I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—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 ten years beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into force.’.

New clause 3 stands in my name and new clause 4 stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes). In Committee, we had a useful and extensive discussion on the provisions of sunset clauses in the Bill. I was privileged to take the Committee through a history of sunset clauses from the Roman mandate to the present day—last year, we considered the use of a sunset clause in relation to the Terrorism Act 2006.

There are two important points on which all members of the Committee—and all Members of the House—should be agreed. The first is that this is an important Bill, which will allow the Government to proceed with digital switchover and, crucially, to target assistance at those who are most vulnerable and who need help to understand switchover and to get the equipment that they need. However, as the Government recognise, the Bill is also, of necessity, intrusive, in that it gives powers to the BBC to get information from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence on people receiving social security. It is therefore important that it does not remain on the statute book for longer than is necessary.

There are two ways in which one can ensure that the Bill does not have a longer than necessary shelf-life. The first is contained in new clause 3, which is my attempt to secure what is colloquially known as regional switch-off. I have tabled it at the behest of the Secretary of State, who said on Second Reading that

“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.]

So I have heard her call, and although I did not deal with that issue in Committee, I did say then that I would do so on Report, which is what new clause 3 seeks to do. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Government propose to introduce digital switchover region by region, starting with Whitehaven later this year, moving on to the borders and ending in London. The new clause would rightly allow the Government to switch off the Bill, as it were, as each region is switched over from analogue to digital.

The Minister sent a detailed letter, which I received today, on how regional switchover—a matter that we pressed him on in Committee—will work. He makes it clear that, effectively, switchover assistance in each region will be available for only nine months: in other words, eight months before the date on which the final transmitter in a given region switches over—or the date on which the transmitter serving the individual in question switches over—and one month after that. There is no need, therefore, for the Bill to survive in a particular region beyond that switchover period.

I confess that, on reading the Minister’s letter, I felt that to a certain extent he wanted it both ways. On the one hand, switchover assistance will be available in a given region for only a short and specific period; on the other and as his letter makes clear, he wants the data to be kept in order to carry out cross-checking functions over the extensive period of switchover. I am not sure that that is entirely necessary. It appears that he wants to keep the data in order to check that people are not moving around the country to get such assistance more than once. I think it highly unlikely that anyone wanting assistance with digital switchover would be in a position to move regularly around the country.

Presumably, the date of expiry that the new clause provides for would depend on the date on which the appropriate level of targeted assistance had been provided. Casting his mind back to the exchanges that took place with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House on 18 January, is my hon. Friend any clearer now than the Secretary of State allowed us to be then as to the proportion of the total subsidy that will be accounted for by voluntary input, agreed with the Government, from the BBC Trust?

Not really; in fact, a whole host of questions still have to be answered about the cost of digital switchover. Even now, as we debate this Bill, and after the statement on the licence fee settlement, the Government are still negotiating. Indeed, my hon. Friend, through his pertinent and perspicacious questioning, elicited from the Secretary of State on 18 January that negotiations are still ongoing. So apart from the broad figure of £600 million, any other estimate of the cost remains very vague. I hope that we can press the Minister on that issue on Report and Third Reading.

My hon. Friend has an advantage over the rest of us, in that we have not seen the letter from the Minister, so the nine month cut-off point after a given region has been switched over is news to us. There is no reference in the Bill to a nine-month period, so unless the sunset clause that my hon. Friend has tabled is accepted, there will be no obligation on the Government to end such provision.

That is exactly the point. The details of how switchover will work are contained in a Government document that was published in December, which made it clear when people would be eligible to receive assistance in the regions. However, as I hope that I made clear when we pressed the Minister in Committee on the issue, it was at that stage unclear, which is why the Minister has written his long and helpful letter. I am sure that he will make it available in the Library for my hon. Friends to peruse. He wrote the letter because it was unclear whether switchover help would be available beyond the period of nine months.

The specific examples on which we pressed the Minister in Committee were, of course, the obvious examples. Switchover will commence in Whitehaven at the end of this year. Let us say that someone aged 75 or over now living in London were to move to Whitehaven in 2012. Their friends in London will receive free assistance in 2012 when switchover takes place there, but it is not clear whether the person who moved would be eligible for such assistance. The answer given by the Minister in his letter is that the person moving would not be eligible for assistance in Whitehaven in 2012. Therefore, the purpose of the clause—I have heeded the call of the Secretary of State for a white knight to draft a region by region sunset clause—is to switch off the Bill in a region once switchover has been achieved there, so that the data is not held any longer than necessary.

The hon. Gentleman may be a white knight, but he may also be misleading the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) by confirming the period of nine months. In the letter we have received, the period is only one month after the switchover has occurred. Furthermore, the letter acknowledges that no final decision has yet been made about when that one month period will begin.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. It is important to be as accurate as possible and he rightly corrects me. The qualifying period in which people may receive assistance is nine months, starting eight months before and lasting one month after the date that switchover affects an individual. Eight months before a transmitter is to be switched off, help will be available in the region. After the transmitter is switched off, help will be available for those whose televisions suddenly go blank.

As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) makes clear, the hinge date—between the eight month and one month periods—has not been exactly defined. The Minister is still considering that issue because, as he says in his letter, it will either be the date on which the final transmitter in the region switches over, or the date the transmitter that serves the individual in question switches over. So there could be area switchover within the regions, with one area switching over before another. It is fiendishly complicated, but the new clause is designed to switch off the Bill region by region as switchover takes place around the country.

My hon. Friend is giving the House some fascinating detail that I had not quite appreciated before. If people are to be eligible for assistance on the basis of the transmitter that transmits to their home, which could be a small number of houses in some cases, how will they know the period during which they may apply for help?

That is a very perceptive question. I can only assume that Digital UK, which is the body charged with providing the assistance to vulnerable people, will write to specific householders who may be subject to a sub-regional switchover to explain that their transmitter will switch on, on say, 1 June and that their eligibility for help will therefore expire on 1 July. People a couple of miles away who are served by a different transmitter, although they live in the same region, may have a later switchover date and therefore a later eligibility date. Be that as it may, at some stage each region will switch off, so the new clause would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to switch off the Act in specific regions to protect the principle that its powers should not survive beyond the absolute need for them.

I represent a constituency in London, and people often move into and out of that part of the country. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his understanding that the Bill has no specific plan for people who may move from London to an area where switchover has already happened, and that they would receive no assistance even if they needed it?

The Government have set themselves a daunting task. Earlier, the Secretary of State pointed out that she was in charge of building, in effect, two new terminal 5s in respect of the Olympics, and those of us who have followed closely the issue of digital switchover know that she agrees with those who assert that it could be the largest civil project in this country since the switchover to North sea gas. It seems to me that the nine-month period applies whether it be Whitehaven, the borders or London, which are enormously different both in size and, as my hon. Friend indicates, in terms of movement into and out of them. However, my reading of the Minister’s letter is that the rule will be as I described, so London, like the borders, will have only nine months.

As my hon. Friend knows, I sit on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which looked into digital switchover. At that time, we were not aware that the aid would be time-limited from area to area, so would not it be easier if switchover was on a date that applied to everybody nationally? There would then be cover for everybody in need rather than spasmodic cover, which would mean that people moving around the country would be left with no assistance whatever, through no fault of their own.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and use this opportunity to commend him and his colleagues on the Select Committee for a first-class report on digital switchover. It is a matter of regret to me and the hon. Member for Bath that the House has not had much opportunity to debate digital switchover, apart from the Bill, which is, as Members know, technical and short. However, the Committee’s report at least enabled us to hold a debate in Westminster Hall, which raised a number of issues, so I thank my hon. Friend profusely for that. The point he has just raised is valid; the issue was explored in Committee and I hope that I do not put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for Bath when I say that he and I were open-minded about whether switchover help would be available for the switchover period—for six years—wherever one lived or for only a short period in each region. Clearly, however, the Government have decided to go for short bursts of help in the regions, which has no doubt affected their calculation that switchover will cost £600 million. However, I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question because the Government, despite repeated requests, have failed to make available any of the detail behind their calculation of that figure. They may feel that if switchover help was always on—as it were—it would cost much more.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me one more bite. He will be aware that polls show that up to half the people in the UK are completely ignorant of the fact that switchover will take place, so given that point and the fact that some people may move from one area, for example, from London in 2012, to one where switchover has already taken place, would not it be better for everybody to be on an equal footing irrespective of where they live?

That is the point, and my hon. Friend makes it extremely effectively. There may indeed be issues of education and awareness. Perhaps our friends in the north, in Scotland and the borders will be the first to receive the help because the Government deem them to be more switched on to technology—after all, over the past 200 years, people in those areas have invented a range of technological advances. They will be the first, but after that point, they will get no help, whereas the Government may regard Londoners as slightly behind the curve. They will be the last, so perhaps the Government hope that, by that time, awareness of digital switchover will have trickled down to London. As I said, the 8 million Londoners will have only eight or nine months to be made aware of the issue around 2012.

It seems very much a déjà vu for us to be having this discussion yet again. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I recall saying at an earlier stage of the Bill that I had some sympathy with it, though I have to tell him that I do not agree with sunset clauses. My fear is not the same as that of the hon. Gentleman, who is concerned about people without digital boxes. I find that if people who already have a digital box move to another house, they take their digital box with them. Anyone moving from an area that receives digital to another area will take the box with them. My problem is more about people who live in an area that does not have digital switchover moving to an area that does, so that they are stuck in a house where help with the digital box has been taken away. For that reason, I do not want any sunset clause. There has to be an extension at the end of the period to allow for such movements. Also, elderly people may not cotton on too quickly to these things, particularly if they have spent extensive time in hospital.

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point and I hope that I have represented the Minister’s letter correctly. I agree that one particular concern is people moving from an area that has not yet had switchover to an area that has, so that, for example, someone moving from London to the borders in 2010 who is technically eligible for switchover assistance would not receive it when they move. The hon. Gentleman’s point about regional switchover would be particularly good if the Government were going to have always-on switchover. One could then argue quite effectively that a regional switchover clause would be unhelpful because anyone moving to the borders would, by definition, want to be identified by the BBC and Digital UK.

On that very point and bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) is sympathetic to the people he is describing—those who live in London but move to the borders in 2012, for example—I would like to ask him a question. His helpful new clause refers to the Secretary of State making a decision on the time scale for ending the available help, so I presume that he envisages a fairly long period.

I am working within the Government’s scheme, which is the nine-month period and the clearly set-out timetable starting with Whitehaven and ending in London. The new clause is relatively loosely drafted in order to allow the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to switch off the Bill—for example, in the borders at the appropriate time. The Government have said that the scheme will operate on a rolling basis and proceed region by region, which I have taken as my starting point. If that is the case and given that the Bill becomes increasingly redundant region by region, let us make that explicit in the Bill and—in a pioneering fashion, I have to say—remove legislation from the statute book region by region. That is the thinking behind the new clause.

This has proved a rather illuminating discussion. Given that any timetable for the provision of financial assistance is necessarily arbitrary, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the proposition that the decision on the precise timetable should at least in part depend upon the efficacy of any campaign to ensure that people can access the help to which they are entitled. Given that there is a degree of labyrinthine complexity about this matter, as well as the issue of transient populations—particularly in big industrial cities, but in other areas, too—does my hon. Friend agree that there could be role in public information provision for housing associations and, dare I say it, even estate agents?

My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. For example, when we move on to consider the amendment that envisages a role for local authorities, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, who spotted the incredibly important role that local authorities could play, we may have a chance also to discuss the role of estate agents, which could well be important, as well as that of housing associations, charities and so forth.

Indeed, my hon. Friend, who appears to have grasped the essence of the Bill with remarkable accuracy, probably has in mind the great difficulty that we will face when dealing with housing association tenants, particularly those in multiple dwellings. Although those who have rooms in a housing association-run home for people over the age of 75 would be eligible for assistance, they might find it useless because the communal aerial that serves their televisions cannot be changed over. That might be less the case with housing associations and perhaps more of a problem with registered social landlords.

I commend my hon. Friend on the perceptive way in which he is framing his contributions to this very important debate. Again—it must have been absolutely deliberate—he has given me a neat bridge to enable me to talk briefly about new clause 4, as he has pointed out the need for flexibility in switching off the Bill. When we debated a straightforward sunset clause in Committee, the Minister was quite clear that he did not want the Opposition to move an amendment that would switch off the Bill after six years. I remind hon. Members that the Government have set down a timetable that is due to end switchover at the end of 2012. I therefore tabled a proposed sunset clause in the hope of helping the Government by saying, “Let’s switch the Bill off after six years.”

The Minister made perfectly legitimate points about what could happen in the intervening six years. For example, he pointed to the destruction of a large transmitter in 1969 by a strong wind—it may indeed have been a hurricane—that took some months to repair. He made some important points about the fact that unexpected or unanticipated delays, including those caused by prolonged bad weather or a hurricane, could set back the cause of digital switchover.

As hon. Members are fully aware, switchover requires aerials to be replaced mechanically. Clearly, if one replaces a redundant analogue aerial with a brand new digital aerial but an act of God renders that aerial useless, switchover will be delayed. However, the Minister did not consider—it would have been an opportunity for him—what would then be done about an area that had already been switched off. For example, strong winds are occasionally present in the north, so what would be done about the borders if analogue signals were switched off and those transmitters were thrown down a couple of days later?

Given the reasons why the Minister rejected the proposed sunset clause, I have redrafted it and returned with new clause 4, whereby, under subsection (3), the hon. Member for Bath and I offer the Government 10 years to achieve switchover. On any calculation, that is a 66 per cent. increase in the time available for switchover—an increase of two thirds or four years, which would take us to 2016, towards the end of the second Conservative Administration, who will come to power in 2009. That strikes me as enough time for the Bill.

As was repeatedly made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, the legislation will become redundant. All I seek to do is to make that explicit in the Bill and to make it clear that it will be removed from the statute book. We could set an important precedent for Parliament in saying that we will not leave legislation that has served its purpose simply sitting on the statute book. We can begin the task of tidying up legislation.

For hon. Members who did not serve on the Public Bill Committee, will my hon. Friend let the House know whether the Minister made an offer about being prepared to let a sunset clause apply to the legislation?

I am afraid that the Minister did not. As far as I am aware, having reread the Committee proceedings, he said that he rejected my proposed change because he did not think that six years was long enough. Given the history of the Government on major procurement projects, I fully accepted that point. Also, I think that he felt that the change was redundant, because the Bill would not be used beyond digital switchover. However, that strikes me as an argument that goes either way. Either one is casual and says, “Nobody is going to use this Bill, so we will leave on the statue book the power for the BBC to request information from the Department for Work and Pensions for digital switchover”, or one says, “The Bill is redundant. It is no longer necessary. It will cease to be. It will become a dead Act.” The latter strikes me as a better way of legislating than simply leaving a redundant stump on the statute book.

To help the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister told us that there was no need for such a sunset clause because the whole approach has been

“to link the powers directly to the event of digital switchover, which is a time-limited event”––[Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 55.]

As we have already discussed, decisions have still not been made as to the precise nature of that event.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Minister did say that digital switchover is a time-limited event and that that is why a sunset clause is redundant. He certainly made it clear that, in his opinion, six years would not be long enough, despite the timetable of 2012.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention allows me to move on to new clause 4(1), which incorporates a commencement date for the Bill. It had been assumed that once the Bill had been given a Third Reading, it would be able to commence immediately. However, having thought hard about how prepared the Government are for digital switchover, and being aware of the sensitive nature of the Bill in that it gives extensive powers to the BBC or a company that it appoints to access sensitive data, it would seem careless to allow the Bill to commence immediately.

The Government are not yet in a position to commence digital switchover. We know that they plan to commence digital switchover in October in Whitehaven. The people of Whitehaven are pioneering digital switchover. The rest of the borders region will follow. We also know that the Government are still conducting negotiations with the BBC—in particular, on the level of borrowing. The BBC wants to be able to borrow money because, as it puts it, the expenditure is lumpy. In this context, lumpy means that there will be bursts of expenditure. The £600 million will not simply be spent in smooth monthly instalments for the next six years. There will be front-ended expenditure in certain periods and the BBC wants to be able to borrow to cover that.

There is also the important point, which hon. Members have raised, that the BBC is in no way convinced that £600 million will be the final cost of digital switchover, despite what the Government say. It wants guarantees from the Government that if that £600 million cost is exceeded, the additional money will not come out of its programme budget. The new clause is a two-for-one clause. It offers the Minister not only the comfort and legislative tidiness of switching off the Bill, but the opportunity not to start the provisions until he and the BBC are absolutely ready to commence the immensely complicated task of digital switchover.

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years and have met each other in all kinds of situations and places, but I have never before met him standing at the Dispatch Box in front of the Opposition Benches. It is a great pleasure to do so. Like the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee. I am glad to be here today.

I seek the hon. Gentleman’s advice. In relation to new clause 3, he seemed to argue that it is important that the finite powers that the Government wish to put in the Bill be rendered infinite—for all kinds of reasons of principle. However, in relation to new clause 4, he seems to be arguing that it is equally important that the indefinite nature of the Bill, which is what the Government intended, be rendered finite. That is almost exactly the opposite of what he seemed to be arguing previously.

The hon. Gentleman accurately tells the House that he and I have been friends for a long time. I have immense admiration for him, and the fact that he is probing me about the new clauses shows the House yet again his enormous talent that lies—

Wasted.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, whom I have also known for many years. As the desk officer in the Conservative research department, I did my best to prevent him from being elected to Parliament—not deliberately, but unwittingly, due to my incompetence.

Talking of my incompetence, I must tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) that his confusion arises only due to my incompetence. Let me reiterate my points. New clause 3 would insert a regional sunset clause in the Bill. I am not sure whether such an approach has ever been attempted, so the measure is pioneering stuff. The intention is that given that switchover will proceed around the country—starting in Whitehaven and the borders and ending in London—and because the Bill allows the BBC to access sensitive data, the Bill should cease to have effect in any region in which switchover has been achieved. If the new clause were accepted, the BBC would not be able to request sensitive information from the Department for Work and Pensions about people living in the borders after switchover had been completed in that region.

We have had the perfectly legitimate ensuing debate about whether it is right to have regional switch-off. Several hon. Members have asserted that it would be better for assistance to be available to everyone throughout the country for six years, because if there were only regional assistance, which is the present proposal, there would be an anomaly whereby someone from London who moved to Whitehaven after that area had switched over would not be eligible for assistance.

As I said, new clause 4 is a double whammy—a twofer for the Minister, as they say in America. It would allow him to choose the date on which the Bill would come into force. The Department is still negotiating with the BBC and we are not even at the point at which the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted, so it would be careless to put a measure on the statute book giving such power to the BBC before switchover had even commenced. I work on the principle that Bills should go on to the statute book only when the Government are ready to go. The new clause also offers a general sunset clause providing that after switchover has been achieved throughout the country, the Bill will cease to be, and it will be a dead Bill, a late Bill—I cannot remember the rest of the parrot sketch.

It will go to join the choir invisibule.

Exactly. The hon. Lady should intervene again.

I am not intervening to fill in the rest of the parrot sketch—I bore my children with that far too often.

While considering new clause 3, hon. Members have raised the question—we also debated this in Committee—of whether a regional sunset clause would really be a good idea, because people who moved from a region in which there had been no switchover to a region in which switchover had been completed would be disadvantaged by being told, “Tough, you’ve missed your chance; you don’t get any assistance.” Surely the point of the Bill is that those who need assistance will get it, rather than being denied it by the accident of moving from point A to point B. Have our deliberations led the hon. Gentleman to decide to withdraw new clause 3?

No, I still support new clause 3. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me, as he and I have both read the Minister’s letter. As far as I am aware, if, after switchover in Whitehaven, a person moves from London to Whitehaven, they will not be eligible for assistance. If they are not eligible for assistance, there is no point in giving the BBC the power to access data on people who are eligible in Whitehaven, other than for cross-reference purposes.

Is not the definition of “after switchover” the key point? Is it after six years, 10 years, when the sunset clause would come into effect, or some other time period that applies to the whole UK? Or are we talking about a rolling programme of six, nine or more regional switchovers?

As far as I am aware, targeted assistance is available in the regions for nine months—that is, for eight months before the transmitters are switched over, and one month after switchover—but I wait to hear from the Minister on whether I have accurately reflected the position. That strengthens the case for a regional switch-off clause, but if the hon. Member for Chesterfield persuaded the Minister of the perfectly legitimate point of view that switchover assistance should be available to all eligible people in every region during the period, I would agree that a regional switch-off clause would become less palatable.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I know that he is coming to the end of his contribution. I thought that the whole point about the Government’s advertising campaign was that it would be regional, and that is why most people in London would not have the faintest idea about digital switchover, whereas people in the borders would. It is because people are fairly mobile that assistance should be spread over the whole period of the switchover, irrespective of where the eligible people live.

That is a perfectly legitimate point, and it could even end up saving the Government money. For example, if more people were made aware of switchover across all regions, some of them might get on with the job of switching to digital, and then when switchover arrived, they would have already switched over.

Of course, if things go wrong in Whitehaven, everyone will hear about it, and the publicity would ripple across the nation. If digital switchover works well in Whitehaven, people can relax. If it does not, they will hear about it and will, no doubt, have to react to it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution; it also gives me the opportunity to thank him for his valuable contribution during the Bill’s lengthy Committee stage, in which we considered the Bill in great detail, clause by clause. Perhaps I might give him a trailer—I use that word, as we are talking about the media—and say that I will refer to his remarks when we discuss the Government amendments on local authorities, as he made a particularly valuable and effective contribution on the subject. Indeed, it was so valuable and effective that it was adopted by the hon. Members for Bath and for Chesterfield—my colleagues in Committee, and in so many other ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) makes the point that if Whitehaven goes wrong, it could inadvertently publicise the issue of switchover, although that publicity could set back the Government’s cause. The Minister and I will visit Whitehaven together in March, and I am grateful to him for the invitation. He extended it to me in Committee, as hon. Members may remember, and I said yes. I was feeling particularly vulnerable in that Committee, and perhaps that is why I accepted with alacrity. Whitehaven will be a pioneer, but I am not sure that it will be subject to the same process that will be followed in the rest of the country. A lot will no doubt be learned from Whitehaven, but it is hard to consider Whitehaven part of the process because, for example, it is not clear whether the vehicle—the third-party company that the BBC will set up—will be established at that stage. Given how long licence fee negotiations continue, it would not surprise me if, when Whitehaven switches over, the Minister is still negotiating with the BBC on the details of switchover. Whitehaven may end up an isolated pioneer on switchover. In fact, it may end up the only place in the country that has switched over, if the Minister is still carrying on his negotiations with the BBC.

As I say, new clause 4 is a twofer—a two-for-one, a double whammy—and it offers the Minister the opportunity to ensure that the Bill does not come into force before he is good and ready. It also offers him a two thirds increase in the time available for switchover, in place of the narrow six-year period that I foolishly proposed, on the basis of the timetable that the Government put forward. In new clause 4, we have offered 10 years, which is an extensive period—so extensive, indeed, that my little boy, Joseph, will be at primary school at the time of switch-off. That is the length of time that we are talking about.

Little Joseph can only gurgle and smile at the moment—I could show the House a picture of him—but under the extended period in the new clause, by the time of switch-off he will be reading ancient Greek and attending a local authority primary school. I now live in Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham, so standards will have improved tremendously by then.

May I begin by apologising, first, to the Liberal Democrat Whips, as I advised them that our deliberations on new clauses 3 and 4 would be extraordinarily brief? Clearly, I was wrong about that. Secondly, may I make a huge apology to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who pointed out that new clause 3 was tabled in his name alone? Unlike new clause 4, which we support, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and I did not add our names to the regional sunset clause. I worked long and hard to persuade the hon. Member for Wantage not to table it on the ground that it was barking mad, and in our private discussions I thought that he accepted that that assumption was correct. I must apologise to him because, having listened to the debate generated by his proposal, I believe that he was wise, sensible and, indeed, profoundly far-sighted not to follow my advice.

The hon. Gentleman is a man of great chivalry, so may I remind him that the new clause was first proposed by the Secretary of State, so any accusation that it is barking mad is an unchivalrous attack on her?

If I were making an attack on the Secretary of State I would instantly withdraw my remark.

The new clause has provoked an extremely important debate on a matter about which there remains considerable confusion. On 16 January—hardly very long ago—in Committee, we discussed the question of people moving from one part of the country to another, and whether they would receive assistance after they had moved. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), was uncertain about whether someone who moved from London in 2012 to the borders would receive help. At column 56, I asked the Minister:

“Does that mean that a person who would qualify for assistance who moved from London to the Border region in 2012 would be eligible for targeted assistance there at that time?”

After asking me to provide various postcodes, the Minister said that he would write me. He added:

“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”.––[Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 56.]

Basically, he went on to say “yes” to my question. Since then, he has had time to reflect on the matter and to hold discussions, and he sent me an extremely helpful letter setting out the plan to which the hon. Member for Wantage referred. A qualification period would operate eight months before, and one month after, switchover but, as I pointed out in an intervention, there is still confusion about that period. The letter states:

“The dates will be linked to the regional switchover: the date in question will either be the date the final transmitter in a region switches or the date the transmitter which serves the individual in question switches. We and the BBC have not come to a final decision on this”.

That is one of many nitty-gritty issues about which final decisions have not been made. Many of us who served on the Committee and no doubt many in the House are concerned that much of the information is still not finalised, which is why we had hoped that further debate would be possible on clause 5(1), which refers to a switchover help scheme as merely a scheme agreed between the Secretary of State and the BBC.

That was not to be, but the Government have answered the question about whether assistance will be available to people moving from one part of the country where switchover has not taken place to another part of the country where it has taken place. I am grateful for that answer.

The question is what sort of assistance will be available and who will get it. Disabled people, those who are visually impaired and the very elderly will get assistance, but is it not just a matter of going into a shop and buying a £30 box that will allow the TV to be switched over—the problem is the knowledge of what to do and how to do it. Aerials may need to be replaced, which will increase the cost to the person involved. That is why equity is needed in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is right, but sadly, our ability to discuss such matters is constrained by the tight wording of the Bill. All we know about the digital switchover help scheme is that it is

“any scheme for the provision of help to individuals in connection with digital switchover which is agreed between the BBC and the Secretary of State in pursuance of the BBC Charter and Agreement, as the scheme has effect from time to time”,

so it can even vary over time.

The crucial point that the hon. Member for Wantage raises is that although some of the details are shown on the Department of Trade and Industry website and in the regulatory impact assessment, all the details are not there. We are learning more in the course of the debate. I, for example, do not know—perhaps the Minister will intervene and tell me, as I do not have the necessary technical competence—whether somebody has been assisted in one part of the country and moves to another part of the country, taking their box with them, will be able instantly to plug it in and get it to work in the new region, without the need for additional assistance. Perhaps the Minister can help us.

I have resisted the temptation so far to intervene and keep the debate going for longer than necessary. It may be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill enables social security information to be disclosed. It does not lay out the specifics of the scheme. I have said that as the final details become available and as we learn from the experience of Whitehaven, I am more than happy to sit down with hon. Members from across the House at any time and run through the details. The Bill simply enables social security information to be disclosed.

I am grateful and I accept the Minister’s point, but as he knows, there is more than social security information involved, as there is a Government amendment to extend where the data come from. He is right about the tight constraints imposed on the debate by the wording of the Bill, but I am sure he will accept that we are debating amendments which give us the opportunity to consider the period of time for which targeted assistance will be available.

Is the Minister aware that about 3.2 million people move house every year? Given that, as we are told in the regulatory impact assessment, the Bill is designed to help some 25 per cent. of all households in the country, that means that 750,000 of the affected households are likely to move every year. The issue of moving between one part of the country and another is therefore extremely important, and any change to the amount of assistance that people will get when they move will have a significant impact on the cost of the delivery of the targeted assistance programme, for which, the Minister has told us, £600 million will come from the BBC and the rest from the public purse. As the impact on the public purse could be significant, it is legitimate for us to debate the matter.

We also need to know the answers to basic technical questions that are directly relevant to new clause 3. We need an assurance that the assistance someone gets in one area will be sufficient to enable them to move immediately into the digital age when they move to their new property. Can the Minister assure me that the kit they are given can be plugged in and made to work without the need for additional assistance? Can the Minister say yes or no in response to that question?

The hon. Gentleman will readily recognise that, for obvious reasons, I cannot give a simple yes or no to that. However, I can reassure him that our objective, which I am sure is the objective of the whole House, is to do our level best by all fair and just means to ensure that no one is left behind. In order to deliver the scheme effectively and efficiently, and mindful of the fact that, at the end of the day, it is funded by licence fee payers’ and taxpayers’ money, it must have boundaries. Having said that, if we can improve the scheme during the course of its evolution, we will, because the purpose is to enable everyone to have access to it, as long as it is fair, just and within boundaries that satisfy the controls of the public purse.

The Minister clearly makes the point that it is not a simple question of whether or not the kit, when moved from one place to another, will instantly work. Therefore, there may be a group of people who, when they move, will continue to need assistance, even though they have received it already in a different part of the country. I remind the Minister of what he said previously:

“the purpose of the Bill is to enable people who genuinely need help to receive it”.––[Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 56.]

I hope that he will at least discuss with his officials whether that second tranche of help will be provided, if it is needed.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I give way to the Minister first.

It should be remembered that the Bill deals with the disclosure of social security information, although the hon. Gentleman rightly makes reference to the Government new clauses on local authorities, which we shall table later in the proceedings. It is important for him to remember that the scheme will always be open to improvement for a variety of reasons, not least the technological changes that will take place. I want to put on record that it is our intention to achieve the best possible scheme within the framework of looking after the public’s money.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that there will be things to learn as the scheme progresses, and the Department and the Government are absolutely open to learning from it. We do not want to close the door on that process at any point. The door is open to Members from all parts of the House to come in to discuss the policy and to help us to improve the scheme.

In that case, I would be grateful if the Minister made a further intervention on me, if he does not mind. Are the contents of the letter that we received regarding the one-month period after the switchover date—whenever that is defined—absolutely cast in stone, and is he prepared to discuss it? Let me suggest to him one reason why he may wish to do that, other than to help people in the way that I have described. He will be aware that the Department for Work and Pensions does not as a matter of course receive timely information about people who move house, and that will be true of other Departments that assist and of local authorities. In fact, there is good evidence to show that the information in the DWP’s database on people’s addresses often lags a long way behind when they have moved. A one-month period may well be insufficient for the DWP to identify a new address and pass it on to those involved in the targeted help scheme, and for help then to be provided.

If it is helpful to hon. Members, let me say that we have had to draw up the guidelines based on what we believe will be a workable practice. That has been done with the BBC, the charities and a whole cross-section of groups, including political parties, and we are happy to continue that discussion.

At the moment, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we intend to proceed along the lines that I have laid out in my letter. I will, of course, ensure that a copy of that letter is deposited in the Library. However, if the hon. Gentleman has very clear proof that we may have got the timing wrong and if we, along with Digital UK, can genuinely be convinced that a different time arrangement would be better, of course I can honour his request and agree to look at that. I cannot necessarily promise that the arrangement will change, but if there is a better proposal, which is more effective and efficient, of course we will consider it and we may well implement it.

The Minister is extremely generous in his response and I am extremely grateful to him for making it. I certainly undertake to provide him with the information to which I referred.

The more sensible new clause, if I can be polite and put it that way, is the second one, new clause 4. That is the more traditional—

rose—

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to his more sensible sunset clause in new clause 4.

I simply wanted to detain the hon. Gentleman briefly before he moved on to new clause 4, because of the discussion that he has been having with the Minister—I felt slightly left out. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman and I have been transformed into sirens, because every time that we debate this subject the Minister keeps telling us that he is subject to temptation, which he occasionally caves in to. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important point that is worth further discussion—technology transfer. One issue that we raised on Second Reading was the importance of platform neutrality, and one issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson)—

Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that even though he is replying to a response from another hon. Member, he must address his remarks to the Chair? Also, interventions should be reasonably brief.

You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only point that I was making was that training people in giving digital assistance will be vital, because much of the technology, for example Whitehaven technology or Freeview, will not work—

Order. We are not discussing the question of training.

The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by saying that he had been feeling somewhat left out of the debate. He has clearly shown with his intervention that there is no fear of that. He makes a helpful point and one that I think we will have an opportunity to return to perhaps, somewhat bizarrely, when we come to the next string of amendments.

I was saying that new clause 4 is a more helpful way of addressing sunset clauses. I am certain that the Minister, although he has had to leave us briefly, will, when he responds to the debate, use exactly the same arguments as he used in Committee when opposing a sunset clause that was similar, although a much shorter period was proposed at that time. The hon. Member for Wantage now seeks to extend the period, which I think is welcome, and adds, helpfully, a proposition on commencement of the legislation. That commencement period, although he did not quite put it like this, would certainly be valuable from my point of view, because it would provide an opportunity to ensure that everyone was happy with all the details of the switchover help scheme before Parliament authorised the commencement of the legislation. It would be one way of ensuring that Parliament had an opportunity to discuss the very important nitty-gritty details of the digital switchover help scheme.

The addition of the proposition on commencement is excellent and the extension of the period for the sunset clause is also welcome, but no doubt the Minister will deploy exactly the same arguments as he used before. Just in case he is minded to do that, I will outline those arguments and why it would not be sensible to repeat them on this occasion.

The Minister gave us three reasons why we should not accept the proposal. He said that

“criminal offences should continue to operate after the information had been lawfully disclosed, even though the power to disclose had been spent.”

The Minister was absolutely right; I would entirely agree with his argument were it relevant to the sunset clause proposed then or now. However, as he will be aware, the sunset clause applies only to clause 1, but the offences are in clause 3. The sunset clause did not apply to clause 3, so his argument fell. The Minister went on:

“with the best will in the world, a project of such scope…undoubtedly carries risk”

He gave us the example of things that fall down in the night. You will not be aware of why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to go into matters involving erections on this occasion; “things that fall down in the night” is more appropriate. In new clause 3, the hon. Member for Wantage would give us a longer period, a greater buffer zone, to cover all the things that could go wrong, so the Minister’s argument would fall.

Finally, the Minister gave his third reason:

“once the switchover help scheme has completed its task, the legal basis for using information and, therefore, for disclosing it, vanishes.”––[Official Report, Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007; c. 54.]

In other words, the implication is that there is a natural sunset clause—the data protection legislation would kick in and people would not be allowed to disclose the information anyway.

I have taken advice on the matter. Unfortunately, that advice is—perhaps the Minister will assure me that it is incorrect—that the clause referred to states specifically:

“in connection with switchover help functions.”

As there is no detail in the Bill on what the switchover help functions are and no explanation of what is in connection with those unspecified help functions, it is perfectly possible that people would find a legal loophole in the phrase

“in connection with switchover help functions.”

Frankly, the Minister does not have a leg to stand on in opposing something that the Secretary of State herself said would be a good idea, which in the past the Minister has said would be worth considering, and which would give absolute certainty.

The Minister may be broadly right about the role of data protection legislation; surely, then, a belt-and-braces approach, as proposed by the hon. Member for Wantage, would make a great deal of sense. Although I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause 3, which I fear we would not be able to support, to a vote, we certainly hope that the Minister will take new clause 4 seriously.

To some extent, I support what the Minister was saying— if a scheme is rolled out over four or five years, there will inevitably be a degree of change; technology will change. Being too speific at this stage could be a mistake.

However, I want to raise one specific point. We are talking about regions. The Minister said that a scheme would run for eight months in a region and a month after switch-off. The helpful note that he sent refers, at paragraph 5.21, to final transmission switch-off in a region or transmitter area. However, transmitter areas overlap. It was the case—I suspect that it is still true—that some people on the English side of the Bristol channel got Welsh television and one or two people on the Welsh side got HTV West. The regions are not as neatly defined as they seem on a map of ITV areas. There is overlap, and some of the transmitters may well overlap. In one or two areas, people have the choice of which transmitter they tune into.

I can give some credence to what my hon. Friend says. Some people who used to live in Wales but have moved across the border still want to receive Welsh-language television. They point their aerials to get the signal from the relevant receiver, and fall into the category that my hon. Friend is talking about.

Those are people who elect to do it, but there are certainly others who have no choice because of geography or how transmitters broadcast. If we are too specific about a region, we may find that there is a problem for small groups of people on the fringes.

As Mr. Deputy Speaker has made clear, the Bill is about information. However, it may well be that information has to be got out of, say, North Somerset social services to help one or two people at the point of, say, the Welsh switch-off. What I am grappling with when the Minister talks about region and the transmitter area in his note is that there may be an overlap between television companies, and a small number of people may need additional help. If one is too regional specific, we may well find that people tune into a particular transmitter in areas where we do not expect them to because it does not conform to the timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) made a good case, providing that we get the definition right of what is a region or a transmitter area. I would want further reassurance before going down the route of new clause 3.

On new clause 4, we did not get into a debate about the ancient Romans as we did in Committee, but my hon. Friend set out generously his proposal for what in effect would be a sunset clause. I hope that when the Minister responds he gives a reassurance about the transmitter area.

I come to the House in some ignorance because I was not lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Committee and have not seen the Minister’s letters. As always with these debates, we are allowing the technical details to get in the way of some of the points of principle. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about the disclosure of social security information. That is a serious and salient point. Highly confidential information will be made available to a large number of people. The BBC, the BBC company and all those who are described as BBC nominees, which I assume are subcontractors, will have sensitive personal information. That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and new clause 3, which hopefully the Government will ultimately accept.

The sensitivity attached to the position of military pensioners in Northern Ireland has been discussed, but there are other sensitive situations. People do not necessarily want their neighbours to know that they are in receipt of particular benefits. As someone suggested, not all couples are honest about their ages when they form relationships and it might be embarrassing if a television contractor knocks on the doors and says, “Mr. So and so,” or “Miss So and so, you’re eligible for a pension” when the other partner is not aware that they have reached that age. I can see a number of awkward and sensitive matters that might arise.

There will be an element of rough justice. We talked about people moving house. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, many people will move, although a lot of them will move only short distances and in the majority of cases they will stay within their TV region. However, some will move from London to the borders, and they will be disadvantaged, but that is a minor point. In some ways, I sympathise with the Minister. We have to encompass the scheme in boundaries because otherwise it will run out of control at a cost to taxpayers and licence-fee payers. I urge the Minister to consider new clause 3 seriously.

I am slightly surprised by the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s last remarks. Although the number may be relatively small, many hundreds will move into each TV region after switchover and will fall within the categories that we are talking about—severely disabled, blind or partially sighted and very elderly. Those people need help. I hope he at least agrees that the Government should look at ways of helping those people when they move.

I do not necessarily disagree, but new clause 3 is important because privacy—the issue of divulging confidential information to a large number of people—is vastly more important than the injustice that might be caused to a number of people who subsequently will have difficulty or who will not receive a small amount of help as a consequence of moving house. That is my point. Disclosure of such information is serious. I believe that new clause 3 is the best way to corral it to the minimum amount. As people move from region to region, the disclosure of information should shut down. I do not understand why the Government cannot consider a sunset clause.