operators of the help scheme, who should then ensure that all following correspondence is in the target audience’s preferred format.

If that does not happen, recipients of the help scheme might not know, for example, when a visit from a technician or other staff is to take place, leading to missed appointments, negating the whole point of the scheme and adding to the costs of trying to arrange repeat visits and contacts. Those people might miss out on other important information regarding the assistance being offered with the help scheme, what they may or may not be entitled to, and so on. I suggest to the Secretary of State that this important amendment makes it clear what are the requirements on the contractors who are to deliver this important assistance.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I support the amendment, which makes an important point about the need to provide specific help for the visually impaired. Indeed, when we debate my amendment later, which seeks to write platform neutrality into the Bill, we will see that it is important that the technology provided to people who need targeted assistance for digital switchover is interactive, can be upgraded and can provide the specific help that people with visual impairment need.

Earlier this morning we were debating the BBC’s role in providing digital switchover help. I am surprised that the Government have decided to put all their eggs in the BBC basket, because those of us who talk to other broadcasters know that they are also advanced in helping vulnerable groups, particularly the visually impaired. This amendment gives me the opportunity to advise the Minister about Sky’s services for the visually impaired, which include a dedicated accessible service team with a ring-fenced telephone number giving direct access to an adviser, accessible TV listings information, disability awareness training for all engineers and the availability of alternative media—including Braille, large print and audio—to all correspondents. As far as the technology is concerned, an easy-to-use remote control device is also available. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to set out in specific detail the training that will be given to the engineers responsible for targeted help.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Again, I am tempted to debate far and wide the details of the help scheme. The hon. Gentleman is putting that temptation before me, knowing full well that the Bill is about access to information. None the less, he has made an important point, as well as a good commercial on behalf of Sky television, to which, he might wish to declare to the Committee, he is a regular contributor late at night, providing us all with great amusement as he attempts to analyse the newspapers.

The amendment deals with an issue rightly recognised by all hon. Members as important. It would be extremely unfortunate were we to go ahead with a targeted help scheme that could not help people as fully as we intend. In the best spirit, the amendment probes whether the legislation will achieve its objectives as far as possible. Hon. Members are quite rightly probing whether there may be a more effective way to achieve them, but there is no difference between us on the outcome that we want. The question is whether there is a better way of achieving it.

My comments relate to whether the amendment will achieve its stated ends. I must say at the beginning that I am advised that the amendment as drafted might do less good than he intends. Drafting is always a problem for Opposition Members, and where the Government can accept and improve an amendment, it is a problem that we always wish to help with. However, I hope if I give an explanation that the hon. Member for Chesterfield will recognise why the amendment is unnecessary.

I shall begin by outlining the amendment’s effect. It would effectively ensure that when the relevant person defined made contact with persons who might be eligible for help under the switchover help scheme, he would have to ensure that any information about the scheme supplied to visually impaired persons was provided in formats accessible to them. However, there is no need for the amendment in this case because of existing duties under the Disability Discrimination Act.

In rising quickly to his feet, the hon. Member for Wantage, who joined the hon. Member for Chesterfield in tabling the amendment, might not have had the opportunity last night to do his homework on the Act and discover that the issues that he presented to the Committee are already set out in the Act’s duties and requirements. Provisions in part 3 require service providers in providing their services and public bodies in delivering their public functions to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to access those services and functions. Such duties will apply to the relevant person when making contact with and providing information to disabled persons who may be eligible for the switchover help scheme.

In light of that, I hope that hon. Members will recognise that we are not for one moment trying to water down or undermine accessibility for target groups. The Disability Discrimination Act already establishes and imposes duties on individual bodies in such a way that everything intended in the amendment is already provided for in legislation, so the amendment would not improve the Bill.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

May I first make it clear that I do not associate myself with adverts for Sky TV, an organisation to which I would not want to lend my name? Before I moved the amendment and the Minister replied, I wrote my likely response. The first sentence reads, “The Minister says, and it might well be, that of course the information would be provided in an accessible format because it is already required by law.” I made that point in moving the amendment. However, I know from my experience that what is required in law under the Disability Discrimination Act is not always followed through.

From 2002-05, in the last Parliament, I was my party’s spokesman on disability. It is an area I have taken a strong interest in since the last election. The Department for Work and Pensions has a central role in dealing with equality issues, but is often slow in producing White Papers, annual reports and consultation documents in accessible formats, even though it should be the foremost Department in ensuring that that happens. One reason for this probing amendment was to press that point.

In this short debate, we have at least put it on record that we absolutely and clearly expect the contractors who end up implementing this scheme to make every effort in the initial and subsequent contact that they have with people to provide the information in accessible formats. They will have to go out to the target group of up to 2 million people, some of whom may, for example, have sight problems.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Again, it is important for all hon. Members to understand that legislation alone is not enough; it is about the spirit with which we enter into the whole enterprise. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we will see that in Whitehaven with the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. We want this to work and we must ensure that everyone who is in receipt of the information can access it, regardless of disability. I give an undertaking now to the hon. Gentleman that regardless of legislation, we will work with the charity groups and with those helping target groups to ensure that the information is available in a form that is accessible. I want to put it on record that that really matters to everybody living in this country regardless of political persuasion. Wherever people live and whatever constituency they come from, this information must be made available in a format that is accessible. We undertake to ensure that that happens.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I thank the Minister for those repeated assurances. I am sure that organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Disability Rights Commission or its future replacement, the Equality Commission, will in years to come quote that in evidence if needs be, as will we. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I detain you, Mr. Conway, and the Committee briefly to ask two quick questions on aspects of clause 1 that have not yet been debated? In determining the relevant people who will be eligible for access to data, we note that subsection (3)(c) states that a relevant person would be anyone carrying out

“any function connected with switchover help functions.”

Clearly, that enables a very broad definition of the number of people who might be helped. For example, a very small aerial erection company might be contracted to put up one or two aerials in a particular locality. It would clearly be carrying out a function connected with the switchover help function and would be given data about the people that it was expected to assist. However, one assumes that it would not receive access to the wider data. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some assurances in respect of the way in which data will be given out at the minimum level and how it will be ensured that people who get data receive only the minimum amount that they need in respect of the function they are to perform.

The Minister will probably reply that clause 3 should give me the comfort that I need because it ensures that it is an offence for people to disclose information that they are given without lawful authority. The Minister may well tell me that there are a number of aspects of data protection legislation covered in paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes and that that should give me some assurance that data would not be given to people who did not need them. In fact, having looked at those aspects, I did not get the reassurance that I seek.

I should like an absolute assurance from the Minister that no individual or organisation covered by the clause will be provided with more data than it needs for the purpose of carrying out the specific help function that it is required to provide.

Clause 1(4) defines switchover help functions as, in paragraph (a),

“the identification of persons who may be eligible”,

in paragraph (b),

“making contact with such persons with a view to the provision of such help”

and, in paragraph (c),

“the establishment of any person’s entitlement to such help.”

I should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister, because the explanatory notes tell us clearly who, in broad terms, will be eligible. I have to rely on the notes because the matter is not covered in the Bill. The last sentence of paragraph 7 of the explanatory notes says:

“Help will be available free of charge for those who are eligible and in receipt of pension credit, income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance; others will pay a contribution towards the cost of assistance.”

That sentence is slightly odd compared with the statement on the Department of Trade and Industry website that

“We will charge a modest fee to others.”

One is left wondering how high the fees will be for other people. However, were I to probe that matter, you would rule it out of order, Mr. Conway. However, can the Minister give me an assurance that the aspect of the switchover help function referring to the establishment of a person’s entitlement to such help includes establishing the level of fee that they should pay, if such a fee is required to be paid by such a person?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am pleased that we are making good progress. I can see Hammersmith looming towards the hon. Member for Wantage, if he so desires. Of course, whether he goes to Hammersmith this evening is entirely in his hands.

We have debated some of the details of the clause in discussing the amendments. Clause 1 is critical to the Bill: without it, the Bill fails. It is central in the purposes that the Government have set out for access to information. The clause provides the legal authority for the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence to supply social security or war pensions information to the administrator of the digital switchover help scheme. It enables the DWP, the DSDNI and the MOD to disclose information—I am beginning to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Bath—for limited purposes only, that is, for use in connection with switchover help functions.

It may be helpful to remind the Committee that there is extensive primary legislation setting out the circumstances in which and to whom social security information about individuals may be disclosed. Unauthorised disclosure of such information is, and remains under the Bill, a criminal offence under section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The provision in the Bill is very similar to the one in the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 that enables social security information to be provided to enable those aged 75 and over to have a free television licence.

I remind Committee members that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the disclosure of the information in question must be necessary and, under third party data protection principles set out in that Act, the information must be relevant and not excessive for the purpose. It is critical that hon. Members recognise that information is supplied on the basis that it is necessary and proportionate to the purpose.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I suggest to the Minister that that answer would have been more helpful had it been given in his response to my amendments relating to the BBC? If he is saying that there will be a clear calculation of the minimum amount of data sufficient for the BBC to carry out its role in switchover—and, similarly, for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and my little aerial man in some sub-region—we might have made a lot of progress very quickly.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I hope that we have made a lot of progress quickly. I did not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier probes on the BBC because I am quite sure that you, Mr. Conway, would have ruled me out of order as it was not appropriate at that point. I resisted being tempted by the hon. Gentleman putting the amendment before me. It is sometimes difficult to resist temptation but it was the right thing to do in this case if we managed to put on record and remind hon. Members about the importance of information only being passed if it is necessary and proportionate.

It is not only the safeguards in the Bill on handling information that are relevant; provisions on the handling of information covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 are found in many other statutes and have an impact on the Bill. I understand why hon. Members might wish to probe to ensure that those protections are offered, but of course they are. Subsection (1) provides legal authority to the Secretary of State and DSDNI to supply social security information to a “relevant person”, as defined in subsection (3), for use

“in connection with switchover help functions.”

as defined in subsection (4).

As I have said, the clause is important. The hon. Member for Bath asked about the “modest fee”. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the fee would be approximately £40, but I am happy to answer questions outside this Committee and to continue corresponding with hon. Members. I wish to underline to hon. Members that our purpose, and the reason for the Bill enabling information to be derived from social security data, is to ensure that the targeted help offered in the scheme achieves its ends. If we are able to improve the Bill, either in the course of its passage through Parliament or through guidelines and practice, we are open to doing so. We therefore wish to enter into continued consultation beyond the Bill itself.

Clause 2

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The previous debate was very enjoyable. I am intrigued by the hon. Member for Bath’s apparent obsession with the erection of inanimate objects, but no doubt it took the debate further.

I have very little to say on clause 2, but it would be useful if the Minister used the opportunity during our debate on the clause to address a matter that was raised on Second Reading. As far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—in bringing war pensions information into play the Bill differs from the Television License (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000. As the Minister is aware, one or two hon. Members made the point on Second Reading that war pension information is more sensitive than social security information in the context of disclosure. In Northern Ireland, for example, those in receipt of a pension via the Ministry of Defence may not want their neighbours or contractors to know about it. Will the Minister let the Committee know whether any additional security measures are being put in place to ensure that such information is well protected? I gather that the Secretary of State for Defence has input into the Bill as a consultee. I also understand that the Bill is permissive and that the BBC and related organisations will not have the right to see such information, so in that sense strong protection is already in place, but I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I will make two very quick points. First, clause 2 states that the description of the information will be prescribed by the Secretary of State and that that prescription will be the subject of an order made by the Secretary of State. In other words, the House will have the opportunity to debate the details of that prescription and therefore the information that will come from the data and to whom those data refer. I wonder whether the Minister can explain to the Committee something that has been puzzling me for a very long time. Why is the prescription—a relatively small issue—to be the subject of an order when the description and the detail surrounding the whole scheme and its delivery are not to be the subject of such an order?

My second question, which I mentioned earlier, is simple. Will the Minister update the Committee on the number of people who will be covered by the data? He will recall his predecessor, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), telling the Department Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 10 January that

“what we are doing is providing help to up to five million vulnerable households.”

I note that the 7 June report of the DCMS Committee states:

“We recognise some people will face practical issues in coping with switchover. This is why we are setting up with the BBC a very comprehensive programme of assistance to which 6.5million households where one person is aged 75 or over, or where one person is severely disabled, will be eligible.”

On 22 November, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Minister himself said:

“We estimate that around 7 million UK households will qualify for assistance”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 113W.]

That is slightly bizarre given the number of households in which there may be more than one eligible person. In another parliamentary answer from the Minister on 19 December—only a month later—the number of households that qualified for assistance had risen to 7.1 million. Given that the number is going up by about 200,000 a month, can the Minister give us his latest estimate of the number of people who will have to be helped by a scheme that will be fully funded by the BBC—totally unfairly—out of the licence fee payers’ pockets?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The hon. Gentleman deserves a medal for temptation. He puts before me numerous opportunities to go far and wide and journey through many areas. However, I am sure, Mr. Conway, that you quite rightly will want to remind us that clause 2 is actually very clear. It defines the key expressions used in clause 1. The temptation is great to discuss at this stage how many people will be covered and what parts of the UK it will refer to, but I think that you would swiftly rule me out of order were I to respond, so I shall resist.

Clause 2 defines the key expressions used in clause 1, and provides a power that we envisage will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to define precisely the types of social security and war pensions information that can be supplied. As such, clause 2 plays the important role of allowing for the scope of information to be defined in detail, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Department for Work and Pensions and scheme operators.

The hon. Member for Wantage raised an important issue that, as a former Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for security, I am particularly concerned about: whether a risk might be caused, inadvertently or otherwise, to individuals in Northern Ireland as a consequence of being identified by the scheme. Indeed, concerns about war veterans other than those from Northern Ireland were raised by staff in my Department as well as by hon. Members on Second Reading. As a result, officials in my Department and others investigated to ensure that there is no possibility that sensitive data will be released to a switchover provider. The Veterans Agency of the Ministry of Defence was particularly conscious of the risks to people in Northern Ireland, but it is satisfied that a switchover provider should not receive any information that would place a Northern Ireland security veteran at risk by identifying individuals as ex-service personnel.

Another point raised by the hon. Member for Bath relates to the nature of the legislation. The details of the secondary legislation mean that the type of information that can be supplied can be widened or narrowed depending on operational requirements, without the need for further primary legislation. However, the type of information cannot be changed at will—it must be the subject of an order, which will be subject to the negative resolution form of parliamentary scrutiny and control. There is no intention to include sensitive personal information in such orders. I hope that that has answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister rightly says that the advantage of an order is that the details of the data that are needed can be changed from time to time, as circumstances change, without the need for primary legislation. I understand that. However, he has not answered my question. Why is it so important to have an order and to have the House make a decision on any changes that may take place when the Government do not think it necessary to have an order giving the House the opportunity to have a say on the details of the scheme to which the data relate? I do not understand why one matter should be subject to the House’s approval, and the other not.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

What I have set out relates specifically to the Bill, which is not about the whole scheme, but about the disclosure of information. In so far as I can do so and remain in order, Mr. Conway, I believe that I have answered the question raised by the hon. Gentleman about why the capacity to disclose information is dealt with in the Bill.

Clause 3

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘disclose’, insert ‘, knowingly or recklessly,’.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—

‘(3A) It is an offence under this section for a relevant person to cause a person as defined under subsection (2) of this section to disclose without lawful authority information supplied to a relevant person under section 1.’.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I know that you are a highly cultured individual and film buff, Mr. Conway, so you may have come across the film, “Being John Malkovich”. As the Committee progresses, I am given to wonder whether the Minister has in his back pocket a script for “Being Derek Conway”, as he seems so able to anticipate your rulings before they are made. I hope that the Minister does not anticipate a ruling that anything I say in debating amendment No. 6 is somehow out of order.

Although the amendment is probing, it incredibly important and I intend to return to it on Report if I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I simply want to put on record that my anticipation of what you might say about being in order, Mr. Conway, comes merely—I say this with great humility—from a position of deference and respect to the office you hold as Chairman of the Committee. I have sought to anticipate you because I do not wish to preoccupy you or allow you to tell us off.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Let us try to proceed.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I was about to debate levels of humility. I yield to no one in my humility before you, Mr. Conway.

Our debate on clause 3 is about the burden of proof. The Committee contains an extremely distinguished criminal lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, and with the greatest respect to him, somebody of perhaps even more distinction, the hon. Member for Tooting, who is a former director of Liberty. The Committee will be astonished if he does not have something to say about the clause, which contains a reversal of the traditional burden of proof. We are considering a butterfly broken on a wheel. The clause uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This innocuous Bill of six clauses contains an affront to years of traditional English, or British, liberties.

Let me set the scene. Paragraph 28 of the explanatory notes makes it explicit that the burden of proof is reversed in the Bill. It states:

“the person charged has a defence if he can prove that, even though in fact the disclosure was made without lawful authority or was a disclosure of information that had not previously been made public with such authority, he believed that one or other of those conditions was met, and had no reason to believe that they were not met ... In principle, this reverses the burden of proof in this respect. In criminal matters it is usually up to the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, but here the defendant must prove the matters that go to make up the defence. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Such ‘reverse burden’ provisions raise issues under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights that are discussed below.”

“Below” means in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the explanatory notes. Paragraph 39 states:

“It is considered that clause 3(5) complies with article 6(2)”

of the European convention on human rights. It continues:

“The European Court of Human Rights has held that article 6(2) does not place an absolute prohibition on such ‘reverse burden’ provisions, but they must be ‘reasonable’. Clause 3(5) is considered to be reasonable: the offence is an important one because it is one of the mechanisms that safeguards personal information disclosed for the purposes of giving help with switchover”.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he is in full flow, but he is straying into the terms of amendment No. 2, to which he has added his name and to which I am almost certain we will come. He might find himself slightly ahead of the game at the moment.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Your ruling could bring me to a crashing or grinding halt, but, as I said in my opening remarks, I am to be guided by you, Mr. Conway. I am a naive adolescent as far as my experience on the Front Bench goes. If you tell me that I am out of order in debating what I think my amendment does, which is reverse the burden of proof, I shall happily be corrected by you and I shall withdraw the amendment and debate the matter when the hon. Member for Bath moves amendment No. 2. I seek your guidance, Mr. Conway.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment No. 6 has been selected, therefore it is perfectly in order to discuss it. All he has to do is to keep his remarks on his in-order amendment to the “knowingly or recklessly” bit. If he were to move on to the bit that refers to amendment No. 2, he would not be in order. So, knowingly and recklessly, Mr. Vaizey will continue.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Knowingly and recklessly, like my amendment says, I shall. This is a good example of the fact that one should never venture into a Committee unless the Clerk has drafted one’s amendment.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

At the risk of giving my hon. Friend legal advice, which I should not do because he is also a lawyer, although he was too modest to tell the Committee that—

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

You can see why I gave it up.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, so did I, but I shall try to help him and to assist in keeping the debate in order. His amendment attempts to avoid the potential problem of the reversal of the burden of proof, which is raised later, and it does so effectively. Given what the Minister has already said in this debate, I suspect that he wants to ensure that help is offered to those in a vulnerable position and that everything possible is done to ensure that information is transferred to those individuals to assist them with the switchover. I am sure he would agree that it would be regrettable if anything fixed in the minds of those participating in that process were to deter them from offering the maximum assistance.

My concern about the burden of proof issue is simply that we would not wish to be in a position where those who are helping vulnerable people with the switchover process felt constrained in what they did by fear that they may be prosecuted and subject to a criminal offence. That is not what the Minister intends—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is coming to the end of his intervention on to the hon. Member for Wantage.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I echo his remarks.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has helped him enormously? To summarise the point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help to ensure that I have got it right—if the reverse burden of proof is to go ahead, as the Government appear to wish, it is important that the Committee agree to the amendment, as it would remove the possibility of people unknowingly and un-recklessly, by error, handing over information. It would be unfair if they were caught by the reverse burden of proof.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. However, I am now entirely in your hands, Mr. Conway. I want to reverse the burden of proof, so I wish to address that point and then to ask leave to withdraw my amendment and hand the Floor to the hon. Member for Bath, if it is more appropriate to debate his amendment to discuss the reverse burden of proof.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. I am now confused about the hon. Gentleman’s wishes. He cannot withdraw that which has not been moved. If he does not want to press his amendment to a vote, I will not put the question. He is entitled to hear the Minister’s reply, if he wishes. He can withdraw the amendment when the Minister has finished.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Let me continue with my carefully worded remarks on the reverse burden of proof, because they are enormously important. I am tempted to yield to the hon. Member for Tooting.

Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

In recalling my legal expertise, I remind the Committee of an almost timeless principle, dating back to 1935, that it is up to the prosecution to establish guilt. That is known as the Woolmington principle, from the case of Woolmington v. the Director of Public Prosecutions. Officials were aware of that when drafting the Bill, and I see them nodding their heads. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, described the presumption of innocence as the “golden thread” running through the English legal system. It is worth quoting his remarks in full:

“while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence... Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained”.

There are a number of exceptions to the golden rule: the defence of insanity, which is down to the defendant to prove under the M’Naghten rule, dating back to 1843; statutory exceptions; and implied statutory exceptions. Any reverse burden of proof, as appears in clause 3, is open to challenge, as the explanatory notes make clear, under article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights. The explanatory notes also make it clear that a reverse burden provision will not inevitably give rise to a finding of incompatibility. It is now well settled that, in deciding the issue, the courts should focus on the circumstances of the case and strike a reasonable balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. That is made clear in a number of cases, culminating in the case of Sheldrake, decided in 2005.

The official Opposition submit that the reverse burden of proof in clause 3 is disproportionate. It is philosophically wrong for the defendant to have to prove that he disclosed information without knowing that he was doing so, or to prove that he was not reckless in doing so. It is also unfair to the defendant in practical terms. When a defendant is brought to court, the prosecution always has most of the cards stacked in its favour, which is why in law the golden thread requires that the prosecution prove the case. It is also hard to prove a negative—for the defendant to prove that he is not guilty of the offence because he did not do it.

There are several other reasons why the provision is unfair. It is also important to make the point that, although the explanatory memorandum says that it is proportionate and right to include the reverse burden of proof in the clause, the courts must ultimately make the decision.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Is the hon. Gentleman making the point that, because of all the explanations that he has given about why the reverse burden of proof is wrong if the Government persist, the amendment’s inclusion would be so crucial that the matter could not be discussed?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I am making that point.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I am sure the Committee will be relieved to hear that I shall avoid the quagmire of amendment No. 6 and address my comments to amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 4 was tabled to seek clarification from the Secretary of State about an issue that I first raised on Second Reading. The contractors who deliver the scheme will be provided with sensitive information about vulnerable people with disabilities, such as partial sight, and about elderly people. Those people could be exploited if the information were widely available. It is important to restrict, limit and carefully guard access to that information.

Clause 3 implies that, although it is an offence for the contractor to make available the information for incorrect purposes, it would not be an offence if a relevant person, such as a civil servant, a member of the BBC, or even a Minister from the relevant Department, made the information available to a contractor and misled them into believing that they could pass it to other people, who might then misuse it. The clause implies that it would be legal to disclose it in that way.

My point is simple: would the contractor be innocent if a relevant person in the BBC or in the Department had passed information to them and misled them into believing that they could legitimately spread the information further afield, where it could be misused? That is it—short and to the point. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it is an offence? The clause seems to read that it is not.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I call Mr. Justice Woodward.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I have been the subject of many elevations this morning: “Secretary of State” was incredibly generous of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and now “Justice”. It is difficult to recover one’s lowly position as a junior Minister with true equilibrium, but I shall do my best.

The hon. Member for Wantage took us on an interesting journey through his legal and philosophical background. At the end of his exegesis, it was hard to understand why he stopped practising as a lawyer, or indeed why he did not turn to a career in philosophical reasoning, as he endeavoured to deal with the question of negatives. Even if the way in which the points were raised left a little to be desired, they are none the less important. The Government should answer appropriately what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chesterfield have rightly opened up, and we shall take the opportunity to do so now.

It is essential that the security of personal information is safeguarded. On that, I am sure that all hon. Members agree. The clause is about detailing offences committed if social security information is unlawfully disclosed, and the amendments attempt to improve the position by providing those protections and by ensuring that information is carefully handled. The question is whether they do that. I shall argue that they do not. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. That relates also to precedent, which I shall come on to.

Amendment No. 6 raises the question of whether we were right to make the offence in clause 3 one of strict liability—in other words, an offence requiring the prosecution, in order to gain a conviction, to prove that the defendant made the alleged disclosure without any particular state of mind. Under the amendment, a person would be not guilty of disclosing information without lawful authority unless he or she made the disclosure “knowingly or recklessly”. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Wantage was saying.

If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were agreed to, no offence would be committed unless it could be proved that the offender either knew they were disclosing information supplied under clause 1 without lawful authority or was reckless in doing so—in other words, they took an unjustified risk. The purpose of the clause is to protect citizens and prevent abuse, but we believe that the amendment would make it more difficult to obtain justice if there was abuse. It would lessen the deterrent effect of the offence.

I remind hon. Members that the objective of the offence is to help to ensure the security and confidentiality of the information made available under the Bill and the scheme. In that sense, I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I just do not think, for reasons that I shall explain, that the amendment would achieve those ends.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

May I just clarify that I was chair, not director of Liberty? Is not article 8 of the convention on respect for privacy another problem here? If we were to pass the amendment, we might breach that right of individuals not to have information disclosed willy-nilly.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I shall add other reasons.

I do not think that the people who handle the information should take risks with it. Let us imagine that an employee uses a laptop in a public place and does not realise that personal information can be seen over their shoulder or carelessly sends information to the wrong email address, or puts the hard copy of information in an ordinary dustbin without considering that an unauthorised person might retrieve it. It would be up to the courts to decide, but it seems to me that none of those people would necessarily have acted “knowingly or recklessly” and so would not necessarily be convicted. In my judgment, they would have been careless, which the Bill should deter. When carelessness occurs, punishment should be sought.

Amendment No. 4 applies only to the first offence in clause 3, not to the second: that in subsection (2), which applies to employees, contractors and subcontractors. It would be odd—to say the least—to have different standards of proof for the release of information on the basis of the organisation that a person works for. Clearly, that is not what the hon. Member for Wantage intended.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

To clarify, that is not what I intended. If it were possible, I would move that amendment, but it is not.

The point that I was trying to make was that it should be down to the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence—that the defendant knew that they were disclosing sensitive information, or did so recklessly. The Minister is saying that any carelessness will make a defendant guilty. That is the point that I so inarticulately put when I moved the amendment. Someone could come up with numerous examples of carelessness, such as leaving a laptop in a car while popping in to a shop and having it stolen. It strikes me that the provision places an enormous burden on employees and others dealing with such sensitive information. It is wholly disproportionate to the information that could emerge. Again, the simple point is that it should be up to the prosecution to prove that an offence has been committed, and not up to the defendant to try to find a way out.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is incumbent on those involved to take a great deal of care in the handling of that information.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I shall in a moment.

The following point refers in part to a discussion on an earlier amendment about the information held on a laptop. If someone has sensitive and comprehensive information on their laptop, the Bill is right to put a duty—

Mr. Vaizeyrose—

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend first, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I have a lot of ground to make up.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

“Recover” is the word that the hon. Gentleman is searching for.

It is important to place the duty of care on that individual.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the parallels between the Bill and Parliament’s view on health and safety issues over the past few decades. The legislation includes strict liability offences because Parliament has deemed it important for employers to provide a safe place to work for their employees. I am sure that the party to which the hon. Member for Wantage belongs raised the same issues back then.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I am sure that, if a Conservative Government introduced that legislation, those issues were raised by the party of which the former chair of Liberty is a member. Will the Minister confirm that there is no reverse burden of proof under the official secrets Acts? It is up to the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence. It is extremely odd that, if a Royal Navy commander were to leave the details of the Trident nuclear deterrent on the back seat of his car and they were stolen, the prosecution would have to prove that he was reckless; whereas if an employee of an aerial erection company left two addresses on the back seat of his car and they were stolen, he would be guilty of an offence.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Instead of risking delaying the Committee with a discussion about the official secrets Acts, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

In a moment.

We believe that we are striking the right balance. A person who is clearly responsible for personal information being disclosed without authority could be found guilty of an offence, unless they can prove that the circumstances set out in subsection (5) apply—in short, that they made an honest but reasonable mistake. That is fair to the people whose daily job involves the handling of such information; but equally and crucially, it safeguards the personal information that they handle and is therefore fair to the person to whom the information relates. I do not know whether that answers or anticipates the question from the hon. Member for Bath, but I suspect that it might do both.

Amendment No. 4 also raises a number of key issues, but we are not persuaded that another criminal offence is needed to deal with them. First, and importantly for the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Bath, the provisions before us are similar to those in the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000. No offence, such as that which the hon. Gentlemen would like included in the Bill, exists in that legislation. In so far as we are aware, the problems about which they are concerned have not arisen. The same is true about the social security legislation, which is the basis of clause 3. I am therefore somewhat sceptical about the need for such an offence.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

In a moment.

Secondly, a new offence is unnecessary, because we can and must rely on the BBC and the scheme administrators to draw up carefully legal documentation that makes the contractors’ position clear to them. We must also rely on the scheme administrators to reach an agreement with the DWP about the security arrangements for safeguarding information. As I have said, it is essential that the security of personal information is safeguarded. However, that depends on effective data management practices by everyone involved, backed up by a proportionate but enforceable criminal offence to deter unlawful disclosure.

I should also mention the offences in section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that relate to unlawfully obtaining, disclosing and selling or offering personal data.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I apologise for being cruel to the Minister earlier—I was a little premature, but I was thinking of the reshuffles.

The Minister’s argument seems to be that, if in two aspects of Government’s activity, such as TV licensing, the same loophole exists in the legislation but he is not aware of its having been abused, it is acceptable to leave that loophole open in a third piece of legislation. That seems a strange argument.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It would be a strange argument if we felt that a loophole had been opened. We do not believe that one has been opened, because we have covered the very issues that the hon. Gentleman has probed in his amendment. Therefore, before we put any new offences on to the statute book, we need to examine how far existing criminal law goes.

In consultation with Government lawyers, I am assured that, in many instances, the new offence that appears in the Member for Chesterfield’s amendment is unnecessary. If one person gives another misleading information with the intention of making that other person disclose information without lawful authority, it is quite possible that the first person might already be vulnerable to prosecution. Depending on the exact circumstances, he might be liable to be charged with being an accessory or with inciting another person to commit the offence.

These two important amendments have been taken together. If we were not able to satisfy the underlying concerns of the amendments put forward by hon. Members, we would want to bring forward amendments ourselves. However, on the basis of the advice that I have been given in my discussions with Government officials and lawyers, we can reassure hon. Members that their concerns have been met.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I return to my original arguments, and perhaps I will have a chance to put them more articulately now that the Minister has replied. The purpose of inserting the words “knowingly or recklessly” would be to make it clear that the prosecution should prove the elements of the offence carried out by a person involved in disclosing information illegally. I have heard the Minister’s arguments and understand that he will resist amendment No. 4, so I will not press it to a vote.

I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that it is open to the courts to override a reverse burden of proof. The case of Sheldrake v. the DPP makes it clear that the courts will look at the circumstances to consider whether such a burden is inappropriate. I am interested to learn that the Minister has taken a great deal of legal advice. Would he waive principle and allow the Opposition to see the legal advice that tells him that it is appropriate to include a reverse burden of proof in such a Bill?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

If it is helpful to the Committee, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the arguments that we believe underpin our considered view that we should resist these amendments. I hope that that will satisfy him. In so far as I can, I will give him as much detail as possible.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out from ‘section’ to ‘he’ in line 11 and insert

‘if at the time of the alleged offence he believed—

‘(a) that he was making the disclosure in question with lawful authority, or (b) that the information in question had previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority,

and’.

I think that we have now come—for the first time—correctly to the issue of the reverse burden of proof. However, we have had an interesting debate about it already, so I do not intend to detain the Committee for long.

Reference has already been made to article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights. It is worth reminding ourselves that it states:

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law”—

everyone. The European Court of Human Rights has held that article 6.2 does not place an absolute prohibition on such reverse burden provisions, but that they must be reasonable. I confess that I am bitterly disappointed that that was the court’s judgment, but we must nonetheless accept that that was its decision. That decision has sadly enabled the Government to introduce a number of pieces of legislation that reverse the burden of proof. Examples of that include the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and, bizarrely, the Patents Act 2004. There was an attempt to do the same through what was then the London Olympics Bill, although we were fortunately able to persuade the Government, after lengthy debates, to change their mind, and that did not go ahead.

However, we are being asked to accept that the offence under clause 3 is a reasonable case for using the reverse burden of proof. That is the test that would have to be made to the European Court if there were a challenge. The explanatory notes say:

“It is considered that clause 3(5) complies with article 6(2).”

They continue:

“Clause 3(5) is considered to be reasonable”,

yet the reason given is bizarre. It is that

“the offence is an important one”.

I should have thought that the vast majority of offences were important ones. The hon. Member for Wantage referred earlier in his excellent contribution to—what was the legislation?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The official secrets Acts.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether offences in respect of that legislation were serious enough to carry the reverse burden of proof, but the Minister was unable to respond. I consider murder to be an important offence, but we do not use the reverse burden of proof argument for that. Indeed, the comparison is between murder, where we do not have the reverse burden of proof, and the offence proposed in the Bill, for which the maximum penalty is two years. That offence hardly seems to be sufficiently important to justify the reversal of the burden of proof. If the amendment were accepted, it would remove the reverse burden of proof and achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve. However, rather than outline why I think that is so important, I refer the Committee to the remarks that he made a few moments ago.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It is essential that the security of personal information is safeguarded. I am sure that all hon. Members are agreed on that. Achieving that depends on good data management practices by all involved, backed up by a proportionate but enforceable criminal offence, to deter unlawful disclosure. Again, we believe that we have struck the right balance in that.

Let us consider the following examples of unlawful disclosure. An employee discloses the names and addresses of people eligible for help, which are then used by a conman to trick his way into somebody else’s house. Other examples include, for instance, a corrupt employee selling information that can be used for marketing to a commercial company, an employee carelessly discarding hard-copy lists of eligible persons or e-mailing them to the wrong e-mail address and an employee giving a local newspaper details of people who have received help under the scheme, so that the newspaper can write a story about whether the scheme has failed. I hope that hon. Members would agree that the employee in first two examples would deserve to face a criminal court. However, there might be room for more discussion about the second two examples, which would, of course, depend on the facts.

One function of a court is to investigate what exactly has happened and judge whether a person deserves to be punished. We believe that the Bill allows for the right degree of flexibility on a case-by-case basis. It might therefore be helpful if I explain, for the benefit of hon. Members who have tabled amendments in the group, how the clause is intended to work.

The prosecution would have to prove that the defendant had disclosed social security information supplied under clause 1 and had done so without having lawful authority, as defined in subsection (6). It is not correct to say, as some hon. Members have, that the burden of proof has been reversed. The prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the main elements of the offence have been committed; only then do the provisions of subsection (5) come into play. Rather than reversing the burden of proof, subsection (5) extends the defences open to a defendant by allowing him or her to bring many mitigating circumstances to the court’s attention: for example, believing that it was okay as part of his or her job to help the press to report on the scheme; thinking that it was already public knowledge that specific people had helped with the scheme or that he or she had permission from the individuals whose details he or she had released to do so; or being told by a manager that he or she could release the information.

Of course we must be careful not to make it too easy for defendants to escape conviction by being able to give spurious excuses that the prosecution would find hard to disprove. It could be very difficult for the prosecution to prove not only that an offence had occurred, but that the perpetrator had definitely known that his or her actions were unlawful. If potential wrongdoers realised that, unauthorised disclosures would become more likely. Equally, it would not be right to convict somebody who has an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that the circumstances made their actions legitimate. Therefore, we believe that it is better, in making sure that the offence is an effective deterrent and fairer to people whose details have been disclosed, to put the onus on the defendant to prove that he or she really did believe that what he or she did was legitimate. The defendant can explain to the court what they thought, what they knew and what they had been told by their managers. They need only prove that what they are saying is true on the balance of probabilities—that is, that it is more likely than not to be true—which is a lower hurdle than the prosecution faces in proving the main elements of the offence. Such a provision is not uncommon and is consistent with the approach in the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 and in legislation that protects social security information in the hands of the Department for Works and Pensions, such as section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

The hon. Member for Bath mentioned article 6 of the European convention on human rights. We are confident that the provision complies with the convention. Article 6(2) requires that every person charged with a criminal offence be presumed innocent until proved guilty. However, the court in Strasbourg and the courts in the UK have ruled that there is no absolute prohibition on provisions that impose a burden of proof on defendants. States must confine any legal reverse-burden provision

“within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence”.

Each provision must be judged on its own merits and we believe that the provision in the Bill is reasonable. The offence has the important purpose of deterring the unlawful disclosure of personal information about individuals. The penalty on conviction is significant, as befits the need to protect personal information, but is not exceptionally severe. Acquitting the defendant if there are extenuating circumstances is right, but placing on him or her the onus of proving what he or she believed at the time of the disclosure of information is also right, not least because that defence relates to matters mainly within his or her own knowledge. The prosecution would be placed at a significant disadvantage if it was for them to prove that the defendant did not believe that he was acting with lawful authority. That would weaken the deterrent effect, which is an important part of the offence.

In the light of those explanations, we ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister has given us a lot of food for thought. I am sure that we want to digest the words later. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 5, page 4, line 9, after ‘switchover’, insert

‘, which must treat digital retail television services and digital television broadcasting platforms equally in respect of all aspects mentioned, including pricing, brand names, availability and packages and’.

I very much hope that the amendment is appropriately drafted for the remarks that I intend to make in the remaining 10 minutes of the sitting. The amendment is designed to make it absolutely clear that the BBC, or the scheme operator involved in targeted help for switchover, ensures that the advice that it gives to those in receipt of help is platform neutral, as the jargon of digital television has it. As hon. Members will know, one is able to access digital television through a variety of mediums. There is the set-top box, with the brand name freeview; a satellite receiver, mainly through Sky, which I have mentioned before, which also operates a subsidised scheme called freesat; and cable, the dominant operator effectively being NTL-Telewest.

There are at present a number of difficulties with that wealth of choice because freeview, which is the scheme that the BBC promotes, is, as one might expect, the most widely used scheme. It involves no subscription, merely the purchase of a set-top box. Also, pertinently, it has behind it the massive marketing power of the BBC which regularly promotes digital terrestrial television by the brand name freeview, whereas it obviously does not refer to the opportunities to receive a programme through Sky or NTL-Telewest. That obviously gives freeview a massive marketing opportunity.

As the Government have made clear—from the point of view of the taxpayer, this is a sensible point—they intend to make available in the targeted switchover scheme the cheapest possible form of digital television. That will be through a digital set-top box.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I do not know whether it would assist the hon. Gentleman, but has he had a chance to look at the help scheme document which we deposited in the Library before Christmas? It makes it crystal clear that the help scheme will be operated on a platform-neutral basis.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

That is made clear, but I fail to see how that can be compatible with the fact that the help scheme will also be operated on the basis of the cheapest option available, which has to be a set-top box rather than a satellite receiver. Anyone who wants to upgrade will have to pay an additional sum. Given that the Minister has made that admission, no doubt he will have no problem with writing into the Bill the need for platform neutrality.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

One of the issues that has emerged from the Whitehaven area in recent weeks and months is that take-up of Sky has gone through the roof. That is an important point when considering platform neutrality.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

It certainly is. As there is an increasing consensus that there is a need for platform neutrality I assume that hon. Members will be keen to ensure that that is written into the Bill.

I have been in correspondence with some of the operators other than the BBC, who say that although they fully expect the Minister to say that an amendment is unnecessary, that is not their view. They point to their experience with the BBC, which is happy to refer to digital terrestrial television by its well-known brand name, freeview. The commercial operators who must compete against the BBC are keen to see platform neutrality written into the Bill.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I hope that I can deal with amendment No. 7 relatively quickly. Its purpose seems to be to insert a legal assurance into the Bill. The questions are whether that is necessary and whether the clause is the right place in which to make that insertion. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that his amendment would succeed.

The definition of digital switchover help scheme in the Bill is just that—a definition. It is neither workable nor practicable to amend the definition by placing substantive conditions on the way in which the scheme operates. Those conditions will, rightly, be included in the scheme agreement with the BBC and in the various contractual arrangements that will underpin the scheme.

I am more than happy to offer the hon. Gentleman assurances that digital switchover will be conducted on a platform-neutral basis. The White Paper says that the Government will continue to be platform-neutral in its public policy, and we have reiterated that principle in relation to the help scheme. I have drawn the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the digital help scheme document, which was deposited in the Library before Christmas and which sets that out clearly.

Our policy is to support a wider range of digital platforms because that means more choice for consumers. Digital switchover has always been about choice for consumers—not just choice of programmes and channels, but choice of platforms. Our policies on the help scheme and on digital switchover generally are built on the principle of platform neutrality. The amendment would do nothing to add to that well established policy. As the clause is about definition and because it is neither workable nor practicable to amend the definition in a way that places substantive conditions on the way in which the scheme operates, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I hear what the Minister says, and I understand that he will resist the amendment. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I want to reiterate a number of points.

The Minister said that the document published by his Department makes it clear that the scheme will be platform neutral. He may be referring to paragraph 5.25 of that document, but it is merely words and makes it absolutely clear that if someone does not take a digital set-top box, but takes an integrated system, a satellite system or a cable system, they will be required to pay the difference between the cost of a set-top box and the cost of those slightly more sophisticated systems. On any analysis, that is not an equal choice and I cannot see how it can be reconciled with what any hon. Member would assume is platform neutrality or, layman’s terms, a level playing field.

When we debated an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to the obvious point that the Bill must comply with disability legislation. Many of the organisations involved in advocating the rights of disabled groups say that the basic set-top box will not have the interactivity and technical complexity to access the sort of services that many people with severe disabilities, particularly visual impairment, require. I urge the Minister to accept the spirit of the amendment and to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society have a genuine free choice.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Clause 5 deals mainly with matters of interpretation. One interpretation that we are asked to approve is:

“‘switchover health scheme’ means any scheme for the provision of help to individuals in connection with digital switchover which is agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State in pursuance of the BBC Charter and Agreement, as the scheme has effect from time to time.”

I am sure, Mr. Conway, that you would not wish the Committee to agree that clause 5 should stand part of the Bill without some assurance from the Minister regarding the agreement that will be reached between the Secretary of State and the BBC. The Minister said that we will have to wait for the licence settlement statement on Thursday to hear the result of the charter review. However, as we have been very good and dealt with our business quickly, we are where we are without having heard the Secretary of State’s statement. It therefore seems appropriate to ask the Minister to provide a little more information before we simply agree to the clause.

Will the Minister tell us a little more about the scheme? Does he envisage the BBC being in any respect its manager or its deliverer? Is a sum of money for the provision of the scheme to be agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State, no doubt forming part of the licence fee settlement; and, if so, will he tell us how much? What will happen if the sum of money identified by the Secretary of State, or perhaps agreed between her and the BBC, which we understand might be in the order of £600 million, proves to be inadequate?

Will any change be made to the BBC’s present borrowing arrangements? After all, if the BBC has a responsibility for, for example, the acquisition of large quantities of equipment for the switchover assistance scheme, it may be necessary for it to find a lot of money up front. However, the BBC’s borrowing is limited, so if it had to use its existing funding for that purpose, the programme-making budget would suffer. Will the Minister respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Poole, who has just taken his place? He asked: if things go wrong, will the BBC, in effect, be hung out to dry and take all the responsibility for any problems that arise, or will the Secretary of State, who will be party to the agreement, be deemed to be equally responsible?

I note with interest the answers to some parliamentary questions that I have very recently received from the Department of Trade and Industry about the disposal of electrical and electronic equipment when it becomes redundant following digital switchover. Will arrangements between the BBC and the Secretary of State for the digital switchover scheme take into account the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006, which were laid before Parliament on 12 December 2006? More importantly, how much money has been set aside, within the ring-fenced amount—allegedly £600 million—to defray the cost of disposing equipment that will become redundant in the homes of those who have been assisted by the targeted assistance scheme? Finally, does the Minister have an answer to my earlier question about the number of people that he now estimates will be helped by the “switchover help scheme”, as defined in clause 5(1)?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because if I get answers to those questions I should be more than happy, at least at this stage, to agree to clause 5 standing part of the Bill. However, notwithstanding my acceptance of the clause at this stage, I hope that we will have an opportunity, in some guise or other, to debate further the details of the switchover help scheme, once we hear from the Secretary of State on Thursday any information that she deems to share with us.

As I have said on another occasion, I remain firmly of the opinion that the digital switchover help scheme is a Government social policy that should—like giving free TV licences to the over-75s—be paid for by the Government and should not be funded, as I understand is currently proposed, out of moneys raised under the BBC licence fee.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The hon. Gentleman deserves an accolade and prizes for trying—and trying he really is. He is trying the parameters of a Bill that, after all, makes provisions for the disclosure of certain information—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Under-Secretary give way on that point?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I will in just a moment, but this is important. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go into the details of a forthcoming announcement by the Secretary of State about the BBC and the licence fee and some of the implications of that. This morning, I said that there would be a statement about that in the coming weeks, since when the hon. Gentleman has continually mentioned the day on which the statement will be made, but it does not matter how many times he mentions a particular day. What information he may have gleaned was gleaned through the usual channels and is on a usual-channels basis, and I cannot confirm or deny the date that he keeps mentioning. I can say only that the information that he seeks in this clause stand part debate is, by and large, well beyond the parameters of the Bill. However, I am happy to deal with issues arising appropriately in relation to the clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Clearly, Mr. Conway, you deemed that my questions were in order, since you have not ruled that they were out of order. I am sure that you accept that now, not later, is the time to ask questions, if we are to agree clause stand part. Although I accept that we will have an opportunity to return to the subject, it is reasonable for Committee members to ask questions about the clause now. It is not the Committee’s fault that the Government have failed to get their act together on the agreement with the Treasury in respect of the licence fee settlement.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but questions about the specifics of the BBC’s borrowing limits go beyond the digital help scheme. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but the details of the BBC’s external borrowing limits go beyond the digital help scheme. Those details may be relevant in his eyes, but I will not be tempted by him into a discussion that does not fall within my remit today.

Until the Secretary of State makes a statement to Parliament and details in the appropriate way the agreement and settlement with the BBC, however much the hon. Gentleman presses me—he can do so until 10 pm tonight; I am prepared to sit here and be pressed—however many ingenious ways he asks and however many times he tries, I will be unable to help him. That is not because I do not want to help him, but because I cannot do so at the moment until agreement with the BBC is finally resolved. That matter is not finally resolved. Whatever advance information the hon. Gentleman may have about an intended date for a statement to Parliament, the final agreements with the BBC have not yet been made. They are still being made.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It is not my fault.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, keeps mumbling “fault”. Fault is not relevant. What is relevant is getting the agreement right. If I am unable to satisfy his appetite for information in advance of an appropriate and proper statement being agreed with the BBC and subsequently made to Parliament by the Secretary of State, I apologise; but I really cannot assist him. I have tried, with some degree of pain, throughout our deliberations to make it clear that once I can make the appropriate declarations to the Committee or the House, I will do so. I will be happy to do so, but at the moment I have a problem. What is it that the hon. Gentleman does not understand about the words, “I am not yet in a position to answer his question; I will do so when I can.”?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I genuinely understand the Minister’s difficulty. However, the difficulty faced by members on both sides of the Committee is that, in being asked to agree today to a provision relating to the digital switchover scheme, we are being asked to agree that there will be a digital switchover help scheme, that it will be agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State, that it can be varied from time to time, and that Parliament will have no say in that decision. In such circumstances, in the normal processes of Committee debate, it would be usual for the Minister to at least give an indication of the nature of the agreement that is envisaged.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position but—I say this with respect—the Bill is about permitting social security information to be disclosed to the administrator of the digital switchover help scheme. The Bill is not about the digital switchover help scheme. None the less, he constantly presses for a discussion of the help scheme.

I respectfully suggest that there are many ways for the hon. Gentleman to discuss the digital switchover help scheme. He will be as aware as other members of the Committee that he can do so through a number of parliamentary devices. The obvious routes are an Adjournment debate or an Opposition debate. All those routes are available to him, and I would be more than happy to take part in such a discussion.

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman—I do not know why he has difficulty understanding my explanation—that the precise arrangements will remain unresolved for a little longer and that until they are resolved I will be unable to give him the explanation that he seeks. As soon as they are resolved, I will be able to do so. I do not see why he still does not understand that the Bill is about permission being given for the disclosure of social security information.

Our debates, including those on the helpful probing amendments, are about producing a safer system for both those whose information is disclosed and those involved in the handling of the information. It is no more and no less than that. That is an extremely important matter. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the precise governance arrangements and the full extent of the BBC’s involvement are still under discussion. As soon as the matter has been resolved—it will not be affected by the Bill, because that is about enabling the disclosure of information—I will discuss them with him. I will be more than happy to do so.

As I understand it, the clause is about the expressions used in the Bill. I am happy to discuss those matters at length. Once again, I tell all members of the Committee that the Government stand ready to discuss them. The hon. Gentleman may have to wait only a matter of days, rather than weeks or months, before we are in a position to satisfy his lust for debate.

New Clause 2

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that the new clause is appropriately drafted. It is what is colloquially called a sunset clause—it is designed to ensure that after a period the legislation will fall into abeyance. The reason for inserting a sunset clause is that the Bill implicitly has a shelf life, which was made explicit on Second Reading when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:

“Effectively, a sunset clause will be operated once switchover is complete in 2012. Members might wish to look at the application of sunset provisions on a region-by-region basis when the Bill is in Committee”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1174.]

Given the quality of my drafting skills, you will probably be grateful, Mr. Conway, that I have not drafted a clause to bring the legislation to an end as switchover spreads through the regions, but we may seek to do that on Report.

The Secretary of State made it clear that she does not think a sunset clause is appropriate and said that

“the Bill is, in effect, time limited—after switchover has been completed, it will cease to have any effect.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1182.]

One could meet the Secretary of State halfway, but it is a matter of good law as well as tidiness and neatness that the legislation should cease to have effect at the end of the digital switchover roll-out process rather than sit idly on the statute book. I suspect that some hon. Members support me on that. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway is not in his seat, but he said on Second reading at column 1192 that he was interested in introducing a sunset clause, although he has not tabled an amendment to that effect.

Conservative Members believe that a sunset clause is extremely important, not least because it will concentrate the Government’s mind. As has been said repeatedly, mainly by me, the Bill covers the largest civil project in recent times—to switch over the television sets of millions of people throughout the country—and targets help to millions of people during the six years of the planned switchover. We understand that the target date for analogue switch-off is the end of 2012. It is due to start in Whitehaven in a matter of months, yet, as the hon. Member for Bath said, no company has been set up for that purpose. We still have almost no details of how the scheme will operate or what sort of funding will be available to the BBC to implement the scheme, what equipment it will purchase and how the scheme will operate in detail. The Government have set themselves an extraordinarily challenging task, but they have made absolutely clear the date on which they want the switchover to be completed, so they cannot be concerned about having a sunset clause to bring the legislation to an end when they switch off the analogue signal.

I have done an enormous amount of legal research on sunset clauses, just as I did on reversing the burden of proof. My attempt to elucidate the burden of proof was somewhat curtailed, but I hope that my detailed research on the sunset clause will have a fair wind. I will give the Committee the benefit of my thoughts. We start in ancient Rome—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

How long you are going to be? Can I pop out for a coffee?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your Hammersmith ears.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I hope that Hansard is getting the noises off.

I take the Committee to the ancient city of Rome, where the roots of sunset provisions are laid in the Roman law of the mandate. At the time of the Roman republic, the empowerment of the Roman senate to collect special taxes and to activate troops was limited in time and extent. Those empowerments ended before the expiration of an electoral office, such as the proconsul. The rule was known as “ad tempus concessa post tempus censetur denegata”. Members of the Committee will not need any translation but for those listening to the debate who are not members of the Committee, it means what is admitted for a period will be refused after the period. The same rule applied to Roman emergency legislation; it was a fundamental part of Roman law until Julius Caesar became dictator for life.

One can see that a sunset clause is very common in a democracy. It appears in some of the greatest democracies the world has ever known. In America, the Sedition Act 1798 was subject to a sunset clause, as was the Alien Friends Act 1798. More recently, the Congressional Budget Act 1974 and the assault weapons ban provision were subject to a sunset clause, as was the USA Patriot Act 2001 and the Estate Tax and Other Tax Cuts Act 2001. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bath want to intervene on this learned exposition of a sunset clause?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Absolutely not.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The best operation of a sunset clause is seen in Texas, the home of the current President of the United States. As hon. Members know, the Texas legislature sits only every other year.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Should not the hon. Gentleman be telling us how the sunset clause applies to the Bill, rather than what it is?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

That is the most depressing intervention I have heard in my time in Parliament. Not to understand the full, rich context of a sunset clause before debating its specific application to this tiny Bill seems to me to be the attitude of a small, narrow-minded individual. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member. I meant him no offence; it was said in kindness and not as an aggressive statement.

We are now in Austin, Texas—

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Is the hon. Gentleman drawing comparisons between the Secretary of State, George W. Bush and Julius Caesar? If so, can he elaborate further, please?

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I certainly can. Julius Caesar was a dictator; the Secretary of State is a democrat; I am therefore in no doubt that she will support a sunset clause. I can tell that the Committee is tiring of my tour of sunset clauses, so I simply point out that it is interesting that every department of state in Texas is subject to a sunset clause; therefore every 10 or 12 years they are subject to debate by the legislature. [Interruption.] I can sense that support is now growing for the sunset clause. Finally, in Canada, under section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, the sunset clause is applied to any legislation passed under that charter.

However, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside implied in his intervention, what is relevant is what happens in this country. I did not know before I began my research that income tax is subject to a sunset clause, which may interest members of the Committee, but unfortunately Parliament has made the mistake every year of renewing income tax. The Sex Discrimination (Election of Candidates) Act 2002, which introduced all-women shortlists and brought some of the most formidable politicians to Parliament, is subject to a sunset clause. Sadly, that injection of talent is due to come to an end in 2015, unless Parliament renews that clause. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which we debated in a recent Session, was subject to a sunset clause. Parliament is therefore used to introducing sunset clauses, which returns me to the theme of my remarks: a sunset clause is common and well used in democracies across the world. A sunset clause is common and used in this Parliament. A sunset clause is necessary for a Bill that, by its very nature, has a very short shelf life.

Certainly no one will seek to use the Bill’s provisions after 2012 or 2013, which allows the Minister a little slack in terms of how quickly he gets the provisions implemented. Given the intrusive nature of the Bill, which relates to the ability of a company, the BBC or the Secretary of State to request and have access to data on individuals, a sunset clause would send an important signal that an intrusive Bill such as this will not simply be allowed to hang around, to be picked up 20, 30 or 70 years later in the same way as the selling of honours Act—the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925—was discovered and dusted down 70 or 80 years after its passage.

The Committee, if it puts a sunset clause in the Bill here today, will send a great signal to our colleagues in Parliament as they debate Bills that perhaps, to tidy up our statute book, they should be thinking of a sunset clause not as an exceptional clause to be put into an exceptional Bill, but as something that we can, as a matter of course, include in every Bill. There should be the presumption of a sunset clause unless it can be shown that a sunset clause is not required.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman and his learned exposition of the origins of sunset clauses, so I will confine myself to more prosaic points. As he said, the proposed sunset clause would terminate the legislation within six years of clause 1 coming into force. Sunset clauses, as has been pointed out, are occasionally used in British legislation—I have in mind controversial legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. We propose a sunset clause in this Bill not because it is controversial in the same way as those two pieces of legislation, but because it relates to a large body of sensitive information about elderly and disabled people that could be abused if it got into the wrong hands. It would make sense to limit clearly the amount of time for which that information will be available and in the hands of contractors. That would help to prevent abuses of power after the end of the six-year period that we propose, just as the amendments that we discussed this morning were designed to prevent abuses of power while the legislation was in force.

In the early part of the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State was quite sympathetic to the idea of a sunset clause. She said:

“Effectively, a sunset clause will be operated once switchover is complete in 2012.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1174.]

But of course that is not a true sunset clause. There could be an extension to the switchover period unless there is clear legislation saying when it should be completed by. It could extend to 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016, because without the new clause there will be no clear time limit, only a desire for a time limit. The Bill would be the sort of blank cheque that we heard described as this morning—a blank cheque to give the Government the power to do what they like once the legislation is passed. We will not be doing our job as scrutinisers of legislation unless we support the writing into the Bill of a strict sunset clause.

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has said:

“When data protection puts fundamental safeguards in place, we must make sure that some of these lines are not crossed.”

One of those lines would be the unnecessary retention of the data on some millions of people to which the Bill relates.

As has been mentioned, the Secretary of State also suggested on Second Reading that Members might want to consider applying a sunset provision on a region-by-region basis. On that, I part company with the hon. Member for Wantage: on closer examination, that seems daft. People move house and TV regions, so we cannot suggest such a strict regional sunset clause. For example, in 2010, someone might move from the Carlton London Weekend Television region, where the process is due to be complete in the first half of 2012, to the HTV Wales region, where it is already complete. If we had a strict regional sunset clause, how would data from one region be moved to another? People would not be able to receive switchover help in those circumstances.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Will the hon. Gentleman offer some clarification? I realise that I am asking him this as though he were a Government spokesman, but is it his understanding that switchover help will be available for the entire period in every region? It is an interesting point.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

I could not possibly comment until the Secretary of State says something on Thursday. That is an extremely difficult question for me to answer, because there is so little detail in the Bill and, as we know from this debate, the Minister will refuse to answer that question, because it is all to come with the blank cheque later on. We simply do not have those details.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

On that basis, the hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss regional sunset clauses as a “daft proposal”. If help ceases to be available after a certain period, when switchover is complete, it might be good to have such a clause. Indeed, I might come back to it on Report in order to protect data and our civil liberties.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

On the contrary, if our new clause 2 were to be implemented—

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

It is my new clause 2.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

It stands in our names as well. If new clause 2, to which the lead name attached is that of the hon. Member for Wantage, but to which my name is also attached, were to be adopted today, the uncertainty that we have just discussed, and which the Government seem keen to maintain, would be ended. If we had a rigid six-year sunset clause across the country, not a regional rolling programme, the Government would have a very short, sharp timetable to stick to.

That leads on to my final point. Some people would say, “Well, is six years enough?” The Government have set themselves that target, but given themselves a blank cheque so that, if need be, they can extend it. However, the work done by contractors could run over because no clear legislative cut-off point has been put in place by which time the process must be complete—2012 is only an aspiration. New clause 2 would establish a strict six-year sunset clause, which would the Government, the BBC and contractors to work with a set purpose towards that deadline, instead of feeling that they could run over.

I certainly support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Wantage. A sunset clause would be good practice given the large quantity of sensitive information that is to be put into a wider domain. It would focus the minds of the Government and contractors on a clear, definite finish point for the switchover process.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The titles that I have collected today fill me with excitement about the future.

What do we say about this journey through ancient Rome and the Latin lexicon that we have been treated to this afternoon? It has certainly been enjoyable. I fear that last night the hon. Member for Wantage made a wager with some friends that he could mention sunset clauses 52 times and lead us on to a discussion of Austin, Texas, without incurring your wrath, Mr. Conway. He should win a prize, but I am not sure that his speech added anything to our understanding of the value of a sunset clause.

However, in the spirit of the Committee’s deliberations and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, I want to deal with the matter properly. He rightly reminded us that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State and I were minded to consider a sunset clause. Prompted by the contributions of hon. Members on Second Reading, it seemed to us as though a sunset clause might be appropriate, so we took the matter away in the best spirit for discussion with officials. However, we were persuaded that, on balance, it would not be right to put a sunset clause in the Bill. With your indulgence, Mr. Conway, I will briefly set out the arguments why.

We needed to ensure two things with the duration of powers in the Bill, the first of which was that the criminal offences should continue to operate after the information had been lawfully disclosed, even though the power to disclose had been spent. Secondly, the powers needed to be available to underpin the whole scheme for as long as necessary—no more and no less. A fixed date, with no means of amendment short of legislation would mean that there was no way of extending the provisions if, for some reason, switchover were not completed by 31 December 2012 or if a technical problem arose during the course of switchover; and an express power to extend the duration of powers would give certainty with one hand but, as I shall explain, take it away with the other.

I remind the Committee that clause 1 states:

“The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland department may...supply a relevant person with social security information for use...in connection with switchover help functions.”

In other words, once the switchover help scheme has completed its task, the legal basis for using the information and, therefore, for disclosing it, vanishes. How does that translate into practice and how does that provision compare with the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Wantage, in conjunction with and assisted by other hon. Members? I do not want to cause further dispute between the Opposition parties over new clause 2.

Our strategy for switchover is based on a robust programme and on what we believe to be a realistic and achievable timetable, which was proposed on the best advice of broadcasters and Ofcom and confirmed by our experts. That timetable includes a prudent amount of slack to accommodate unforeseeable or, as we currently regard them, unpreventable delays. However, with the best will in the world, a project of such scope—switchover is, within the timescale, one of the largest civil projects ever undertaken in this country—undoubtedly carries risk.

We want to avoid an unexpected or unanticipated delay, such as prolonged bad weather preventing work in the final stages of switchover in London or an exceptional event such as hurricane winds bringing a transmitter mast down, resulting in unavoidable delay in completing the full switchover programme. Those who are minded, like the hon. Member for Bath, to follow aerial erection matters may recall that such an incident was suffered in 1969 by the Emily Moor transmitter, which serves Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Wantage poked a little fun at the hon. Member for Bath over his interest, but erections matter. In the case of the Emily Moor transmitter, there was a serious problem.

Uncertainty about whether the powers will remain in place for the lifetime of the scheme carries a risk for the main contractor, which has an implication for costs, as commercial interest will make the contractor look for a higher contract price to compensate for such a risk. The Government of the day could return to Parliament with a Bill to extend the legislation, but there may not be time. Would that be the best use of Parliament’s time, particularly as we have anticipated the potential risk at the beginning of switchover? One remedy is to include a power to extend the powers in clause 1 by order, but would not that undermine the purpose of an explicit sunset provision, as a matter of principle? It would be left for a future Government to decide how long the powers should last, so removing the element of certainty that the hon. Member for Wantage seeks.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The Minister mentioned a series of quite fantastical acts of God that might disrupt the digital switchover process, although, given the Government’s record on climate change, I can understand why he is expecting hurricanes and flash floods. He did not mention Government incompetence as a cause. Given the enormous expedition with which we have pushed the Bill through the House, would it not be possible simply to include a sunset clause and then later—say, in the summer of 2012, just before everyone leaves to go to the Olympics—introduce a one-word amendment, to change the word “six” to “seven”, rather than seeking such convoluted excuses to avoid this important new clause?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The hon. Gentleman again tempts me into areas of political provocation, in which, for the benefit of my hon. Friends on the Committee, I shall not indulge him. However, if he continues, I am more than happy to ensure that the honourable burghers of Hammersmith do not enjoy his company tonight.

Given what I have said about the self-limiting nature of the powers, a sunset power would be redundant. No sensible Secretary of State would use it until switchover was finished and the scheme had done its job, by which time the powers in the Bill would be spent and the only purpose of using that power would be to terminate it formally. Therefore, although we have taken on board the proposals made on Second Reading, our considered approach has been to link the powers directly to the event of digital switchover, which is a time-limited event, and the help scheme that supports it. That will have the same practical effect as a formal sunset clause, in that once switchover is completed and the help scheme has done its job, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Social Development Department in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence will no longer be able to disclose the information lawfully.

Paul Holmes (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield)

The Minister has made a number of well argued points for why a sunset clause might not be desirable or workable, but could he explain why, early on in the debate on Second Reading, the Secretary of State indicated that the Committee might consider a series of regional sunset clauses? Surely all the Minister’s points would apply to those as well.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

The same arguments apply to regional sunset clauses as to the broader, overall issue. Despite the political abuse from the hon. Member for Wantage—he is certainly coherent on abuse, if not on substance, although that is perhaps as we would expect—we were trying to show on Second Reading that we were genuinely open to any sensible suggestion from an hon. Member. It occurred to the Secretary of State that, if we did follow through the logic of a sunset clause, one possible route could be to do so on a regional basis. However, the considered advice of the officials who work on the issue—and to whom I pay huge credit—was that, for all the practical purposes that we were considering, that proposal would not achieve that effect.

The analysis that the hon. Member for Chesterfield gave of the problems that might be incurred by regional sunset clauses is absolutely right. There might be a need for the information—for example, because one side of a street is in one region, whereas the other side of that street is in another—and a problem may arise. We simply do not want life to be made more complicated for the public, although I understand that the hon. Member for Wantage wants to make our life more complicated now.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Can I ask the Minister the question that I asked the hon. Member for Chesterfield? Will the Minister make it clear that targeted assistance will be available in every region for the entire six-year period of switchover, rather than rolling around the country, as it were?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

In practice, the answer is yes. However, given the consequences of the timetable for rolling through the switchover programme, an individual in an area where switchover is taking place will need the help at that particular time. The help will not be needed two years after, because by then that person will have the equipment or the assistance that they needed.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We have suddenly made a bit of progress. We have some information from the Minister about the details of the scheme, so let us press him on that point. He said in response to the question put by the hon. Member for Wantage that, in practice, the answer was yes. Does that mean that a person who would qualify for assistance who moved from London to the Border region in 2010 would be eligible for targeted assistance there at that time?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It would be really helpful if the hon. Gentleman could give me that person’s postcodes. However, he makes a sensible point, which I should like to review and write to him about. Obviously there will instances in which people will move house and might even qualify for assistance four times over. I do not want to speak out of turn, but my instinct is that the purpose of the Bill is to enable people who genuinely need help to receive it, not to leave a scheme open for abuse. He is clearly not suggesting that people who might want to abuse the system should benefit, but equally there may be absolutely understandable situations—for example, a family break up—where such things could occur. Yes, flexibility must be built into the system but these are matters that we have to work out practically; our preparations in Whitehaven are throwing up a number of such issues.

It is important to remind hon. Members that Whitehaven is not a pilot, because there is no going back. For people in Whitehaven, it is the beginning of switchover. We are fully committed to ensuring that it works impeccably. That is why we want the Bill to commence as soon as possible so that we can deliver its benefits to Whitehaven. Lessons will be learned from Whitehaven, and they may touch on the questions that the hon. Member for Bath raised. We want to enter into the best spirit of co-operation with all hon. Members to ensure that we learn those lessons.

My instinctive answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, but I want to give his question full consideration. I will be happy to write to him about it, or to meet him or other hon. Members to discuss the matter.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I would be grateful to see a copy of that letter from the Minister. It is becoming increasingly apparent that one reason why he did not answer the questions from the hon. Member for Bath in clause 5 is that much of the detail of digital switchover has not been worked out and will probably emerge from the Whitehaven experiment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland on supporting it.

Is that not part of the difficulty? How on earth has the Minister’s Department come up with an estimate of £600 million as the cost of digital switchover when so many fundamental details have not yet been worked out? For example, in respect of a regional sunset clause, will data be available to, say, the organisation conducting switchover in London? Let us suppose that a resident of Whitehaven moved to London—that is almost unheard of, I know—at the end of 2008 having got a free set-top box, and he then applied for a set-top box in London when the switchover arrived there. Would the data be recorded in such a way that the organisation carrying out the switchover in London would know that the person had already received their chunk of assistance in Whitehaven?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

It is perfectly clear that we have now entered into a round of “University Challenge” with the hon. Gentleman. He may not have been able to understand the words I was using in reply to the hon. Member for Bath, but I am happy to consider the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wantage and to send him a copy of the correspondence. I suggest that rather than indulging himself in more paperwork, he comes in to discuss these issues.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of rather foolish observations on the scheme. If he spent more time studying the brief on digital switchover rather than on political point scoring, he would learn that the work undertaken by Digital UK and the broadcasters is very comprehensive. If he had spent a little more time with the charitable groups who advised him on some of his amendments he would know that a huge amount of work has been undertaken on the issue.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I will give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be patient. To caricature the work of all those who have been involved in the project undermines the scheme and is foolish because this is a very well thought through set of proposals to achieve the best possible outcome. It is not a political project; the way in which the process has been handled by Digital UK is in no shape or form political. To suggest, therefore, that the people in Whitehaven are part of an experiment is really, really foolish.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

Will the Minister give way?

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman before he gets to his feet—I shall give way to him in a moment—

Mr. Vaizey rose—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must stay in his seat until the Minister gives way.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he do two things: first, that he come to the Department, where we will give him a comprehensive briefing on the work that has been undertaken. He should give us three or four hours of his time as we will need that long to take him through it. Secondly he should go to Whitehaven to see the work that is being done there. I am happy for him to come with me in the middle of March—an invitation that I extend to any hon. Member.

What we say in Committee will be examined by those outside, and to suggest that people in Whitehaven are being used in an experiment is grossly unfair to them, to Digital UK and to all those involved in the work there, regardless of the Government’s position. A little more time spent on the substance of the matter and a little less on ancient Rome, and we would have achieved a great deal more.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

It is becoming increasingly apparent that every time I have a debate with the Minister whenever he is in the wrong or has been caught out, he takes refuge in accusing any hon. Member who disagrees with him or dares to points out complications in his scheme of playing politics. He did the same after the disaster on the definition of a British film, and it is beyond absurd. I find his attitude extraordinarily offensive. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West, puts on mock laughter from a sedentary position, but it is absolutely within my right to ask questions.

For the Minister to pretend that my use of the word “experiment” is somehow offensive to Whitehaven is a grotesque caricature of my point. I was simply pointing out that the Secretary of State cited a regional sunset clause as a possibility for the Committee to consider. The House might consider it on Report. The hon. Member for Chesterfield dismissed the option, saying that such a clause would not work because if people were to move around the country they might be entitled to help after it had theoretically ceased in a region such as the Border region. I am not attacking him for saying that but I pointed out to him that a regional sunset clause would only be absurd if switchover help were not available throughout the country all the time.

On Second Reading we made the point, as, I believe, did the hon. Member for Chesterfield, that hon. Members should be entitled to see a document explaining how the Department came up with the figure of £600 million for the cost of targeted help. I would be more than delighted to spend hours researching the matter if such a document were available. That figure must have been reached through detailed analysis of how the programme would work. If the Minister is saying that he will write to the hon. Members for Bath and for Chesterfield to explain whether switchover help will be available in the Border region until 2009 or 2012—that strikes me as a pretty big difference—it seems to me that the details have not been worked out. When I said that Whitehaven was an experiment I was not saying that it was a terrible one, but that the details of the scheme will need to be worked out based on what happens there.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

I am sure that hon. Members found some content in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It seemed to me that he was a little exercised about my remarks I made about writing to hon. Members, but that is a sensible way to proceed. The full details have not been worked out simply because we have not done the first region yet, so we must recognise that we will learn as we go along. In so far as we can anticipate problems, we shall do so.

My objection to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Whitehaven was the idea that the Government are treating it as an experiment and that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland are being treated as guinea pigs. That is simply not the case. They will be the first people to benefit from switchover and are, quite rightly, receiving a great deal of help to ensure that it is a success. Lessons will arise from that work and it is perfectly proper that we all learn from them. However, it is absolutely in no shape or form an experiment. It is the beginning of the roll-out of digital switchover with the full commitment of the Government, Digital UK and all those involved in it. My concern is that my hon. Friend’s constituents do not have any sense whatever that they are an experiment. They are not. I was at pains to make that clear. I am sorry if that upset the hon. Gentleman and led to his somewhat lengthy intervention.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my comments about film. I do not think that you, Mr. Conway, were the Chairman of that Committee—

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

He was.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

In which case, you may remember that the hon. Gentleman made several accusations about what a disaster the provision was to the film industry. I think that you may well have read the exact opposite being said in yesterday’s newspapers by film producers and those involved in the industry—[ Interruption. ]

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. I am giving the hon. Member for Wantage a lot of leeway because this is his first Bill as a Front-Bench spokesman. However, he must not stretch it too far. We must all calm down a little. I am sure that the Minister will stick to sunsets rather than the globe.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

Indeed. Your strictures are helpful, Mr. Conway, because it is important to put clothes on the fact of what a success the film scheme has been and will continue to be.

I have explained why we considered a sunset clause. We did so in good faith, but we rejected it because it would not achieve the objectives that we originally thought it might. The hon. Gentleman jests about the Secretary of State’s interest in the idea of regional sunset clauses, but again that showed her openness, which is a strength, not a weakness. She is driven not by dogma, but by the desire to ensure that we deliver the right scheme.

I believe for the best of reasons and, on balance, that it is right not to accept the new clause. I wish to say to the hon. Gentleman that we absolutely understand the spirit that lies behind it but, regrettably, it would not have fulfilled that spirit.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Shaun Woodward (Labour, St Helens South)

By and large, this has been a well-tempered Committee. I am sorry for the anxiety that I caused the hon. Member for Wantage when we discussed new clause 2, but I hope that he understands that we firmly recognise the value of his contributions to the debate. Obviously, if members of the Committee wish to draft amendments for further consideration, there will be an opportunity for them to do so on Report. By the time that the Bill is discussed on Report, however, it will have been possible for us to given the clarification that hon. Members have sought on certain issues.

I simply say to the Opposition Front-Bench Members and indeed to all members of the Committee that, between, now and Report and Third Reading in the House, if I can within the parameters of a settlement being agreed with the BBC give further and detailed briefings that would help hon. Members, I shall do so. I would be happy to make my time, that of my officials and the resources that we have between us available comprehensively to answer the genuine questions of hon. Members that would be helpful to the deliberations of the House on Report and Third Reading’

With that, Mr. Conway, I thank you for your guidance. I thank the Clerks and the officials of the House for their help in the consideration of the Bill. I also thank all hon. Members and my hon. Friends for their time in allowing us to undertake speedy but important debates about issues pertaining to a small but important Bill. It will make information available so that digital switchover is a success for the most vulnerable people in our society, and it will provide the safeguards for them in so doing.

Ed Vaizey (Conservative, Wantage)

The Bill is short and, as the Minister reminded us at certain points, it has a specific and narrow focus. It will allow the BBC and relevant organisations to help vulnerable people who need assistance as the country moves towards digital switchover.

We have debated today a number of small but important points, including the role of local authorities. Although the Minister could not accept the amendments, he made it clear that local authorities may have an important role to play. We anticipate his return on Report and Third Reading to flesh out that point, to explain in detail to the House how local authorities can be helped and perhaps to move any amendment he feels necessary to ensure that local authorities can play their full part.

We debated an important point for many commercial operators: the need for the switchover company, whatever that might be, to present information in a technologically neutral way. I and the hon. Member for Bath sought to amend the Bill to limit at its heart the spread of sensitive information from the relevant company. For my part, we also had a particularly interesting debate on reversing the burden of proof in the Bill. Finally, we had an important debate about the principle and opportunity for a sunset clause, and we referred to the Secretary of State’s strength in raising the issue of a regional or general sunset clause, which I wholly support.

For me, on my first outing on the Front Bench, it was sad that the last 10 minutes of the debate descended into rancour. Be that as it may, the hon. Member for Bath best raised an important point. Owing to the Bill’s narrow scope, we cannot debate the detail of digital switchover. Further, because the BBC is constituted by royal charter rather than by Act of Parliament, and because it is not subject to formal scrutiny by the National Audit Office, we, as Opposition parties and not as members of the Government, are at the beck and call of the BBC and the Government as to when we can scrutinise in detail. That is sad when the cost of targeted help for digital switchover has been estimated at £600 million. When the Minister was pressed about the provisional timetable, instead of providing greater detail about how the scheme will work, he descended into unpleasant political abuse. That makes me sad, having known the Minister for many years.

Apart from those 10 minutes, the hours in Committee have been by and large enjoyable, thanks to the Minister’s courtesy and to the opportunity to work almost as a partner with the hon. Member for Bath. The Minister talked about lust and temptation. It has been an enjoyable occasion. Ultimately, Mr. Conway, your chairmanship crowned our sittings. Under your chairmanship, and with the support of your superb Clerks and Bill team, I have had an immensely enjoyable first run out, and I am extremely grateful.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Despite the limited scope of the Bill and the limited time that we have devoted to its discussion, we have had a wide-ranging debate. We have ranged from the use of large print to the role of aerial erection companies, from the WEEE directive to the European convention on human rights, and from the dictatorship of Julius Caesar to the Secretary of State’s apparently benign approach to democratic institutions.

We have seen the Minister promoted on three occasions. He was promoted to Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield; he was then promoted to being a judge by you, Mr. Conway; and latterly in our deliberations he was raised even higher, to consular status. We have seen some of the legal skills of the hon. Member for Wantage, as a result of which some of us fear for the good burghers of Hammersmith, to whom he will be speaking this evening.

We have seen the Minister playing a fairly straight bat, refusing, sadly, to give us further information about the details of the targeted help scheme. She assured us, however, that the information is to appear at some time in the relatively near future. Apparently, I am not to say when I think that that may be—possibly later this week.

In all those deliberations, we have genuinely been assisted by the Minister’s approach. He was helpful on many of the amendments and on many of the points that were made, for which we are grateful. I am sure that a number of the Committee members who have benefited from the assistance of the officials in his Department would wish to pass on, through him, our thanks. We certainly give our thanks to the Committee Clerk who has done sterling work and who was particularly helpful to me and the hon. Member for Wantage. We would like to apologise to her through you, Mr. Conway, for not necessarily having done full justice to the efforts that she has made on our behalf.

Finally, may I thank you, Mr. Conway, as others have, for the way in which you have chaired our brief deliberations on this important Bill? Notwithstanding the last few minutes, you have ensured that we have been remarkably good humoured and therefore, I believe, genuinely productive.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am very grateful to hon. Members for their comments. They will be noted and appreciated by the staff who serve us.