Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

I am grateful for my noble friend’s assurance as far as it goes and, as I said, I will not press this amendment. But before the passage of this Bill is complete, we need greater clarity. I am glad that the rules of housing benefit are being formally altered, because that will help. But that is only half the detriment—it is what the landlord charges to a tenant for the communal area and associated wiring, whereas the tenant of that flat will need to pay more. If the landlord goes for an all-singing, all-dancing system because some of his tenants want that, a particular flat dweller will have to pay more for their system on an ongoing basis for the internal own equipment than someone across the road who seeks exactly the same service and can do their own deal. The detriment continues even though the communal part of the cost is covered by housing benefit. There is a real problem here. It is true that the possibility of the landlord completely abrogating his responsibilities is more likely at the murkier end of the private sector, but the actual problem is bigger in the social housing sector and particularly on large estates where clearly there is a huge range of possible choices. The landlord—the council, ALMO or transferee company—can quite legitimately say, ““I have found people who want 95 different channels””, but an individual tenant wants only 10. The landlord would claim that he had support for an all-singing, all-dancing system but there is still a detriment to the person in the particular flat who has particular requirements. I do not see the way round this problem, but the Government and the help scheme must be aware of it and, if necessary, stand by to provide some assistance to those suffering from that detriment, as well as for those over 75 or subject to the other disablement criteria in the Bill. Subject to that point still floating for the rest of the progress of this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.