---

12.6 am

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I take my cue from clause 2, which states:

Information provided under section 1 may be used only in connection with television licences for which no fee is payable or reduced-fee licences.

I shall address my remarks to that point, in conjunction with the sentence in the explanatory notes which states:

In November 1999 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that persons aged 75 or over would become entitled to receive a free television licence.

I wondered why the age of 75 had been chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) attempted to give an explanation for that. The Secretary of State also alluded to that point. Two main factors were involved. The first was that 75-year-olds were retired folk, with plenty of time on their hands, who relied heavily on television for enjoyment and relaxation.

However, that argument applies equally to people aged 65 and over. Indeed, it applies increasingly to even younger people. As we know, the age at which people retire is getting lower. That fact puts a large question mark over the arbitrary choice of the age of 75 and makes it difficult to defend. If we are to talk of retirement as a factor--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss that principle under this Bill. The Bill is about the disclosure of information; it is not about debating the age at which a particular form of concessionary licence is made available.

Mr. Forth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to participate and to debate what was said earlier. However, if you do not want me to do so, of course I must follow your guidance.

Clause 2 refers to television licences for which no fee is payable. That again raises the issue of the people for whom no fee should be payable. I am worried that such a provision would have a blanket application to a section of the population, regardless of their income. The Bill refers to television licences for which no fee is payable and then, through a mechanism to which frequent reference has been made and which several Members have queried,

10 Apr 2000 : Column 146

attempts to identify the people to whom that would apply. The whole point of the exercise would be lost if that no-fee concession were to be granted to a group of people in a blanket way, regardless of their means to pay for a normal television licence. The application of that administrative process would be misdirected.

A much better approach would be to find a way of allowing everybody to pay a much reduced licence fee, thus eliminating the mechanism suggested in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) have suggested ways to do that. My preference would be to reduce the BBC to a core public service broadcasting operation and to dispose of all the other parts of the BBC--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is going too wide, as he knows, and I must bring him back to the core of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: That is a pity. I shall certainly seek other opportunities to broaden the debate. I was simply trying to allude to remarks made by other contributors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you seem not to favour that approach.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the House and to make sure that we keep within the rules of order as I judge them to be. We have a Bill before us, and I can only interpret that in the best way available to me. I believe that I have interpreted the Bill correctly, according to the purposes laid out in it, and I am just trying to encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is correct.

Clause 3(2) states:

A person who is or has been employed by a recipient or engaged in the provision of services to a recipient, is guilty of an offence if . . . he discloses information.

We enter an area of doubt because the Bill makes the important distinction between a person employed by a recipient and a person engaged in the provision of services to a recipient.

I wonder whether we can be absolutely satisfied that we will be able properly to police that provision. Although I can imagine that the employment of a person provides reasonable control and, therefore, the reasonable possibility of fulfilling the intention in the clause, I wonder whether that is likely when we broaden the measure to those engaged in the provision of services. They will have an arm's-length contractual arrangement, and that may well reduce control to the extent that the intention cannot be fulfilled.

I want briefly to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He highlighted the fact that clause 3(4) includes a let-out provision that will allow someone to plead that he believed that information had previously been disclosed with lawful authority. That puts a question mark over the possibility of ensuring that the Bill is adequately executed, to say nothing of clause 3(3)(a), which contains the mysterious concept of

a summary or collection of information,

10 Apr 2000 : Column 147

which has yet to be fully explained. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw more light on the matter of the summary. If that term is not closely defined, it will inevitably create suspicion about the possibility of unacceptable disclosure of information.

Clause 3(6) refers to offences and penalties, which are severe. The Bill says that a guilty person is liable to

a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both,

or,

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

Those penalties seem harsh, and I wonder whether Ministers have given proper thought to whether they will be applied for first offences or whether there will be a gradation of offences for which they will be applied. Normally I am in favour of severe penalties being applied by the law in proper circumstances, but in this case the penalties appear to be disproportionate to the offence, unless it is believed that revealing information would be serious enough to merit such penalties. Some further explanation of that would be in order.

I hope that in Committee and on Report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will have the opportunity further to explore some of the matters that have not found your favour this evening. I am generally rather unhappy about the approach being taken. I am unhappy about the arbitrary choice of the age, the blanket provisions and the administrative procedures. I should prefer a radically different approach to the matter.

I hope that, in the detailed examination of the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will be able to look more closely at some of those elements, find out more of the Government's thinking than we have been able to do this evening, and tighten up the Bill, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. That must be our aim. The Bill has come before us in a rather narrow technical sense, even though the intention behind it is much broader.

12.15 am

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I admit to being slightly nervous about addressing the House. Earlier this evening, I was urged to avoid too much detail, and a little later I was urged not to be too general. I sense that I am setting off on a tightrope, so I hope that I will not fall off it.

A couple of matters have caused concern to a number of people in my constituency. Concern has been expressed by several people about the delay between the announcement--the trumpeting of the Government's intention--and its implementation. The announcement was made four months ago or thereabouts. The Bill makes it possible for that announcement to be put into practice, but the delay will not end there, and I suspect that further concern will be expressed to me by my constituents. Some help from the Minister would be useful when I try to explain to them what the Government are trying to do. There will be an eight-month delay after we have passed the legislation before the much-trumpeted benefit to people over 75 takes effect. It would be helpful to know why another eight months must go by after the debate tonight before the Bill produces the benefits that the Government claim for it.

10 Apr 2000 : Column 148

Another aspect that is causing concern in my constituency is the 75-years-old age limit. I have been asked several times why that was chosen. People felt that it should have been lower.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my previous rulings. We are not going into that matter now.

Mr. Wilshire: I was not seeking to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was simply trying to tell the House what is worrying my constituents. However, I take your point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that that is fascinating, and the House might find an appropriate occasion to discuss it--but tonight we are discussing the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: There is no need for me to say it again, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I have already got it off my chest.

I am concerned about the fact that we are having an important Second Reading debate after 10 pm. A matter of this importance--[Interruption.] Labour Members should not complain. It was the Government who decided that the previous debate could continue until 10 pm. It was not me or any member of the Opposition. The Government said that we would debate the previous measure till 10 o'clock, and some of us took them at their word.

Here we are after 10 pm, dealing with a Second Reading, and clearly the House is restive. People are tired and understandably do not want the debate to go on for the usual length of time for a Second Reading debate. I see nothing to be gained by trying to delay the House until 3 or 4 am simply to have a five or six-hour debate. However, a Second Reading deserves such debate.

There are aspects of the Bill that I support--let me get that off my chest, to avoid misunderstandings. I support the principle of free licences, whether for over- 75-year-olds or for those over 65, as some of my constituents argue. Whatever decision is taken, we will be thankful for small mercies. That is the message that I get from my constituents. I have no wish to dispute the principle with the Government.

I also have no difficulty with short-term licences. If we are to go down the route of providing free licences in such a way, there should clearly be some arrangements for short-term licences for people who become 75 years old four or six months after they have had to renew a licence.

---