I support the Minister’s response to new clause 6, which will be useful.
New clause 8 refers to clause 76 on page 76—one of the 18 times in the Bill where the clause number is the same as the page number. Perhaps that could be a Christmas quiz for the Clerks, if they are paying attention.
The point about this is that neither the BBC nor the Government consulted Back Benchers. It was Parliament that, in 2001, agreed the concession for the over-75s. The cost of £750 million can be compared with the cost of local radio at £115 million, Radio 4 at £90 million, BBC 4 at £49 million, and CBBC and CBeebies at £97 million—a total of about £340 million. We could double that and still not have got to the cost of this so-called concession.
8.45 pm
A letter in The Times today from Mr John Moss says that many people over 75 can afford either to pay tax or to have the concession gone. I am not arguing for that, but if we had a serious discussion we could ask in what other ways the BBC could have the concession money while allowing for the flexibility to change what the concession is. My view is that if Parliament and Government bring in the concession, Parliament and Government should be big enough to make a change afterwards, but that could go on being discussed. I know that the Government are not keen on my saying this, but it is my view and, I think, one that the Government ought to hold to as well. The fact that the BBC does not want the whole thing unstitched is a matter for it. The people in Parliament set the rules, and that is what we should be doing.
Finally, I want to back up what was said on a separate point about the public interest defence for journalists. If I am the P who is mentioned several times in the various clauses on disclosure, and I am a journalist who discloses some knowledge that I have that should not have been disclosed to me, and it is in the public interest that it should be printed, then that, to my mind, should be a defence against any prosecution.