Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

I thank the Minister for his extensive reply. We have teased out some rather interesting aspects. I assure him that I was not necessarily expecting any fresh arguments; I was simply expecting some convincing arguments—but we are clearly bereft of such arguments today. I also assure him that, given my technological skills, I am not at all blasé about switchover. The arguments are not convincing, but I thought that it was interesting how the Minister veered off and talked about the help scheme and how it would be applied, which was not really a justification of the BBC’s involvement. He referred to the need for broadcasters to be involved. In a way Digital UK is just that—it has been formed by the broadcasters. That does not prove at all that it is best done by the BBC. He illustrated the fact that we have a rather different approach, in that it is more of a social assistance programme than what he calls a broadcasting transition. The more that he talks about the BBC having a crucial role, and attempts to demonstrate it by referring to the national repute of the BBC, the more he shows that the BBC may have some responsibility but without the power to influence. I do not believe that the BBC is geared up to do this kind of thing. It does not own a lot of transmission equipment any more. Digital UK would seem the best body to be the overseeing body for the contractors. I do not think that the case is made and I do not think that we will find ourselves in agreement withthe Government. It comes back to the fact that theBBC is a convenient point from which to collect the £600 million. The Minister mentioned that the costto the licence fee payer would be more than£600 million. I suspect that that is a mis-statement, because he has assured us on previous occasions that the cost for the licence fee payer would be capped at £600 million and any cost over that would be borne out of general taxation. He said that explicitly at Second Reading, so I hope that we are not going backwards today. Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the philosophy of support for the over-75s. I accept that, although it would be desirable to go further, the cost will start to unravel to a very great extent if we try to extend the scheme further. Many aspects of the scheme are still rather opaque and, as we go on this afternoon, I hope that we shall learn more. We may well come back to this matter at another stage of the Bill but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]