Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert— ““( ) A report shall be laid before Parliament detailing the likely expenditure which the Secretary of State has calculated will be incurred by— (a) the Secretary of State, (b) the Northern Ireland Department, and (c) local authorities, in supplying information under this Act.”” The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the scheme agreement between the DCMS and the BBC. It is extremely helpful and will enable us to have a more useful debate today. My amendment attempts to improve the parliamentary scrutiny that will be necessary in the process. The Bill allows the Government to make the BBC an arm of the Department of Social Security because it gives the BBC an additional £600 million in licence fee, which the BBC will give to those who need help during the switchover. Such schemes would normally be run by the department and not by the BBC. While the BBC has schemes which help those who are receiving a pension, it has never before gone into areas relating to this scheme. It neither has the resources to do so, nor does it have the competence to do it. That is not its own fault—it has never had to do this before. As a result, the BBC will sub-contract the whole operation to a company to be owned 51 per cent by the BBC and 49 per cent by a mystery bidder who will be responsible for processing and handing out the money. In normal circumstances, if the Government intended to spend £600 million, there would be parliamentary scrutiny, first, of the rules of eligibility; secondly, of the management of the scheme; and, thirdly, scrutiny of whether it has succeeded. However, Parliament has no chance to debate these rules. The Government have published them, and the Minister was kind enough to put Report off until the agreement was published, but nowhere during this process can we debate them. If there is no amendment to the Bill, the other place will have no chance to debate whether the rules are fair or the criteria, the cost, the implementation or anything else. This is the only chance we have to raise this. That is wrong; there should be scrutiny to see whether the Government have the rules right. My amendment does that. To reinforce my point, I draw the Minister’s attention to the scheme agreement. On page 6,Clause 8(1)(b)(i) states: "““at the relevant time he is entitled to disability living allowance, attendance allowance, constant attendance allowance, or mobility supplement””." We all know—especially those of us who spent some time in the Department of Social Security—that rules and benefits change. They may change before this comes into place—maybe even during it—and, therefore, the scheme agreement will probably have to be amended. While that is not certain, if one moves on topage 21 of the scheme agreement, it states: "““The provisions of this Scheme are conditional on no decision or judgement being made by a competent body in relation to any provision of the EC Treaty or legislation based upon the EC Treaty (““EC law””) in respect of the Scheme which has the direct or indirect effect of preventing or obstructing the operation or funding of the Scheme””." I think that, in simple language, that means the department has not got a clue whether this scheme is legal under EU law. We have seen that in some of the Government’s other attempts; for example, privatising the Tote. They put forward a very good scheme, that would have benefited racing, but it was immediately thrown out by Brussels and the whole thing is in total disarray. Quite clearly, the department does not know whether this scheme is legal, and it has not been tested properly in Brussels. The scheme agreement goes on to describe that it would not be a breach and how the Secretary of State can change it. Page 27 states that the BBC Trust will: "““ensure that the Scheme is operated in a way that will provide value for money for licence fee payers and will invite the NAO to review the operation of the Scheme at least biennially””." That is every two years, which seems to be not quite enough, although we may discuss that in greater detail on a forthcoming amendment. Finally, page 26 states: "““the Secretary of State may amend the Scheme in such a way she considers necessary to ensure that the Scheme complies with competition law and the law governing State Aids, but only after complying with the provisions of this paragraph””." It then, in effect, goes on to provide that if there is any change in the law, whether EU law or the law of this country, this scheme can be changed. Therefore, at any moment, the Government can come along and say to the BBC, ““We’ve changed our minds. It’s costing too much””. We know that the Government have a complication about that, because, when we asked how they arrived at the figure of £600 million, the Minister was kind enough to write to me and say: "““We cannot give more details on the breakdown of costs at this stage … as this could affect future discussions with potential bidders and the ability of the contracting authority to secure value for money””." That is a nice argument, usually used by government departments when they are unsure of their figures. At any moment, the Government can come along and say, ““We’ve got the costs wrong””. Although the Treasury has agreed that should the BBC spendmore than £600 million, it will make an additional payment, we know that, at the end of the day, the Government will change the scheme. The amount of money could be £600 million or £800 million; we do not know. There is no opportunity for Parliament to debate, amend or have any part in this. There is no oversight or control. It is up to an agreement that the Secretary of State can, in effect, impose upon the BBC Trust, which will be responsible for running this scheme. That is wrong; there should be accountability. I thought this Government believed in accountability. My amendment would ensure that during the operation the Secretary of State must come to Parliament and explain what she is doing and how she is accountable for what we now know is taxpayers’ money because the licence fee is now a tax. I beg to move.