Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

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 (Mr. Vaizey) 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.