Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 13: 13: Clause 1 , page 2, line 3, at end insert ““or otherwise face excessive costs as a direct result of digital switchover”” The noble Lord said: I make it clear that this is a probing amendment, designed in part to smoke out the kind of information that was intended to be smoked out by Amendment No. 5 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. The fact that both our amendments are so obscurely worded to get at that point indicates the narrowness of the Bill compared to the extent of the problem. The motive behind this amendment is to say thata far greater proportion of people will be disadvantaged, or potentially disadvantaged, as a result of switchover than are covered by what is referred to here as the switchover help scheme, which is restricted to those with certain disabilities and the over-75s—the right reverend Prelate earlier made that point in specific terms. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, many of those people will be in areas of multiple occupation, both social housing and private landowners, which will inevitably eventually lead to a call on the public purse to cover their costs at least in part. If the figures from the London Borough of Camden as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, at Second Reading are correct—about £200 was charged to the lessees and a similar charge put through the rent to the tenants—the charge on a large council estate, which may be run by a managing authority or directly by the council, would be much higher than the charge faced by the individual householder for digital switchover in his own house, which might be across the road from the council estate. That in itself constitutes some degree of disadvantage. As chair of the National Consumer Council, I say that that is serious consumer detriment because those tenants are getting the same good but having to pay more for it as a result of the decision of a landlord—in this case, a social landlord—to go for a system that is beyond what most individual flat dwellers, whether lessees or tenants, would choose for themselves. That is the case in a lot of social housing across our cities. It is also the case in dwellings owned by private landowners, particularly those who have long-standing tenants or lessees who are elderly and who would prefer, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, to stick to the three channels that they knew 30 years ago. However, the landlord decides to go for the top end of the system. There is also the opposite problem, which probably does not apply in the public sector or in those parts of the housing stock managed on behalf of the public sector, when the landlord decides not to do the switchover at all, at least not until the last minute, in which case the price goes up once more. A large proportion of the 20 per cent of people who live in the dwellings referred to by the noble Lord are disadvantaged in one form or another, but only some of them will come under the scheme. The over-75s are in that sense no different from the over-65s, who may be more technologically advanced and may have already made their choices. However, they are equally disadvantaged if their landlord decides on an over-the-top system that they would not have chosen. As I understand the matter—and I think that this was confirmed at Second Reading because it certainly seems to be the case with councils that have already done the switchover—if the cost to the tenant is put on the rent, that additional rent will be met by housing benefit. I am not entirely clear where that ruling came from but, in any case, the implications for the public purse are pretty stupendous. More than half of council house dwellers are eligible for housing benefit, which is about 9 per cent of the population, compared with the 2 per cent or 3 per cent covered by the switchover help scheme, which it is estimated will cost the BBC £600 million in its new welfare function financed by poll tax payers through the licence fee. If the cost of switchover is put into the housing benefit system, it will cost more than the BBC-administered £600 million. This is an important point of public policy. If the landlord is the council, a reputable social landlord or an ALMO, because rents are more or less standard, housing benefit will probably automatically follow. For the elderly tenant or lessee of a private landowner, that is by no means clear. We know that a higher proportion of such disadvantaged and elderly tenants are less likely to claim housing benefit in the first instance. We have a large chunk of people who are disadvantaged vis-à-vis those who live in individual houses and vis-à-vis those who are being helped under the help scheme for whom, at best, housing benefit will pay. It is important that the Government and policymakers understand the full cost of digital switchover and that tenants or lessees involved in this area of deprivation know what their rights are under this system. There is the additional position of the lessee of such a landlord. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said that he could apply to the land, valuation and housing tribunal if costs were added to his service charge. However, such a large number of people is involved in this that the workload of such tribunals would significantly increase if that happened rather than costs being offset in other ways. I am therefore making two points. First, let us be franker about the full cost of this. If a larger cost falls on housing benefit, the case made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about why the BBC should be in the position of administering the smaller cost is even more valid. Secondly, those who are entitled to this help—who are over 75 or disabled—should at least potentially be known to the people operating the switchover scheme. Otherwise, in some parts of the country, in certain estates and in areas of sheltered housing, there will be a last-minute problem. It will cause not only severe distress to the individuals involved but also severe difficulty for the administrators of the scheme, and frankly, political difficulty to the Government or the local authority implementing it. While I do not expect the Government to accept this amendment, I would like to see greater recognition of the public policy problem and the potential distress that it may cause.