| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.33 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): I think that it is important, first, to say that it is outrageous that we are commencing our consideration of the Bill so late at night. The Bill deserved a proper Second Reading, starting at about 3.30 or 4 pm. If Labour Members are complaining that it is rather later in the evening and that we should have started on the Bill earlier, they should realise that the Government should not have scheduled for one day the Second Reading debates of two important pieces of legislation.
I am very concerned at the way in which the Bill goes about trying to secure its purpose. I have no objection whatsoever to free television licences for those who are 75 or over. Unfortunately, the Government do not go far enough--there should be free television licences for everyone. I do not approve at all of the BBC's current funding method, and should like that system to be radically changed.
It was quite interesting listening to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)--who I assume has now managed to make the "Dispatches" programme. I do give him my apologies for the fact that he has missed so many important television programmes today on which he could have aired his views on the Bill.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): Make a point.
Mr. Maclean: I have some other points, which the Deputy Whip may encourage me to make more quickly or more slowly, depending on his sedentary interventions.
One theme running through the comments of the right hon. Member for Gorton and other Labour Members was how much of an electoral ploy they thought the measure was. It was instructive to hear the right hon. Gentleman threaten to visit Lichfield and explain to my hon. Friend's constituents how generous Labour was and how mean other parties were. Whatever noble causes may have inspired the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Gorton and others consider it purely an electoral tactic. Good luck to them; there is no harm in that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is as successful in Lichfield as he is everywhere else. That is why the Labour party keeps him off the television all the time.
The Government have gone about this in the wrong way. If they want to ensure that people aged 74 pay progressively less for their television licence and then get a free licence when they are 75, they should not go about it by issuing information on everybody aged 74 and above to a commercial company, which will check that information against television licence applications and decide whether the person is eligible.
The Government should keep all that information to themselves. There should be a little department within the Department of Social Security to which the BBC or its
agents apply to get a certificate stating whether someone is eligible. The best analogy that I can give is from my experience in the Home Office, when we set up the system for criminal record office certificates. We are keen that people who may be working with children or applying for jobs in sensitive environments should have their criminal records checked. The Government do not go about that by issuing all the information on the criminal records computers to schools, nurseries, Securicor and employment organisations, which then look at Maclean's criminal record when he comes along looking for a job and decide whether to give him one. We would be appalled if the Government behaved like that, but that is similar to what the Bill would do. The system that we set up for criminal records checks was--
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I was out of order for questioning the way in which the fee was to be paid, how can reference to criminal records be in order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the method of transfer of information and whether it is desirable. That appears to be in order and within the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely using the criminal records system as an analogy for the mechanism that we should have. That goes to the heart of the Bill. The mechanism should be similar to the system for criminal records. The Government should keep the information. When someone aged 74 or over applies for a television licence, they should state their name and address on the form and claim that they are eligible. The agencies collecting the licence fee for the BBC would send a computer printout to the Department of Social Security once a month giving the relevant names and would ask the Department to check whether those claiming a free licence were eligible. The DSS would run the names supplied of claimants claiming a free licence through its computers and send back a simple yes or no answer to the BBC or its agents. The Department would merely confirm to the BBC or its collectors whether claimant Maclean was entitled to a free television licence. That is the system we have implemented for criminal record checks, whereby the sensitive information is kept at the centre and the person inquiring is given a little chitty stating eligibility.
Mr. Flight: Given that the Government have to pay, the DSS could pay at the same time; otherwise another transaction would have to take place to pay the money over.
Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. I would like to hear from the Government, perhaps in Committee--we may have to table amendments to secure the information--whether they have done a costing exercise on the system that they propose. I am certain that they must have done so, but have they done a costing exercise on the system that I have described? What is the difference in cost? Would it be more expensive for the DSS to retain the information and wait for the BBC or its agents to supply
a list of names to check for eligibility? If my suggestion, which is more secure and answers the civil liberties question, is more expensive, we can make a qualitative judgment as to whether the civil liberties benefits of my suggestions outweigh the lower cost of the system that the Government have chosen.The civil liberties implications of the Bill will mean that anyone who turns 74 will suddenly find their information supplied to the BBC's collecting agents, whether they have a television or not. That is my reading of the Bill, although reading the Bill does not take us very far forward. It contains no detail, and the notes tell us everything. The notes tell us that the name, address, date of birth and national insurance number will be supplied, but all that should be in the Bill. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you care to note that the information provided in the explanatory notes is more worth while than normal. That is not to say that the notes are wonderful, but that the Bill is lousy.
The removal of the civil liberties danger is important, because if the DSS hangs on to the information it would not be issuing it willy-nilly the second someone turns 74 or 75. It would give out the information only when it was approached by a licensing authority, or the collectors for the BBC, when someone applied for a free television licence. So the information about the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)--and anybody else who does not have a television and does not want a licence, and who is aged 75 or more--would remain secret on the DSS's computers, as it should. Surely that is the right way round. It is right to keep that information secret and issue it only when an application is made for a free television licence, instead of giving it out to the BBC's agents even for those who are not applying for a free licence.
A dangerous precedent will be set by the methodology that the Government have adopted. The Secretary of State, who is an honourable man, may assure the House that his regulations will cover only what is in the explanatory notes--the age, the address, the date of birth and the national insurance number of persons aged 74 or over. I believe the right hon. Gentleman. However, for the first time, a Government Department will hold sensitive and personal information and will have it ready to issue to commercial companies operating as the agents of the BBC. I have no idea when, but another Government will come to the House with an honourable, noble measure of great importance to our constituents. That measure may require the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the Department of Social Security to issue yet more information about citizens to some other commercial organisation.
The Queen's Speech contained no such Bill. The Government have no plans to bounce one into the House next week, but sooner or later the precedent set tonight will mean that it will be quoted whenever a Government want to issue private information from their computers to commercial organisations. If we accept that is all right for a limited amount of such information to be issued to certain commercial organisations, there is nothing to stop another Secretary of State in another Government from exploiting that principle in ways of which this House would thoroughly disapprove.
The nature of the important information involved should be included on the face of the Bill. I did not accept the earlier explanation from the Secretary of State that
only very limited information was involved so it was not necessary to include it on the face of the Bill. Ministers normally say the opposite--that information is too complex, with too many boring, technical regulations to be so included. We are told that this Bill involves only four bits of information--age, address, date of birth and national insurance number.That is the guts of what I want put on the face of the Bill. If that were to be done, we would not have to take the word of the Secretary of State, honourable man though he is, that the regulations will deal only with that matter. We would also guard against the danger that another Secretary of State might publish regulations requiring a little more information if the BBC or other bodies asked for it. Such bodies may believe that further information from the Government computers would help them, but putting the elements in the regulations on the face of the Bill would reassure those worried about the precedent that the Bill creates, and show that the narrow range of information required will not be widened.
I shall not dwell on clause 2, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will have more to say on free television licences for all.
- is not an offence under this section . . . to disclose information in the form of a summary or collection of information so framed as not to enable information supplied under section 1 relating to any particular person to be ascertained from it.
Great stress was laid on the penalties that will apply to those who use the information supplied improperly or disclose information that they should not disclose. Everyone is concerned to ensure that if the Government create the precedent of giving private, sensitive, social security information about our oldest and most vulnerable pensioners to a private company, it will never be disclosed. I can accept that--but why on earth does clause 3(3) provide for the ability of the BBC or its agents--the collecting agencies--to disclose information in the form of a summary? I have heard no justification for that.
The clause provides that information about Joe Bloggs and other individuals will not be disclosed; it will be given in summary form. What sort of summary? Will the BBC issue a report in a couple of years saying that in the previous year 1 million people aged 75 to 80, 500,000 aged 82, and 100,000 aged 97 had free television licences? If so, I can understand the Department of Social Security wanting that information, although goodness knows what it would do with it. It might wish to make projections on the cost to the Government, bearing in mind what life expectancy is, and on the declining incidence of free television licences. However, given developments in medical science, and with people living longer, the Government may be facing a rising curve.
There might be some interesting information there for the Department of Social Security, the national statistical office and Government actuaries. But why on earth should the commercial organisations that are receiving this confidential information need to disclose it in summary form? Who will be the user? Who will be the beneficiary? Why should it be done?
It would be more reassuring if the Government said that the limited information that would be disclosed to the commercial companies--name, address, date of birth and national insurance number--would under no circumstances be disclosed further or published in summary form. That information might be used in court cases only if there has been an abuse or someone has been prosecuted. It is not reassuring that clause 3(3) allows a big loophole of disclosure in summary form.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |