New
Clause
2
Commencement
and duration
‘(1) Section 1
shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by
order appoint.
(2) No
information may be disclosed under section 1 after the end of the
initial period.
(3) In this
section “the initial period”, means the period of six
years beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into
force.’.—[Mr.
Vaizey.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
4.15
pm
Mr.
Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): I beg to move, That the
clause be read a Second
time.
I hope that the
new clause is appropriately drafted. It is what is colloquially called
a sunset clause—it is
designed to ensure that after a period the legislation will fall into
abeyance. The reason for inserting a sunset clause is that the Bill
implicitly has a shelf life, which was made explicit on Second Reading
when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
said: “Effectively,
a sunset clause will be operated once switchover is complete in 2012.
Members might wish to look at the application of sunset provisions on a
region-by-region basis when the Bill is in
Committee”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2006;
Vol. 454, c. 1174.]
Given the
quality of my drafting skills, you will probably be grateful,
Mr. Conway, that I have not drafted a clause to bring the
legislation to an end as switchover spreads through the regions, but we
may seek to do that on
Report.
The Secretary
of State made it clear that she does not think a sunset clause is
appropriate and said
that
“the Bill is, in
effect, time limited—after switchover has been completed, it
will cease to have any effect.”—[Official
Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1182.]
One could meet the Secretary of State
halfway, but it is a matter of good law as well as tidiness and
neatness that the legislation should cease to have effect at the end of
the digital switchover roll-out process rather than sit idly on the
statute book. I suspect that some hon. Members support me on that. The
hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway is not in his seat, but he said
on Second reading at column 1192 that he was interested in introducing
a sunset clause, although he has not tabled an amendment to that
effect.
Conservative
Members believe that a sunset clause is extremely important, not least
because it will concentrate the Government’s mind. As has been
said repeatedly, mainly by me, the Bill covers the largest civil
project in recent times—to switch over the television sets of
millions of people throughout the country—and targets help to
millions of people during the six years of the planned switchover. We
understand that the target date for analogue switch-off is the end of
2012. It is due to start in Whitehaven in a matter of months, yet, as
the hon. Member for Bath said, no company has been set up for that
purpose. We still have almost no details of how the scheme will operate
or what sort of funding will be available to the BBC to implement the
scheme, what equipment it will purchase and how the scheme will operate
in detail. The Government have set themselves an extraordinarily
challenging task, but they have made absolutely clear the date on which
they want the switchover to be completed, so they cannot be concerned
about having a sunset clause to bring the legislation to an end when
they switch off the analogue signal.
I have done an enormous amount
of legal research on sunset clauses, just as I did on reversing the
burden of proof. My attempt to elucidate the burden of proof was
somewhat curtailed, but I hope that my detailed research on the sunset
clause will have a fair wind. I will give the Committee the benefit of
my thoughts. We start in ancient
Rome—
Mr.
Foster:
How long you are going to be? Can I pop out for a
coffee?
Mr.
Woodward:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your
Hammersmith
ears.
Mr.
Vaizey:
I hope that Hansard is getting the noises
off.
I take the
Committee to the ancient city of Rome, where the roots of sunset
provisions are laid in the Roman law of the mandate. At the time of the
Roman republic, the empowerment of the Roman senate to collect special
taxes and to activate troops was limited in time and extent. Those
empowerments ended before the expiration of an electoral office, such
as the proconsul. The rule was known as “ad tempus concessa post
tempus censetur denegata”. Members of the Committee will not
need any translation but for those listening to the debate who are not
members of the Committee, it means what is admitted for a period will
be refused after the period. The same rule applied to Roman emergency
legislation; it was a fundamental part of Roman law until Julius Caesar
became dictator for life.
One can see that a sunset clause
is very common in a democracy. It appears in some of the greatest
democracies the world has ever known. In America, the Sedition Act 1798
was subject to a sunset clause, as was the Alien Friends Act 1798. More
recently, the Congressional Budget Act 1974 and the assault weapons ban
provision were subject to a sunset clause, as was the USA Patriot Act
2001 and the Estate Tax and Other Tax Cuts Act 2001. [Interruption.]
Does the hon. Member for Bath want to intervene on this learned
exposition of a sunset
clause?
Mr.
Foster:
Absolutely
not.
Mr.
Vaizey:
The best operation of a sunset clause is seen in
Texas, the home of the current President of the United States. As hon.
Members know, the Texas legislature sits only every other
year.
Mark
Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Should not the hon.
Gentleman be telling us how the sunset clause applies to the Bill,
rather than what it
is?
Mr.
Vaizey:
That is the most depressing intervention I have
heard in my time in Parliament. Not to understand the full, rich
context of a sunset clause before debating its specific application to
this tiny Bill seems to me to be the attitude of a small, narrow-minded
individual. [ Hon. Members: “Oh!”]
I am sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member. I meant him no offence; it
was said in kindness and not as an aggressive
statement.
We are now
in Austin,
Texas—
Mr.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman drawing
comparisons between the Secretary of State, George W. Bush and Julius
Caesar? If so, can he elaborate further,
please?
Mr.
Vaizey:
I certainly can. Julius Caesar was a dictator; the
Secretary of State is a democrat; I am therefore in no doubt that she
will support a sunset clause. I can tell that the Committee is tiring
of my tour
of sunset clauses, so I simply point out that it is interesting that
every department of state in Texas is subject to a sunset clause;
therefore every 10 or 12 years they are subject to debate by the
legislature. [Interruption.] I can sense that support is now
growing for the sunset clause. Finally, in Canada, under section 33 of
the charter of rights and freedoms, the sunset clause is applied to any
legislation passed under that charter.
However, as the hon. Member for
Alyn and Deeside implied in his intervention, what is relevant is what
happens in this country. I did not know before I began my research that
income tax is subject to a sunset clause, which may interest members of
the Committee, but unfortunately Parliament has made the mistake every
year of renewing income tax. The Sex Discrimination (Election of
Candidates) Act 2002, which introduced all-women shortlists and brought
some of the most formidable politicians to Parliament, is subject to a
sunset clause. Sadly, that injection of talent is due to come to an end
in 2015, unless Parliament renews that clause. The Prevention of
Terrorism Act 2005, which we debated in a recent Session, was subject
to a sunset clause. Parliament is therefore used to introducing sunset
clauses, which returns me to the theme of my remarks: a sunset clause
is common and well used in democracies across the world. A sunset
clause is common and used in this Parliament. A sunset clause is
necessary for a Bill that, by its very nature, has a very short shelf
life.
Certainly no one
will seek to use the Bill’s provisions after 2012 or 2013, which
allows the Minister a little slack in terms of how quickly he gets the
provisions implemented. Given the intrusive nature of the Bill, which
relates to the ability of a company, the BBC or the Secretary of State
to request and have access to data on individuals, a sunset clause
would send an important signal that an intrusive Bill such as this will
not simply be allowed to hang around, to be picked up 20, 30 or 70
years later in the same way as the selling of honours Act—the
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925—was discovered and
dusted down 70 or 80 years after its
passage.
The Committee,
if it puts a sunset clause in the Bill here today, will send a great
signal to our colleagues in Parliament as they debate Bills that
perhaps, to tidy up our statute book, they should be thinking of a
sunset clause not as an exceptional clause to be put into an
exceptional Bill, but as something that we can, as a matter of course,
include in every Bill. There should be the presumption of a sunset
clause unless it can be shown that a sunset clause is not
required.
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I hesitate to follow the hon.
Gentleman and his learned exposition of the origins of sunset clauses,
so I will confine myself to more prosaic points. As he said, the
proposed sunset clause would terminate the legislation within six years
of clause 1 coming into force. Sunset clauses, as has been pointed out,
are occasionally used in British legislation—I have in mind
controversial legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
and the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. We propose a
sunset clause in this Bill not because it is controversial in the same
way as those two pieces of legislation, but because it relates to a
large body of sensitive information about elderly and disabled people
that could be abused if it got into the wrong hands. It would make sense
to limit clearly the amount of time for which that information will be
available and in the hands of contractors. That would help to prevent
abuses of power after the end of the six-year period that we propose,
just as the amendments that we discussed this morning were designed to
prevent abuses of power while the legislation was in force.
In the early part of the Second
Reading debate, the Secretary of State was quite sympathetic to the
idea of a sunset clause. She
said:
“Effectively,
a sunset clause will be operated once switchover is complete in
2012.”—[Official Report, 18 December
2006; Vol. 454, c.
1174.]
But of course that is not
a true sunset clause. There could be an extension to the switchover
period unless there is clear legislation saying when it should be
completed by. It could extend to 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016, because
without the new clause there will be no clear time limit, only a desire
for a time limit. The Bill would be the sort of blank cheque that we
heard described as this morning—a blank cheque to give the
Government the power to do what they like once the legislation is
passed. We will not be doing our job as scrutinisers of legislation
unless we support the writing into the Bill of a strict sunset
clause.
The Information
Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has
said:
“When data
protection puts fundamental safeguards in place, we must make sure that
some of these lines are not
crossed.”
One of those
lines would be the unnecessary retention of the data on some millions
of people to which the Bill
relates.
As has been
mentioned, the Secretary of State also suggested on Second Reading that
Members might want to consider applying a sunset provision on a
region-by-region basis. On that, I part company with the hon. Member
for Wantage: on closer examination, that seems daft. People move house
and TV regions, so we cannot suggest such a strict regional sunset
clause. For example, in 2010, someone might move from the Carlton
London Weekend Television region, where the process is due to be
complete in the first half of 2012, to the HTV Wales region, where it
is already complete. If we had a strict regional sunset clause, how
would data from one region be moved to another? People would not be
able to receive switchover help in those
circumstances.
4.30
pm
Mr.
Vaizey:
Will the hon. Gentleman offer some clarification?
I realise that I am asking him this as though he were a Government
spokesman, but is it his understanding that switchover help will be
available for the entire period in every region? It is an interesting
point.
Paul
Holmes:
I could not possibly comment until the Secretary
of State says something on Thursday. That is an extremely difficult
question for me to answer, because there is so little detail in the
Bill and, as we know from this debate, the Minister will refuse to
answer that question, because it is all to come with the blank cheque
later on. We simply do not have those
details.
Mr.
Vaizey:
On that basis, the hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss
regional sunset clauses as a “daft proposal”. If help
ceases to be available after a certain period, when switchover is
complete, it might be good to have such a clause. Indeed, I might come
back to it on Report in order to protect data and our civil
liberties.
Paul
Holmes:
On the contrary, if our new clause 2 were to be
implemented—
Mr.
Vaizey:
It is my new clause
2.
Paul
Holmes:
It stands in our names as well. If new clause 2,
to which the lead name attached is that of the hon. Member for Wantage,
but to which my name is also attached, were to be adopted today, the
uncertainty that we have just discussed, and which the Government seem
keen to maintain, would be ended. If we had a rigid six-year sunset
clause across the country, not a regional rolling programme, the
Government would have a very short, sharp timetable to stick
to.
That leads on to my
final point. Some people would say, “Well, is six years
enough?” The Government have set themselves that target, but
given themselves a blank cheque so that, if need be, they can extend
it. However, the work done by contractors could run over because no
clear legislative cut-off point has been put in place by which time the
process must be complete—2012 is only an aspiration. New clause
2 would establish a strict six-year sunset clause, which would the
Government, the BBC and contractors to work with a set purpose towards
that deadline, instead of feeling that they could run
over.
I certainly
support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Wantage. A sunset
clause would be good practice given the large quantity of sensitive
information that is to be put into a wider domain. It would focus the
minds of the Government and contractors on a clear, definite finish
point for the switchover
process.
Mr.
Woodward:
The titles that I have collected today fill me
with excitement about the
future.
What do we say
about this journey through ancient Rome and the Latin lexicon that we
have been treated to this afternoon? It has certainly been enjoyable. I
fear that last night the hon. Member for Wantage made a wager with some
friends that he could mention sunset clauses 52 times and lead us on to
a discussion of Austin, Texas, without incurring your wrath,
Mr. Conway. He should win a prize, but I am not sure that
his speech added anything to our understanding of the value of a sunset
clause.
However, in the
spirit of the Committee’s deliberations and the remarks made by
the hon. Member for Chesterfield, I want to deal with the matter
properly. He rightly reminded us that, on Second Reading, the Secretary
of State and I were minded to consider a sunset clause. Prompted by the
contributions of hon. Members on Second Reading, it seemed to us as
though a sunset clause might be appropriate, so we took the matter away
in the best spirit for discussion with officials. However, we were
persuaded that, on balance, it would not be right to put
a sunset clause in the Bill. With your indulgence, Mr.
Conway, I will briefly set out the arguments
why. We needed to
ensure two things with the duration of powers in the Bill, the first of
which was that the criminal offences should continue to operate after
the information had been lawfully disclosed, even though the power to
disclose had been spent. Secondly, the powers needed to be available to
underpin the whole scheme for as long as necessary—no more and
no less. A fixed date, with no means of amendment short of legislation
would mean that there was no way of extending the provisions if, for
some reason, switchover were not completed by 31 December 2012 or if a
technical problem arose during the course of switchover; and an express
power to extend the duration of powers would give certainty with one
hand but, as I shall explain, take it away with the
other.
I remind the
Committee that clause 1
states:
“The
Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland department
may...supply a relevant person with social security information
for use...in connection with switchover help
functions.”
In other
words, once the switchover help scheme has completed its task, the
legal basis for using the information and, therefore, for disclosing
it, vanishes. How does that translate into practice and how does that
provision compare with the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for
Wantage, in conjunction with and assisted by other hon. Members? I do
not want to cause further dispute between the Opposition parties over
new clause 2.
Our
strategy for switchover is based on a robust programme and on what we
believe to be a realistic and achievable timetable, which was proposed
on the best advice of broadcasters and Ofcom and confirmed by our
experts. That timetable includes a prudent amount of slack to
accommodate unforeseeable or, as we currently regard them,
unpreventable delays. However, with the best will in the world, a
project of such scope—switchover is, within the timescale, one
of the largest civil projects ever undertaken in this
country—undoubtedly carries
risk.
We want to avoid
an unexpected or unanticipated delay, such as prolonged bad weather
preventing work in the final stages of switchover in London or an
exceptional event such as hurricane winds bringing a transmitter mast
down, resulting in unavoidable delay in completing the full switchover
programme. Those who are minded, like the hon. Member for Bath, to
follow aerial erection matters may recall that such an incident was
suffered in 1969 by the Emily Moor transmitter, which serves Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Wantage poked a little fun at the hon. Member for
Bath over his interest, but erections matter. In the case of the Emily
Moor transmitter, there was a serious
problem.
Uncertainty
about whether the powers will remain in place for the lifetime of the
scheme carries a risk for the main contractor, which has an implication
for costs, as commercial interest will make the contractor look for a
higher contract price to compensate for such a risk. The Government of
the day could return to Parliament with a Bill to extend the
legislation, but there may not be time. Would that be the best use of
Parliament’s time, particularly as we have anticipated the
potential risk at the beginning of switchover? One remedy is to include
a power to extend the powers in clause 1 by
order, but would not that undermine the purpose of an explicit sunset
provision, as a matter of principle? It would be left for a future
Government to decide how long the powers should last, so removing the
element of certainty that the hon. Member for Wantage
seeks.
Mr.
Vaizey:
The Minister mentioned a series of quite
fantastical acts of God that might disrupt the digital switchover
process, although, given the Government’s record on climate
change, I can understand why he is expecting hurricanes and flash
floods. He did not mention Government incompetence as a cause. Given
the enormous expedition with which we have pushed the Bill through the
House, would it not be possible simply to include a sunset clause and
then later—say, in the summer of 2012, just before everyone
leaves to go to the Olympics—introduce a one-word amendment, to
change the word “six” to “seven”, rather
than seeking such convoluted excuses to avoid this important new
clause?
Mr.
Woodward:
The hon. Gentleman again tempts me into areas of
political provocation, in which, for the benefit of my hon. Friends on
the Committee, I shall not indulge him. However, if he continues, I am
more than happy to ensure that the honourable burghers of Hammersmith
do not enjoy his company
tonight.
Given what I
have said about the self-limiting nature of the powers, a sunset power
would be redundant. No sensible Secretary of State would use it until
switchover was finished and the scheme had done its job, by which time
the powers in the Bill would be spent and the only purpose of using
that power would be to terminate it formally. Therefore, although we
have taken on board the proposals made on Second Reading, our
considered approach has been to link the powers directly to the event
of digital switchover, which is a time-limited event, and the help
scheme that supports it. That will have the same practical effect as a
formal sunset clause, in that once switchover is completed and the help
scheme has done its job, the Department for Work and Pensions, the
Social Development Department in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of
Defence will no longer be able to disclose the information
lawfully.
Paul
Holmes:
The Minister has made a number of well argued
points for why a sunset clause might not be desirable or workable, but
could he explain why, early on in the debate on Second Reading, the
Secretary of State indicated that the Committee might consider a series
of regional sunset clauses? Surely all the Minister’s points
would apply to those as
well.
Mr.
Woodward:
The same arguments apply to regional sunset
clauses as to the broader, overall issue. Despite the political abuse
from the hon. Member for Wantage—he is certainly coherent on
abuse, if not on substance, although that is perhaps as we would
expect—we were trying to show on Second Reading that we were
genuinely open to any sensible suggestion from an hon. Member. It
occurred to the Secretary of State that, if we did follow through the
logic of a sunset clause, one possible route could be to do so on a
regional basis. However, the considered advice of the officials who
work on the issue—and to whom I pay
huge credit—was that, for all the practical purposes that we were
considering, that proposal would not achieve that effect.
The analysis that the hon.
Member for Chesterfield gave of the problems that might be incurred by
regional sunset clauses is absolutely right. There might be a need for
the information—for example, because one side of a street is in
one region, whereas the other side of that street is in
another—and a problem may arise. We simply do not want life to
be made more complicated for the public, although I understand that the
hon. Member for Wantage wants to make our life more complicated
now.
Mr.
Vaizey:
Can I ask the Minister the question that I asked
the hon. Member for Chesterfield? Will the Minister make it clear that
targeted assistance will be available in every region for the entire
six-year period of switchover, rather than rolling around the country,
as it
were?
Mr.
Woodward:
In practice, the answer is yes. However, given
the consequences of the timetable for rolling through the switchover
programme, an individual in an area where switchover is taking place
will need the help at that particular time. The help will not be needed
two years after, because by then that person will have the equipment or
the assistance that they
needed.
Mr.
Foster:
We have suddenly made a bit of progress. We have
some information from the Minister about the details of the scheme, so
let us press him on that point. He said in response to the question put
by the hon. Member for Wantage that, in practice, the answer was yes.
Does that mean that a person who would qualify for assistance who moved
from London to the Border region in 2010 would be eligible for targeted
assistance there at that
time?
4.45
pm
Mr.
Woodward:
It would be really helpful if the hon. Gentleman
could give me that person’s postcodes. However, he makes a
sensible point, which I should like to review and write to him about.
Obviously there will instances in which people will move house and
might even qualify for assistance four times over. I do not want to
speak out of turn, but my instinct is that the purpose of the Bill is
to enable people who genuinely need help to receive it, not to leave a
scheme open for abuse. He is clearly not suggesting that people who
might want to abuse the system should benefit, but equally there may be
absolutely understandable situations—for example, a family break
up—where such things could occur. Yes, flexibility must be built
into the system but these are matters that we have to work out
practically; our preparations in Whitehaven are throwing up a number of
such issues.
It is
important to remind hon. Members that Whitehaven is not a pilot,
because there is no going back. For people in Whitehaven, it is the
beginning of switchover. We are fully committed to ensuring that it
works impeccably. That is why we want the Bill to commence as soon as
possible so that we can deliver its benefits to Whitehaven. Lessons
will be learned from
Whitehaven, and they may touch on the questions that the hon. Member for
Bath raised. We want to enter into the best spirit of co-operation with
all hon. Members to ensure that we learn those lessons.
My
instinctive answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, but
I want to give his question full consideration. I will be happy to
write to him about it, or to meet him or other hon. Members to discuss
the
matter.
Mr.
Vaizey:
I would be grateful to see a copy of that letter
from the Minister. It is becoming increasingly apparent that one reason
why he did not answer the questions from the hon. Member for Bath in
clause 5 is that much of the detail of digital switchover has not been
worked out and will probably emerge from the Whitehaven experiment. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland on supporting it.
Is that not part of the
difficulty? How on earth has the Minister’s Department come up
with an estimate of £600 million as the cost of digital
switchover when so many fundamental details have not yet been worked
out? For example, in respect of a regional sunset clause, will data be
available to, say, the organisation conducting switchover in London?
Let us suppose that a resident of Whitehaven moved to
London—that is almost unheard of, I know—at the end of
2008 having got a free set-top box, and he then applied for a set-top
box in London when the switchover arrived there. Would the data be
recorded in such a way that the organisation carrying out the
switchover in London would know that the person had already received
their chunk of assistance in
Whitehaven?
Mr.
Woodward:
It is perfectly clear that we have now entered
into a round of “University Challenge” with the hon.
Gentleman. He may not have been able to understand the words I was
using in reply to the hon. Member for Bath, but I am happy to consider
the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wantage and to send him a copy
of the correspondence. I suggest that rather than indulging himself in
more paperwork, he comes in to discuss these
issues.
The hon.
Gentleman made a number of rather foolish observations on the scheme.
If he spent more time studying the brief on digital switchover rather
than on political point scoring, he would learn that the work
undertaken by Digital UK and the broadcasters is very comprehensive. If
he had spent a little more time with the charitable groups who advised
him on some of his amendments he would know that a huge amount of work
has been undertaken on the issue.
Mr.
Vaizey:
Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Woodward:
I will give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman
should be patient. To caricature the work of all those who have been
involved in the project undermines the scheme and is foolish because
this is a very well thought through set of proposals to achieve the
best possible outcome. It is not a political project; the way in which
the process has been handled by Digital UK is in no shape or form
political. To suggest, therefore, that the people in Whitehaven are
part of an experiment is really, really
foolish.
Mr.
Vaizey:
Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Woodward:
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman before he
gets to his feet—I shall give way to him in a
moment—
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must stay in his seat
until the Minister gives
way.
Mr.
Woodward:
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he do two
things: first, that he come to the Department, where we will give him a
comprehensive briefing on the work that has been undertaken. He should
give us three or four hours of his time as we will need that long to
take him through it. Secondly he should go to Whitehaven to see the
work that is being done there. I am happy for him to come with me in
the middle of March—an invitation that I extend to any hon.
Member.
What we say in
Committee will be examined by those outside, and to suggest that people
in Whitehaven are being used in an experiment is grossly unfair to
them, to Digital UK and to all those involved in the work there,
regardless of the Government’s position. A little more time
spent on the substance of the matter and a little less on ancient Rome,
and we would have achieved a great deal
more.
Mr.
Vaizey:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that every
time I have a debate with the Minister whenever he is in the wrong or
has been caught out, he takes refuge in accusing any hon. Member who
disagrees with him or dares to points out complications in his scheme
of playing politics. He did the same after the disaster on the
definition of a British film, and it is beyond absurd. I find his
attitude extraordinarily offensive. [Laughter.] The hon. Member
for Glasgow, North-West, puts on mock laughter from a sedentary
position, but it is absolutely within my right to ask
questions.
For the
Minister to pretend that my use of the word “experiment”
is somehow offensive to Whitehaven is a grotesque caricature of my
point. I was simply pointing out that the Secretary of State cited a
regional sunset clause as a possibility for the Committee to consider.
The House might consider it on Report. The hon. Member for Chesterfield
dismissed the option, saying that such a clause would not work because
if people were to move around the country they might be entitled to
help after it had theoretically ceased in a region such as the Border
region. I am not attacking him for saying that but I pointed out to him
that a regional sunset clause would only be absurd if switchover help
were not available throughout the country all the time.
On Second Reading we made the
point, as, I believe, did the hon. Member for Chesterfield, that hon.
Members should be entitled to see a document explaining how the
Department came up with the figure of £600 million for the cost
of targeted help. I would be more than delighted to spend hours
researching the matter if such a document were available. That figure
must have been reached through
detailed analysis of how the programme would work. If the Minister is
saying that he will write to the hon. Members for Bath and for
Chesterfield to explain whether switchover help will be available in
the Border region until 2009 or 2012—that strikes me as a pretty
big difference—it seems to me that the details have not been
worked out. When I said that Whitehaven was an experiment I was not
saying that it was a terrible one, but that the details of the scheme
will need to be worked out based on what happens
there.
Mr.
Woodward:
I am sure that hon. Members found some content
in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It seemed to me that he
was a little exercised about my remarks I made about writing to hon.
Members, but that is a sensible way to proceed. The full details have
not been worked out simply because we have not done the first region
yet, so we must recognise that we will learn as we go along. In so far
as we can anticipate problems, we shall do
so.
My objection to the
hon. Gentleman’s point about Whitehaven was the idea that the
Government are treating it as an experiment and that the constituents
of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland are being treated as guinea
pigs. That is simply not the case. They will be the first people to
benefit from switchover and are, quite rightly, receiving a great deal
of help to ensure that it is a success. Lessons will arise from that
work and it is perfectly proper that we all learn from them. However,
it is absolutely in no shape or form an experiment. It is the beginning
of the roll-out of digital switchover with the full commitment of the
Government, Digital UK and all those involved in it. My concern is that
my hon. Friend’s constituents do not have any sense whatever
that they are an experiment. They are not. I was at pains to make that
clear. I am sorry if that upset the hon. Gentleman and led to his
somewhat lengthy
intervention.
The hon.
Gentleman referred to my comments about film. I do not think that you,
Mr. Conway, were the Chairman of that
Committee—
Mr.
Woodward:
In which case, you may remember that the hon.
Gentleman made several accusations about what a disaster the provision
was to the film industry. I think that you may well have read the exact
opposite being said in yesterday’s newspapers by film producers
and those involved in the
industry —[
Interruption.
]
The
Chairman:
Order. I am giving the hon. Member for Wantage a
lot of leeway because this is his first Bill as a Front-Bench
spokesman. However, he must not stretch it too far. We must all calm
down a little. I am sure that the Minister will stick to sunsets rather
than the
globe.
Mr.
Woodward:
Indeed. Your strictures are helpful,
Mr. Conway, because it is important to put clothes on the
fact of what a success the film scheme has been and will continue to
be.
I have explained
why we considered a sunset clause. We did so in good faith, but we
rejected it because it
would not achieve the objectives that we originally thought it might.
The hon. Gentleman jests about the Secretary of State’s interest
in the idea of regional sunset clauses, but again that showed her
openness, which is a strength, not a weakness. She is driven not by
dogma, but by the desire to ensure that we deliver the right
scheme. I believe for
the best of reasons and, on balance, that it is right not to accept the
new clause. I wish to say to the hon. Gentleman that we absolutely
understand the spirit that lies behind it but, regrettably, it would
not have fulfilled that
spirit.
Mr.
Vaizey:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the
House.
Mr.
Woodward:
By and large, this has been a well-tempered
Committee. I am sorry for the anxiety that I caused the hon. Member for
Wantage when we discussed new clause 2, but I hope that he understands
that we firmly recognise the value of his contributions to the debate.
Obviously, if members of the Committee wish to draft amendments for
further consideration, there will be an opportunity for them to do so
on Report. By the time that the Bill is discussed on Report, however,
it will have been possible for us to given the clarification that hon.
Members have sought on certain
issues.
I simply say to
the Opposition Front-Bench Members and indeed to all members of the
Committee that, between, now and Report and Third Reading in the House,
if I can within the parameters of a settlement being agreed with the
BBC give further and detailed briefings that would help hon. Members, I
shall do so. I would be happy to make my time, that of my officials and
the resources that we have between us available comprehensively to
answer the genuine questions of hon. Members that would be helpful to
the deliberations of the House on Report and Third
Reading’
With
that, Mr. Conway, I thank you for your guidance. I thank the
Clerks and the officials of the House for their help in the
consideration of the Bill. I also thank all hon. Members and my hon.
Friends for their time in allowing us to undertake speedy but important
debates about issues pertaining to a small but important Bill. It will
make information available so that digital switchover is a success for
the most vulnerable people in our society, and it will provide the
safeguards for them in so doing.
Mr.
Vaizey:
The Bill is short and, as the Minister reminded us
at certain points, it has a specific and narrow focus. It will allow
the BBC and relevant organisations to help vulnerable people who need
assistance as the country moves towards digital switchover.
We have debated today a number
of small but important points, including the role of local authorities.
Although the Minister could not accept the amendments, he made it clear
that local authorities may have an important role to play. We
anticipate his
return on Report and Third Reading to flesh out that point, to explain
in detail to the House how local authorities can be helped and perhaps
to move any amendment he feels necessary to ensure that local
authorities can play their full part. We debated an important point
for many commercial operators: the need for the switchover company,
whatever that might be, to present information in a technologically
neutral way. I and the hon. Member for Bath sought to amend the Bill to
limit at its heart the spread of sensitive information from the
relevant company. For my part, we also had a particularly interesting
debate on reversing the burden of proof in the Bill. Finally, we had an
important debate about the principle and opportunity for a sunset
clause, and we referred to the Secretary of State’s strength in
raising the issue of a regional or general sunset clause, which I
wholly support.
For
me, on my first outing on the Front Bench, it was sad that the last 10
minutes of the debate descended into rancour. Be that as it may, the
hon. Member for Bath best raised an important point. Owing to the
Bill’s narrow scope, we cannot debate the detail of digital
switchover. Further, because the BBC is constituted by royal charter
rather than by Act of Parliament, and because it is not subject to
formal scrutiny by the National Audit Office, we, as Opposition parties
and not as members of the Government, are at the beck and call of the
BBC and the Government as to when we can scrutinise in detail. That is
sad when the cost of targeted help for digital switchover has been
estimated at £600 million. When the Minister was pressed about
the provisional timetable, instead of providing greater detail about
how the scheme will work, he descended into unpleasant political abuse.
That makes me sad, having known the Minister for many years.
Apart from those 10 minutes, the
hours in Committee have been by and large enjoyable, thanks to the
Minister’s courtesy and to the opportunity to work almost as a
partner with the hon. Member for Bath. The Minister talked about lust
and temptation. It has been an enjoyable occasion. Ultimately,
Mr. Conway, your chairmanship crowned our sittings. Under
your chairmanship, and with the support of your superb Clerks and Bill
team, I have had an immensely enjoyable first run out, and I am
extremely grateful.
Mr.
Foster:
Despite the limited scope of the Bill and the
limited time that we have devoted to its discussion, we have had a
wide-ranging debate. We have ranged from the use of large print to the
role of aerial erection companies, from the WEEE directive to the
European convention on human rights, and from the dictatorship of
Julius Caesar to the Secretary of State’s apparently benign
approach to democratic
institutions.
We
have seen the Minister promoted on three occasions. He was promoted to
Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield; he
was then promoted to being a judge by you, Mr. Conway; and
latterly in our deliberations he was raised even higher, to consular
status. We have seen some of the legal skills of the hon. Member for
Wantage, as a result of which some of us fear for the good burghers of
Hammersmith, to whom he will be speaking this
evening.
We have seen
the Minister playing a fairly straight bat, refusing, sadly, to give us
further information about the details of the targeted help scheme. He
assured us, however, that the information is to appear at some time in
the relatively near future. Apparently, I am not to say when I think
that that may be—possibly later this
week.
In all those
deliberations, we have genuinely been assisted by the Minister’s
approach. He was helpful on many of the amendments and on many of the
points that were made, for which we are grateful. I am sure that a
number of the Committee members who have benefited from the assistance
of the officials in his Department would wish to pass on, through him,
our thanks. We certainly give our thanks to the Committee Clerk who has
done sterling work and who was particularly helpful to me and the hon.
Member for Wantage. We would like to apologise to her through you,
Mr. Conway, for not necessarily having done full justice to
the efforts that she has made on our behalf.
Finally, may I thank you,
Mr. Conway, as others have, for the way in which you have
chaired our brief deliberations on this important Bill? Notwithstanding
the last few minutes, you have ensured that we have been remarkably
good humoured and therefore, I believe, genuinely
productive.
The
Chairman:
I am very grateful to hon. Members for their
comments. They will be noted and appreciated by the staff who serve
us.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Bill to be
reported, without
amendment.
Committee
rose at seven minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
