| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Smith: I am afraid that, although the House can legislate for some things, geography is a bit more difficult.
The Government well understand that some hon. Members who support the proposals for free television licences for people over 75 will be concerned about the privacy and data protection implications of the disclosure to an outside body of information of this kind, which is held by Government Departments for social security and benefits purposes. However, hon. Members should be clear about the implications of requiring the BBC to operate the concession without the information that we propose.
Every elderly claimant would have to produce, in addition to a completed application form, documentary proof of age. We understand that a substantial proportion of claimants would have difficulty doing so. Many would therefore be put to the inconvenience--and in some cases the expense--of obtaining the necessary documentation. Those entitled to a free licence would also have to reapply each year, as the BBC would have no other means of ensuring that they were still alive and living at the address for which the free licence had been issued.
Without confirmatory information provided by the DSS or the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development to guard against fraud, it would be necessary to adopt a significantly more burdensome approach to policing the concession. In our view, such arrangements would be likely to involve a level of intrusion that would outweigh any loss of privacy from the disclosure of strictly limited social security information under the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): All that sounds very complicated. Would it not be easier just to give pensioners a decent pension?
Mr. Smith: I take it that the hon. Gentleman opposes the Bill. It is not complicated. It is a very simple procedure to enable many millions of people to benefit from the measure that we are proposing.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): The Bill is eminently sensible. Will not the concession also enable the BBC to recoup the licence fees that it is not collecting? Will not a well-policed system mean that pensioners will be satisfied with the concession, and that the BBC will be satisfied with its rightful income?
Mr. Smith: The BBC will indeed collect the licence fees due to it for the more than 3 million households that the concession affects. That is welcome.
Administering the concession without the information that this Bill will allow to be made available would, in addition to being more open to fraud, also be far more cumbersome and expensive. Moreover, it would almost certainly delay the implementation of the concession.
The alternative proposition of requiring claims to be vetted by the Department of Social Security and the Department for Social Development after submission to the BBC would still require primary legislation, since the
exchange of information necessary and the verification process itself would entail the disclosure of information. Moreover, such an approach would involve considerable duplication of effort and cost by the BBC and by Government Departments.We fully accept the need to ensure that information of this kind is used only for the purposes for which it has been provided. Clause 2 therefore places strict limits on the purposes for which the BBC and its contractors are able to make use of the social security information. Information provided under these powers may be used only in connection with television licences for which no fee is payable, or reduced-fee licences.
The policy is to ensure that social security information is used only to facilitate the issue of free television licences, including the associated short-term licences, although the Bill contains provision allowing some flexibility should further concessionary schemes be introduced. However, the Bill does not allow the BBC to use information for the purposes of administering any new scheme or, indeed, any existing concession unless an order is made designating the scheme.
Clause 3 protects social security information supplied to the BBC by providing that the recipient of such information--the BBC, one of its contractors, or anyone who works or has worked for such a recipient--is guilty of an offence if they disclose that information without lawful authority. The offence extends to companies, including the BBC as a corporation created by royal charter, to past as well as present employees of such companies, and also to staff working under other arrangements, such as self-employed people engaged on a consultancy basis.
The penalty for an offence will be, on summary conviction, imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both, and, on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine, or both.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): The Secretary of State correctly states that under clause 3 a new offence is created which could result in someone being sent to prison for up to two years. Why is it deemed necessary to create such a very heavy penalty? People who heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's welcome announcement did not realise that it would result in the creation of a new criminal offence, with such a heavy penalty.
Mr. Smith: The reason is very simple. We have to protect the privacy and strict confidentiality of data which are being made available for specific purposes. That is clear from the content of the Bill.
The approach that we propose, and that the Bill will make possible, has a number of advantages. It will enable the application procedure for a free television licence to be greatly simplified, to the benefit of beneficiaries and--by reducing both the possibility of fraud and the cost of administering the scheme--the taxpayer. Claimants will have only to complete and return a simple form that will be sent out to all households over the coming months. In the majority of cases, there will be no need for any further action on their part. Additional information will need to be sought only if there is a discrepancy between the information provided in the claim form and that held by the BBC as a result of the Bill.
I therefore encourage and request the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
10.32 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): May I begin by saying how much we regret that this important and, in many ways, welcome measure has been introduced following another Second Reading debate? It is not helpful to the House's consideration of the matter that it takes place at such a late hour.
The Government will no doubt be interested to know whether the Opposition support the granting of free television licences to those over 75. In anticipation of that question, let me say at the outset that of course we give an enthusiastic welcome to any sensible measure that alleviates the burden of the licence fee on the elderly. We have advocated and welcomed measures to halve the fee for registered blind people and to increase subtitling for those who suffer from deafness.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): If the hon. Gentleman has such wholehearted support for this measure, why, in the 18 years that his party was in office, did it fail to introduce any similar measure?
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman asks a rather silly and irrelevant question.
The decision to provide all 75-year-olds with a free television licence will no doubt be very welcome to the beneficiaries, particularly in the light of the paltry 75p a week increase in the basic state pension announced in the Budget. It is, however, a complex scheme to operate, and may be confusing to some people. Indeed, it may be confusing even to the Secretary of State, whose Department, we understand, was not properly consulted prior to the Chancellor's announcement of the scheme. The Secretary of State may be further confused, because he will, in practice, have no say in the operation of the Bill that he has introduced. The right hon. Gentleman is not mentioned in the Bill--it refers to the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chris Smith: May I point out, for the record, that there is no such person as the Secretary of State for Social Services?
Mr. Ainsworth: I meant the Secretary of State for Social Security. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously fairly desperate if he has to make points like that.
The people who matter are the beneficiaries, the 75-year-olds. The measure will require them to opt into the scheme; it will not happen automatically. Those pensioners will still have to apply for a television licence and hold one, even though--provided they have filled in the right form--they will not have to pay for it. I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement tonight that multiple applications will not be allowed.
We need to hear what steps the Government are taking to ensure a proper understanding of the measure among those whom it is intended to benefit. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that eligible pensioners do not confuse free licences with no licences?
Will the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting confirm when she winds up that pensioners over 75 found with a television set and no free licence will still be liable
to criminal charges? Will she confirm that elderly pensioners may be liable to pay a fine for failing to hold a free television licence?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |