Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

It is rightly said that nothing cannot be made to seem even more complicated than when it is described by a reasonable Welshman. Colleagues across the border may say that we introduced additional complications when we were given what we asked for in Welsh language broadcasting. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. His example makes the choices that people will have to make all the more complicated. The hon. Gentleman’s point is very close to the one that I was about to make. Whereas change is never easy, the difference in this case is that the changes that we make in one region will have an impact on regions nearby. I would have loved Wales to come earlier in the process—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) illustrated earlier when he talked about the difficulties that he experiences in his valley—but the problem is that that would have an impact on Cheshire and the west midlands and, in south Wales, on the west of England. It is difficult to get the right order other than by allowing the technology almost to dictate. During my period at the Department of Trade and Industry, I worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who then had responsibilities at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We both felt that we needed to understand the obstacles and why the issue seemed so complicated. Indeed, I think that we got more involved in some of the detail than officials would have liked, because we ended up asking many of the sorts of questions that the hon. Member for Chesterfield asked in his contribution. As a result, I can certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the principles are clear and that the Government have shown real leadership on the issue, but the details are immensely complex. The discussions involved the television industry, and—if that was not complicated enough—service providers and manufacturers, because the timing of supplies needs to fit with the regional roll-out. That is particularly the case in relation to the needs of the most vulnerable, whom the Bill addresses. Retailers, who have to decide on stocking, ordering and advice, often take those decisions on a national rather than a regional basis, but it is at the regional level that people need to make choices to be ready for the date of switchover. Other issues include landlords. There are also the organisations concerned with the elderly, people with disabilities and so on. There are issues about having simplicity of design—above all for vulnerable people—at the same time as allowing people to make choices and trying to future-proof some of the equipment. My conclusion is that the Bill is not an optional extra and nor is the sharing of data. It is essential. I know that this is breaking a little with the tradition of speeches so far, but the issue of sharing data is at the core of the Bill and it is important for us to understand what we are agreeing to. Data protection is largely misunderstood. Certainly many people talk about it in an ill-informed way. Data protection is about good practice and integrity in the use of information. It is about good management of information and responsible behaviour. It is about sharing information in ways that are appropriate and that bring benefits to individuals and the community. I make that point because some people think that data protection is about secrecy and preventing information from being shared even when sharing information is for the benefit of the individual and the community. I came across that in opposition, when it became blindingly obvious that the police and local authorities up and down the country were failing to share information about the vandals, bad neighbours and thugs who ruin so many communities. That is why in 1997 I wanted to put a clause in the Crime and Disorder Bill, as it was then, to make it clear that the exchange of information is legal and appropriate for the purpose of preventing crime. The legal advice that we were given was that that was already the situation and that if the police or the local authority had information that could prevent crime and disorder, they ought to share it. However, practitioners seemed to have enormous doubts. They said that they were not sure and that they were advised, ““If in doubt, don’t do it. Hang on to the information. Don’t share it.”” I remember speaking at an Association of Chief Police Officers conference and saying that it was the duty of holders of information on both sides to consider the duty to share information in order to prevent communities from being ruined and to reduce and prevent crime, and, at the same time, to consider how to do so properly and professionally in order to avoid inappropriate disclosure. That is at the heart of one or two of the issues that have been raised in the debate already. Not only was the president of ACPO on my left nodding vigorously, but so was the data commissioner on my right. However, in questions in that very session, when the legislation had only just gone through Parliament, both police and local authority representatives said, ““But my data protection officer advises me that the best way to play safe is not to share information.”” That can make one despair. Responsibility to the public interest involves being proactive and showing leadership, not playing safe. It involves risk management, not the avoidance of risk. That is extremely relevant to today’s debate. It is the answer to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield about the use of information. The Bill is quite clear that information authorised under it is only for a specific purpose and for specific duties, and that the provision of information ought to be encouraged for that purpose. That is why I would not like to see the Bill amended almost to discourage and frighten people from providing information. There will be consequences, which I want to spell out, if the authorities, in providing help to the vulnerable for digital switchover, are not able to identify all the individuals who need that help. Digital switchover is an important development. In some ways, I would rather call it analogue switch-off, because digital TV exists already. The problem is that many people get a poor service and that will change only when the signal gets a big boost. The improvement in the digital service can happen only when the competing analogue signal is switched off, enabling the big boost in signal to take place for digital. That is what creates a bottleneck for those who have not rushed to choose to change over to digital and need to be helped so that they do not lose their service at that point of decision making. With the acceleration of take-up already proceeding apace—it is happening quicker than the Government and the industry predicted a few years ago—the Government are right to go ahead with this ambitious programme, but they are also right to try to defend the vulnerable. My concern is that there is an enormous challenge in identifying everyone who needs help in moving from their comfortable enjoyment of analogue TV services to a comfortable enjoyment of an improved digital service. If the information is not shared, there is a big danger of people slipping through the net.