Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 8: 8: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after ““persons”” insert ““, including persons who have moved to a specified region that has completed the digital switchover scheme from a specified region that has not completed the digital switchover scheme,”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also came up in Grand Committee. It would ensure that those entitled to the help scheme could still receive help if they moved to an area that had completed digital switchover from one that had not yet begun the process. As I explained in Grand Committee, we are concerned that people who are eligible for the scheme could miss out on help just because they have moved or are moving to a new area. I gave the illustration of a partially sighted student who is eligible for help in his university town, where switchover has not yet taken place, but who after graduating gets a job in a town that has completed digital switchover. That student might well fall between the cracks, which would be an unfortunate state of affairs. The amendment is an attempt to seek assurance about such circumstances. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, accepted the philosophy behind it. He said that, in developing the help scheme, the Government wanted to simplify the basic eligibility rules as far as possible, bearing in mind the complexity that can quickly surround social security benefits. He said that, "““an eligibility window needs to be tied to the event in each switchover region … Following discussions with the consumer expert group, we have opted for a date one month after BBC1 in analogue disappears””.—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 257.]" That means that people meeting the eligibility criteria but moving into an area after that date will not qualify. The Minister said that they would need to make their own arrangements. The Minister talked about voluntary networks to be set up by Digital UK and so on. He said that the Government believed that the priority should be to help those affected at the point of switchover rather than people moving into an area subsequently. That was the logic of the Minister’s reply. However, at the end of his response, he acknowledged the harshness of the absolute cut-off point. He said that the amendment, "““raises some interesting points that we want to reflect on””.—[Official Report, 22/3/07; col. GC 259.]" I took some comfort from what the Minister said; therefore, I was extremely surprised to see that the scheme contains no flexibility. The cut-off point is one month, as originally stated. That is disappointing. I hope that the Minister has further comments and comfort to give to those who might be affected, who would fall between the cracks and be unable to get assistance in these circumstances. I beg to move.