Mr.
Vaizey: It is clear from the eloquence and passion
deployed by the hon. Member for Bath that he used his 48 hours on the
planes to and from Australia to incredible effect. We are grateful to
the English cricket team for having ended at least one, perhaps two,
test matches early to enable him to prepare such a passionate
analysis. There are
two fundamental points in the amendment. The first relates to the
stakeholders and partners on whom the company that will be established
to proceed with targeted help will be able to call for information. The
second relates to the criteria governing those who will receive help
under the switchover scheme.
I was lucky enough to bump into
the Minister last night and to discuss the clause with him. As he will
no doubt make clear in his remarks, he recognises the importance of
working with local authorities when the Bill becomes law and when
digital switchover scheme is under way. As the hon. Member for Bath
pointed out,
the clause pertains particularly to those who are registered as
partially sighted or blind. Paragraph 5.22 of the digital switchover
help scheme documents, which are published by the Department on the
digital switchover website, says: “Each local authority
keeps a register of blind and partially sighted people living in their
area, but this information is not held centrally. We are exploring the
best way of how to contact blind and partially sighted about the help
scheme and dealing with the overlap with age/benefit qualifications
(around 70 per cent. of blind/partially sighted claimants will qualify
on age/benefit
grounds).” It is quite
clear that the vast majority of blind or partially sighted people will
fall into the relevant category for the targeted switchover scheme, and
that the DWP does not hold that information. It is also clear that the
Bill makes no provision to allow local authorities to hand over the
information to the company that is responsible for digital switchover,
and must be amended. It is therefore extremely important that we
discuss the amendment and that the Minister explains in detail how he
expects local authorities to participate in the scheme, given the
technical, legal lacunae that prevent them from giving the information
to the relevant company.
The hon.
Member for Bath made it clear that there is a need to debate who will
be targeted by the targeted switchover scheme. The Government have
issued a draft order, similar to regulations that were passed
under the Television Licences (Disclosure of
Information) Act 2000, in which the information that will be
made available by the DWP is set out. It includes the name, date of
birth, address and national insurance number of subjects, whether the
subject lives in a care home and whether the subject is dead. There is
other peripheral information, but nothing specific on who will be
targeted and which benefits they receive.
The Disability Rights
Commission made a useful point in the briefing that I received for the
Second Reading debate. It pointed out that the DWP is planning to
target only those who have been registered as blind or partially
sighted, but the process of certification begins before registration.
Those who are certified as blind or partially sighted may also require
a great deal of help. The DRC also made the point that there are 74,000
visually impaired people in the UK who are neither certified nor
registered as such.
The role of local authorities
extends beyond those who are blind or partially sighted. As several
hon. Members mentioned on Second Reading, local authorities are the
organisations closest to those who will need help. It would be utterly
sensible for the company that is responsible for targeting digital
switchover to have a dialogue with the social services under council
control, to discuss the sort of information that it may need, such as a
list of all the care homes in a local authority
area. On a tangential
point, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, he will talk
about the role that charities will play. No amendment has been tabled
on the need for charities to give information to the company that is
targeting help. From the information that the Government have released,
we know that the large charities are keen to help and will act as
digital ambassadors to their clients.
Mr.
Woodward: The hon. Member for Bath was right to anticipate
the first appearance of the hon. Member for Wantage in his capacity as
Opposition spokesman on this subject. I hope that we will be able to
expedite our debates, while allowing proper time for relevant
discussion of the amendments. We might even make the kind of speed that
will allow the hon. Gentleman to make his Churchillian appearance in
Hammersmith this evening. I am equally conscious that if we are delayed
we will have to disappoint the people in Hammersmith—or perhaps
spare them, but that is a point for
debate. The hon.
Member for Chesterfield raised the issue of blind or partially sighted
people on Second Reading. We share his concern that a considerable
number of them will not be identified on the DWP database because the
information is held by local authorities rather than centrally. We have
worked closely with the digital television consumer expert group, which
comprises leading charities representing vulnerable people including
the Royal National Institute for the Blind, on how we should identify
those who are registered blind or partially sighted. Those aged 75 or
over will be identified from data held by DWP, but about 20 per
cent.—approximately 50,000 or 60,000 people—will be
identifiable only from data held by local authorities.
I know that the consumer expert
group has actively supported the amendment. I have reservations about
its wording, but I pay tribute to the consumer expert group for its
contribution with the RNIB in particular. We recognise that allowing
local authorities to disclose information on the scheme would help
blind or partially sighted people by enabling the scheme operator more
readily to identify those who are eligible.
On Second Reading I
said that we were discussing with the Department of Health and the
Department for Constitutional Affairs whether and how to make provision
to permit local authorities to disclose the necessary information from
their register of blind or partially sighted people. The view of the
Department of Health is that because of data protection legislation,
local authorities would be unable to share that data with central
Government or other contractors. As such, blind and partially sighted
people would be put at a disadvantage compared with others eligible for
assistance. We are also discussing the matter with and seeking the
views of the devolved Administrations, who are also
important. We are
very sympathetic to the views of Opposition Members and of my hon.
Friends on this important issue, and we are actively engaged in
consultation to ensure that data on registered blind or partially
sighted people can be obtained by relevant bodies; however, some issues
remain to be worked though. The Government intend to continue those
discussions in the next few weeks, and I hope that at Report stage it
will be possible to bring back to the House the result of the
consultation process. We want to ensure that the needs expressed by
hon. Members on behalf of charities, the consumer expert group and
others are met and that we can agree a way forward that will satisfy
all members of the
Committee. Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I think that there will be a
role for local authorities in the switchover process. It may be that
social services could get
involved to help people with any problems. However, as somebody from a
local authority background I wish to make the point that, although the
costs may be marginal, there could be a cost to local authorities.
Central Governments are good at saying, “It is in the grant,
they can afford it,” but during the consultation it would be
useful if realistic costs to local authorities were taken into account
so that they could, if necessary, be
compensated.
11
am
Mr.
Woodward: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
It is worth remembering that in the present case the administrative
burden will not be particularly onerous. The problem relates to having
the power to share the information: the registers are kept; it is a
question of access to them. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair
point, although whether it applies in the present case is moot. Again,
in the spirit of wanting to work with all hon. Members I will take
their comments on board. We will consider them and if it is appropriate
to measure those costs, although I think it probably is not, we will
bear that in mind when we bring back any proposals to the House on
report.
Mr.
Foster: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Wantage
for his impassioned support for the amendment. He has clearly
demonstrated that he will make a fine figure of a man in his new
post. The hon.
Gentleman may be relatively new to his post, Mr. Conway, but
you are not. You have chaired and served on many Committees of this
House, so you will be aware that often when a Government like an
Opposition amendment but do not want the Opposition to have the credit
for it, they try to persuade the Opposition to withdraw it so that they
can bring back their own, almost identical amendment, at a later stage
and claim the credit for it. It might be argued that that is what we
have just seen. But I genuinely do not believe that it is. I have
rarely heard a Minister say that he is very sympathetic, that he shares
our concerns and that an amendment deals with an important issue that
we must get right. I am delighted that the Minister said that. I am
delighted that he has been engaged in the consultation that I know
began long before the amendment was tabled. Clearly the Government are
taking the issue very seriously. We are grateful to the various
organisations that have provided the Government with
information. As the
Minister has given us an assurance that he will continue the
discussions to ensure that an amendment is produced that has a similar
effect to that of my amendment but deals correctly with the data
protection issue, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment, but before
I do so, I wish to say two things. First, I was slightly surprised when
the Minister told us that it was the Department of Health and not the
Department for Constitutional Affairs that was advising him about the
data protection issue. I hope that we will have confirmation that they
shared that
advice.
Mr.
Woodward: It just demonstrates how joined-up the
Government are, that the Department of Health can offer that kind of
advice.
Mr.
Foster: We have to be a little bit careful in that
respect. We may see on Thursday, when we have the statement on the
licence fee and learn the outcome of that battle, just how joined up
the DCMS and the Treasury are.
Secondly, I want to thank the
hon. Member for Poole for his helpful intervention. While the Minister
may say that the costs for local authorities may be small, none the
less the burdens that actions by central Government are placing on
local government are increasing. Local government is under significant
strain and I would hate this to be the straw that breaks the
camel’s back. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
addressing that issue. I am also grateful to the Minister for assuring
the Committee that he would also look at this. He will no doubt comment
on it when he brings back an amendment on a suitable occasion. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave
out paragraph
(a).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out
sub-paragraph (i). No.
10, in
clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave
out ‘the BBC
or’. No. 11, in
clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (c) and
insert— ‘( ) the person or
persons duly appointed to manage and operate the switchover help
scheme.’.
Mr.
Foster: Mr. Conway, I hope that as I explain
the importance of the amendment, you will not think that I am trying to
find a clever way to debate the details of the digital switchover
scheme. You will recall that I said in my remarks on the programme
motion that we did not know who was going to deliver the scheme; what
is clear is that we are unclear about what role the BBC will
play. The excellent
Library briefing and the Department’s excellently prepared
explanatory notes to the Bill contain little or nothing of the detail
of the BBC’s role in delivering the scheme. Indeed, any
assiduous Committee member will have looked in detail not only at the
new BBC charter but at the agreement that accompanied it and came into
force on 19 December 2006. Such assiduous readers will have noticed in
section 39 of the agreement the following immortal
words: “The BBC
must comply with a scheme agreed with the Secretary of State concerning
the provision of specified help to specified categories of persons for
the purpose of enabling them to continue to view the UK Public
Television Services when and after they are affected by Digital
Switchover.” That is it.
We have no detailed knowledge whatever of the BBC’s role. We
know from clause 5(1) that the details of the scheme are to be agreed
between the BBC and the Secretary of State, but beyond that the
BBC’s role is extremely murky.
The amendments would remove all
mention of the BBC as a relevant person under clause 1. If the BBC is
not to play a significant role, other than perhaps co-ordinating the
provision of the targeted help scheme
for digital switchover, it is unclear why it needs to receive all the
detailed data that the Bill will allow to be collected and shared. If
the BBC is playing a relatively minor, though no doubt important,
co-ordinating role, it could be argued that there is no need for it to
have data other than in aggregate form, so that it knows the total
number of people who will be affected and the numbers broken down by
the regions where switchover will
occur. Paragraph 5.1
of the DCMS digital help scheme summary says
that “the help scheme
will be managed and operated by a single organisation or a consortium
formed for the
purpose.” That gives us
further reason to believe that the BBC will not be the body managing
and operating the scheme. With those two bits of evidence—the
absolute silence about any details of the BBC’s role and the
hint in paragraph 5.1 that the BBC will not be managing and operating
the scheme—I surmise that there is no reason for the BBC to
receive all the detailed data to which the Bill will allow it
access.
Mr.
Vaizey: I suspect that this amendment will not be received
by the Minister with the same joy as the previous amendment. It goes to
the heart of the Bill, and I support the remarks of the hon. Member for
Bath. In effect, the amendment asks why the BBC must appear in the
Bill. Ostensibly, the BBC has been put in charge of conducting targeted
help for digital switchover, but the Bill makes it clear and previous
experience with television licence fee administration shows us that, in
effect, it will not be the BBC we know and love that will conduct the
digital switchover; it will be a company formed specifically for that
purpose. As the hon. Member for Bath said, paragraph 5.1 of the
document from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
states: “It is
envisaged that the help scheme will be managed and operated by a single
organisation or a consortium formed for the purpose. The successful
supplier will need to demonstrate a strong track record of delivering
large customer facing programmes and with the logistics involved in
sorting equipment and delivering in-home assistance and
support.”— so we
know that it will not be Capita. The document
continues: “The
successful supplier will also need to demonstrate a strong IT
capability— so we know it
will not be a Government
organisation— “for
the setting up and management of customer accounts tracking those
eligible through the scheme and linked with a contract centre designed
around and capable of meeting the need of older and disabled
people.” One
of the things that concerns me is that there is no provision in the
Bill for the Minister to report back to Parliament on who will be
responsible for digital switchover. It would be extremely helpful to
the House, and right and proper, if the tender documents were made
available in the Library for hon. Members to peruse and if the Minister
regularly gave the House updates on what is happening. The House should
also have a chance to debate the selection of the organisation that is
ultimately chosen to conduct digital switchover. Given the
Government’s track record of managing large-scale projects, it
is important that they should benefit from the input of hon.
Members.
As the hon.
Member for Bath made clear, the information that we are discussing will
be disclosed by the Department for Work and Pensions, and potentially
by local authorities, which will identify individuals and households
meeting the eligibility criteria based on social security records. The
information will therefore be sensitive, but it will be disclosed
without the express or implied consent of the individuals concerned. We
believe that such information should be made available only where
necessary, and the clause fails that test. It is not necessary to put
the BBC in the Bill to make the scheme workable. In practice, the only
people who need the detailed information on individual households under
the scheme are those who are responsible for contacting eligible
people—that is, the suppliers.
As the hon.
Member for Bath said, the BBC only needs to see aggregated information
in order to administer the scheme. It simply needs to know the number
of households that are likely to be contacted in any given area so that
it can make proper accounting and budgeting arrangements. It does not
need to see the individual data. The help scheme will not be operated
or managed by the BBC, which is simply the overall supervisor of the
scheme, and it is extremely important that, as far as possible, we
restrict the distribution of the information.
As we are debating the
organisation that will undertake the switchover, will the Minister,
when he responds to the amendment, give the Committee some indication
of how the digital switchover timetable is progressing? We are a mere
nine months away from the launch of the greatest civil project in
recent British history, in Whitehaven of all places—a town whose
name that will be carved in stone for our grandchildren and
great-grandchildren when they sit down to watch digital television in
years to
come.
| 
