Mr.
Woodward: I do not know whether it would assist the hon.
Gentleman, but has he had a chance to look at the help scheme document
which we deposited in the Library before Christmas? It makes it crystal
clear that the help scheme will be operated on a platform-neutral
basis.
Mr.
Vaizey: That is made clear, but I fail to see how that can
be compatible with the fact that the help scheme will also be operated
on the basis of the cheapest option available, which has to be a
set-top box rather than a satellite receiver. Anyone who wants to
upgrade will have to pay an additional sum. Given that the Minister has
made that admission, no doubt he will have no problem with writing into
the Bill the need for platform
neutrality. Mr.
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): One of the issues that has
emerged from the Whitehaven area in recent weeks and months is that
take-up of Sky has gone through the roof. That is an important point
when considering platform
neutrality.
Mr.
Vaizey: It certainly is. As there is an increasing
consensus that there is a need for platform neutrality I assume that
hon. Members will be keen to ensure that that is written into the
Bill. I have been in
correspondence with some of the operators other than the BBC, who say
that although they fully expect the Minister to say that an amendment
is unnecessary, that is not their view. They point to their experience
with the BBC, which is happy
to refer to digital terrestrial television by its well-known brand name,
freeview. The commercial operators who must compete against the BBC are
keen to see platform neutrality written into the
Bill. Mr.
Woodward: I hope that I can deal with amendment No. 7
relatively quickly. Its purpose seems to be to insert a legal assurance
into the Bill. The questions are whether that is necessary and whether
the clause is the right place in which to make that insertion. I
understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I am not
sure that his amendment would
succeed. The
definition of digital switchover help scheme in the Bill is just
that—a definition. It is neither workable nor practicable to
amend the definition by placing substantive conditions on the way in
which the scheme operates. Those conditions will, rightly, be included
in the scheme agreement with the BBC and in the various contractual
arrangements that will underpin the scheme.
I am more than happy to offer
the hon. Gentleman assurances that digital switchover will be conducted
on a platform-neutral basis. The White Paper says that the Government
will continue to be platform-neutral in its public policy, and we have
reiterated that principle in relation to the help scheme. I have drawn
the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the digital help scheme
document, which was deposited in the Library before Christmas and which
sets that out
clearly. Our policy is
to support a wider range of digital platforms because that means more
choice for consumers. Digital switchover has always been about choice
for consumers—not just choice of programmes and channels, but
choice of platforms. Our policies on the help scheme and on digital
switchover generally are built on the principle of platform neutrality.
The amendment would do nothing to add to that well established policy.
As the clause is about definition and because it is neither workable
nor practicable to amend the definition in a way that places
substantive conditions on the way in which the scheme operates, I ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Vaizey: I hear what the Minister says, and I understand
that he will resist the amendment. I do not intend to press it to a
vote, but I want to reiterate a number of
points. The Minister
said that the document published by his Department makes it clear that
the scheme will be platform neutral. He may be referring to paragraph
5.25 of that document, but it is merely words and makes it absolutely
clear that if someone does not take a digital set-top box, but takes an
integrated system, a satellite system or a cable system, they will be
required to pay the difference between the cost of a set-top box and
the cost of those slightly more sophisticated systems. On any analysis,
that is not an equal choice and I cannot see how it can be reconciled
with what any hon. Member would assume is platform neutrality or,
layman’s terms, a level playing
field. When we debated
an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to the obvious point that
the Bill must comply with disability legislation. Many of the
organisations involved in advocating the rights of
disabled groups say that the basic set-top box will not have the
interactivity and technical complexity to access the sort of services
that many people with severe disabilities, particularly visual
impairment, require. I urge the Minister to accept the spirit of the
amendment and to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society
have a genuine free
choice. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Huw
Irranca-Davies.] Adjourned
accordingly at One o’clock, till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
