Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 15: 15: Clause 1 , page 2, line 6, at end insert— ““( ) The National Audit Office is to publish an annual report on the expenditure incurred in the course of disclosing information under this Act.”” The noble Viscount said: There are concerns bringing the National Audit Office into play regarding the cost of digital switchover, which, as your Lordships have heard, is estimated to be £600 million. When I tabled this amendment, I believed that it was quite important but, having heard the explanation from the Minister today about how the system is going to operate, I now believe that it is vitally important. The Minister, his department and the BBC are wonderfully schizophrenic about the National Audit Office. When I asked him in a Written Question why the BBC is not subject to the National Audit Office, the Answer—which was perfectly reasonable—was that it would affect editorial independence. When one then asks whether the remit of the National Audit Office on the amount of money spent by the BBC on its World Service—which is funded by the Foreign Office, for which the National Audit Office does have a remit—affects the editorial independence of the World Service, the answer is of course no. So the Government have it both ways; when it suits them, they say yes; when it does not suit them, they say no. I believe that it is important to bring the National Audit Office into play. I am sure that the Minister will say that my amendment is in the wrong place and refers to the wrong thing, but I am sure that he will understand that I am not as good at drafting as his department. I hope that he will accept the principle. We have heard that the estimated cost is£600 million, which will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure. The Secretary of State will decide who will be eligible and how they will be eligible. The rules will then be drawn up and delivered to the BBC, which, under the agreement in clause 39, will make an agreement with the operating company under the Clause 1(4)(b), whereby it will hold 51 per cent. The company will be given a whole load of rules that will decide who will get help and who will not. At some point, presumably, someone sat down and worked out the exact costing. We have heard that there are enormous variations in who may get help and what happens if they move House. We have had that debate, but there is no form of scrutiny. As I understand it—and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—if there is an overspend, it will be picked up by the Treasury. If the department gets it right, the Treasury is not involved, but if it gets it wrong it is involved. On the basis of the department’s ability to forecast spending, we have to be dubious about that; after all, this is the department that brought us the dome and that has seen the budget for the Olympics quadruple. So where is the accountability? The Secretary of State will set the rules, but he will not spend the money. Will the Secretary of State responsible for social security set the rules or will it be the DCMS, given that they relate to the eligibility of vulnerable people? Who will oversee that the help is going to the right person in the right place, at the right time and with the right amount of money? How is that money going to be accounted for? That is important because we know that the BBC licence fee is now classified as a tax; we are all paying for it. This process should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament and the National Audit Office. I hope that the Government understand the importance of this and will be able to explain that the process is subject to proper scrutiny. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.