| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes, and I am still not clear whether he supports the principle of pensioners over the age of 75 getting free television licences. Can he clarify his views?
Mr. Maclean: I know you listen very carefully to these debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you will have heard me say at the start of my speech that I am in favour of free television licences for everyone. I am totally opposed to the way in which the BBC is funded through the licence fee. If the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he may hear that view expressed by others who might be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The other important loophole is clause 3(4):
- It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that 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.
Clause 3 deals with offences, but contains too many loopholes on disclosure. That must be addressed in Committee or on Report. If it is not, many people will believe--with some justification--not only that the Government have taken an unprecedented and wrong route in terms of the supply of information, but that they have done so in a cavalier manner.
We all understand that the Bill was drafted with some urgency. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had this proposal bounced upon it, and we have all heard on the grapevine that the Government must have the Bill as urgently as possible, as they are bound to an awful timetable. We all know that, with the huge amount of Government legislation, the parliamentary draftsmen are under pressure. I do not blame the draftsmen, but the brief that they received from Ministers may have led to the loopholes.
The Bill requires some tightening up. If we cannot persuade the Government, on principle, to change the methodology that I have described in detail, we must get
them to tighten up the drastic loopholes in the Bill on the release and disclosure of information. We must ensure that my constituents who do not have a television and do not need a licence have confidential information about them protected. That information must not be given willy-nilly to commercial companies who might abuse it, and then find that they have a defence because the Bill was not drafted tightly enough.I am happy for the Bill to proceed, and I support its principle as the first step towards the complete abolition of the iniquitous television licence system. However, I wish to see a considerable tightening up of this sloppy Bill.
11.57 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I appreciate that you have ruled against me on several occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall seek not to breach your rulings by referring to sources and methods of funding.
I find it somewhat sad that I listened to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) speaking for 21 minutes; it was a short speech by his standards of recent days.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): It was 25 minutes.
Mr. Bermingham: Twenty-five minutes, I am told. The right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the Bill, and then went on to say nothing at all. In fact, he contradicted himself time and time again. The Bill is rather simple, and can be easily read. It says one thing; that we will give pensioners over the age of 75 a free television licence.
Mr. Forth: It does not say that, actually.
Mr. Bermingham: It says that pensioners will be entitled to a free television licence. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has yet to bore us; but he will no doubt do so, as he bored us earlier this evening. I would not wish to trespass outside the terms of the Bill by saying what I really thought about the one hour and 10 minutes that we had from the right hon. Gentleman earlier, much of which I listened to and the rest of which I watched. As an exercise in filibustering, it was second to none, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that. [Interruption.] He is blowing me a kiss, and I should perhaps treat him to the same--I did not know he was like that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak about the Bill. From what he has just said, it seems that his perception of what it is about is fundamentally incorrect. The Bill is about the conveyance of information. That, and nothing else, is what that I am willing to hear the hon. Gentleman discuss.
Mr. Bermingham: I accept unreservedly that I have once again been chastised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In talking about the transfer of information, I was talking about what information should be transferred on the right to have, or not to have, a free television licence. [Interruption.] I see
you shake your head, Mr. Deputy Speaker; obviously, you disagree with what I am saying. So be it. I shall try another approach: I do so, I hope, with grace and gentleness, but perhaps a little sense of worry after my 16 years and 10 months in the House. Free speech is in question. The right to question is in question. The right to comment is in question. The right to express one's views is in question, and I find all of that deeply offensive and worrying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is once again going wide of the matter before the House. We are dealing with a fairly narrow, technical Bill, and there is no restriction whatever on free speech or expression within the terms of that Bill. The hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, must appreciate that the House can, at any one time, deal only with the particular matter before it.
Mr. Bermingham: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. I have listened tonight to long speeches on an extremely narrow subject. I simply say that what is sauce for the goose--myself--should be sauce for the ganders. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I sense an underlying challenge to the occupant of the Chair in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Nothing that has taken place so far can have been out of order. The Chair has had to rule from time to time, but, if hon. Members are able to speak at length while remaining in order, it is a matter for them. The Chair will pick Members up if they stray out of order. I am trying to say to the hon. Gentleman that he may not talk about the general conduct of debate, but must talk about the Bill before us.
Mr. Bermingham: I have made my preliminary points, and I intend to be brief. I hope that my example will be followed.
The Bill is indeed narrow. It deals with a transfer of information. A concession is to be given, and there is a need to qualify for it. That is an extremely narrow point, and the Bill relates to information that the BBC is entitled to obtain or have verified, directly or through an agent, so that it may recoup the fees that it would have received had there been no such concession. It must ascertain that the people to whom the concession is given qualify for it. It must ascertain how many there are.
Comment has been made--I must be careful not to go outside the narrow confines, Mr. Deputy Speaker--about how many such people there are. In truth, that can never be known or quantified. We do not know who will die between today and the date in November when the Bill will come into effect. Nothing is predictable. Actuarial estimates may be made, but accurate predictions are impossible.
Argument made on the basis of such predictions seemed to me to go outside the scope of this rather narrow Bill, which talks merely about a transfer of information. If I am straying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be corrected again, and I may even give up. But I am trying to say merely that the Bill is so simple and straightforward that I cannot understand why there has been so much debate--a remark I make even against myself.
The BBC is entitled to verify only that people who apply for a reduced or nil-cost licence are over 75 or about to attain that age; that they have a home and an address for which computers will show that no other application has been made; and that they have a national insurance number--as we all do from the moment of our birth--from which verification of age can be obtained.
That seems to be what the Bill is all about. I do not understand why I was taken to task when I asked whether there were better ways of doing things, while another Member who said that it would be preferable to have free television licences was not taken to task. I realise that, if I pursue that line, I shall be in trouble yet again. I have had enough trouble for one day--probably today will be as troublesome as yesterday in many ways; that is so often the case.
I hope that other hon. Members' speeches will be as brief as mine so that we can proceed to a vote--if there is to be one. I sincerely hope that no one is daft enough to vote against the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |