| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is persisting in talking about matters that lie beyond the scope of the Bill. There must be other occasions when such matters would be in order. They are not in order in debate on a Bill that is solely devoted to the transfer of information. That is what he must address.
Mr. Wilshire: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that makes a great deal of sense to me as well. The trouble is that others were allowed to introduce such points, so I thought that it was reasonable to comment. Nevertheless, there are two other matters that I support that are clearly raised in the Bill's wording.
The Secretary of State explained that he felt that there must be some means of minimising the administrative burden on applicants who qualified. At the heart of the Bill--not other issues that have been raised by hon. Members--is an attempt to minimise the administrative burden. I should say straight away that I have no difficulty in supporting that principle. The administrative burden is to be alleviated by reference to the Government's national insurance database. In principle, I have no difficulty with that either; it seems sensible. Use of the database would simplify matters, and it would clearly be unreasonable to say that such an aim is wrong. I do not wish to challenge the Government on such matters, but I shall turn briefly to issues that I do not support. They have been mentioned by others, so I do not need to rehearse the whole argument, although I want to make it clear where my reservations lie.
I am concerned, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), about the detailed method that the Government have chosen to give effect to the principle of easing the burden, which I support. Releasing national insurance data to a third party is not a very good idea. I would therefore do everything possible to avoid doing so. I become even more nervous when I discover that the third party that is to receive such information may pass it down the line to a fourth, fifth or sixth party--to heaven knows how many other contractors.
All of us agree that such information is sensitive and needs to be kept confidential. The chances of a leak on releasing it to a third party are significant, but when that third party is given the power to release it to a fourth party and so on, the risk of a breach of confidentiality is compounded. In those circumstances, it is important that the Government look for another way of achieving an objective with which, in principle, most of us would agree.
Mr. Fabricant: Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to discover that, given such an inherent risk in offering information to private companies, there will apparently be no saving from doing so?
Mr. Wilshire: I shall say something in a moment on the question of cost. I have doubts about the wisdom of such an approach and suggest that the Government give further thought to turning the procedure around. Instead of easing the burden by the Government releasing the information to the BBC, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border that it would be no more difficult for the BBC to pass the queries to the Government and for them to say either yes or no. I cannot see how there could be more work one way than the other, because the same process would be undergone, just by a different group of people. The alternative way would allow the Government to achieve their objective of easing the burden without running the risk of a breach of confidentiality.
We were told at the beginning of the debate that the provision would be a blanket concession to all households in which one person is over the age of 75. I find it difficult to accept that that is a good way to give benefits to people. Although I fully support the principle of free television
licences for those aged over 75, I question whether every household that includes someone of that age needs such help from the Government.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that people should care for the elderly, and that the measure is an incentive for doing that?
Mr. Wilshire: I accept that it is important to debate ways in which to provide incentives for families to look after elderly relatives. However, I suspect that if I responded to the question in detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker would rightly say that my comments were outside the scope of the Bill.
I would be prepared to participate in a discussion about methods of providing incentives, but I question whether the Bill and its approach is an effective method. I do not claim to be against it in principle, or that no family should qualify, but we ought to question whether the blanket approach of applying the Bill to all families is a sensible way to achieve the objective that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned. I am sure that, like me, he can think of families who do not need that help.
I have a query, which has also been raised by other hon. Members, about clause 5(1), which states:
- An order under this Act must be made by statutory instrument.
I have two queries about the explanatory notes. On this occasion, they are enormously helpful. There may be a good answer, which has escaped me, to my first query. Page 3 of the explanatory notes details the information that will be included in an order. I understand the reasons for mentioning the name, address and date of birth, but I am puzzled by the requirement for the national insurance number. It would be helpful if someone could put me out of my misery on that point.
My second query, which has already been mentioned, is about item 15, which states:
- There will be no effects on public sector finances or manpower.
Someone, or a group of people, in the Government will have to answer the questions that the BBC posed. They have manpower implications. The explanatory notes state that the Bill will have no effect on public sector finance or manpower, but even if my figures are wrong--perhaps Hansard will correct them if necessary--I believe that I heard the Secretary of State explain the costs at the beginning of our proceedings. Perhaps the Minister will sort that out.
One other matter causes me anxiety. By introducing the method in the Bill to help people who are over 75, and to try to achieve that goal as painlessly as possible, we are removing one of the key reasons for the way in which we fund the BBC. Although I support the Bill in principle, I slightly regret that we are taking away one of the arguments that puts a great deal of pressure on the BBC and on the Government to have a comprehensive look at the whole question. That is a pity, and I make the point in passing.
Let me make it clear that I am perfectly happy with the principle that makes the Bill necessary. I have no quarrel with free licences for the over-75s or with what the Bill seeks to achieve by easing the administrative burden, which is a good idea. However, I am not happy with the way in which the Government are going about that. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose the Government this evening, but, in return, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my detailed queries and, either in Committee or on Report, to the objections raised by myself and others.
12.31 am
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) set out the Conservative position. We support the measure, as I made clear during our recent debate on the order that introduced the licence fee increase as well as the free licence concession for over-75s. Given that a number of Members have queried our position throughout the debate, I can do no more than confirm that we would vote with the Government in support of the Bill in the unlikely event of the House dividing.
My hon. Friend nevertheless outlined a number of concerns. I do not intend to repeat them in detail at this late stage, except to say that the Bill represents a significant departure from the existing licensing arrangements and an unprecedented and unique use of social security information. For that reason, we welcome the Secretary of State's comment about the need to incorporate sensible precautions. However, we wonder whether it would not be preferable to specify in the Bill rather by order the type of information and data to be provided, which he said would be narrow. We can debate that in detail in Committee.
We also urge the vital need for an information campaign. It is tempting to suggest that one in advance of the debate might have been appropriate. Such is the potential confusion, elderly people need to know where they stand. More than one hon. Member raised the question of what would happen if a pensioner aged over 75 had no licence. In the light of the Government's clear objective that over-75s should have a free licence, we would all agree that some special arrangement needs to be made for those without a licence. Prosecuting a pensioner for not having one would clearly be at odds with that objective, which came across in one of the exchanges. We would also welcome the Minister putting on the record a clear assurance that there will be no marketing use of the information made available to the BBC and its subcontractors.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) welcomed the thought that the concession's scope may be widened. On our reading, the
Bill clearly allows for that in respect of the availability to the BBC of the social security information of under-75s. He referred to his own interest in making this concession available to all pensioners and to some income support claimants. He acknowledged that that could be the thin end of the wedge. I mention that because I thought that he was surprisingly relaxed about the assertion that the impartiality of the BBC would not be compromised. That is somewhat at odds with the criticism of the licence fee increase in the recent report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which he chairs. The Conservative party is also critical of the increase in the licence fee.The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) acknowledged the potential for some abuse of civil liberties, and the need to quantify the extent of the information that will be made available, to which I have already referred. He also mentioned the legal position of a pensioner over 75 who does not have a licence.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) helpfully drew attention to the problem of the concessionary licence scheme. Hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the difficulty that that anomaly poses. He referred to 200 householders in his constituency who have been advised that they will lose the concession, and he criticised the licensing authority. Those of us who have considered this matter and the Davies panel recommendations recognise that there is no easy answer to that anomaly.
I hope that we can achieve some consensus, because it seems incongruous, to say the least, that people who have the concession suddenly lose it if someone under the age of 60 moves into the sheltered accommodation where they reside and which allows them to enjoy it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) reminded the House of his ten-minute Bill in July 1997, which would have introduced free television licences for the over-75s. He seemed to support the Secretary of State in arguing that the over-75s were a special case. However, he did not approve of the machinery, and asked why we should not allow pensioners to send the licence fee application to the Department of Social Security. We shall want to explore that issue in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to the need to ensure that the BBC achieves proper savings. We all agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) queried the cost of this measure. It is important to note that, although it would appear from what the Secretary of State said that the total cost to the Treasury of the free licence will be £344 million--as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the figure grows every time we debate this issue--the Secretary of State also said that the cost of implementation would be £24.3 million. I therefore think it right for the House on Second Reading and when we examine these matters in Committee to have regard to the greater efficiency of the scheme and to ensure that the costs are kept to a minimum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) drew attention to the difficulty of exercising proper scrutiny of the Bill and the scheme if anyone who raised any concern stood the risk of being accused of hostility towards the granting of free television
licences for the over-75s. That is not our position. We want to examine in detail the Government's proposed scheme to ensure that it is given proper scrutiny.My right hon. Friend also raised some proper concerns about the mechanism for the transfer of information. He questioned whether the DSS could provide the necessary information in a different way. I will read carefully what he said. I think that the Committee stage will give us a good opportunity to test whether the Government's scheme is the most sensible, or whether we could find an alternative that would avoid the need to give the information about people's social security records to the BBC or other third parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) feared that the penalties might be disproportionate to the offences. That, too, will need to be considered in Committee.
It should be clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and I have said that we warmly support the Bill's objective, which is laudable. However, it represents a major change, and it is reasonable for us to ask whether the assurances given by the Secretary of State are adequate. I also think that we need to be clear that the £344 million direct payment to the BBC does not undermine its impartiality and independence. More to the point, will free licences for so many residents of the country begin to undermine the concept of the television licence itself? It will certainly encourage some to challenge the requirement for them to pay.
We should keep those concerns in mind, and recognise that, in a multi-channel age, as the principle of the universal licence fee comes under attack, it will be essential for both the BBC and the Government to demonstrate that resources are being used efficiently, that licence-fee increases are being kept within reasonable bounds, that the BBC continues to be independent and impartial, and--with specific reference to the Bill--that concessions such as free licences command popular support. While we are more than satisfied that the proposal for a free licence for older pensioners is genuinely welcomed by the public, we have a duty to ensure that it is implemented--as the Secretary of State himself said--as simply as possible, but with efficiency and security. We look forward to ensuring in Committee that those aims are realised, so that the 1 November implementation date can be achieved.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |