Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Buscombe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 January 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, I need to declare an ongoing and active involvement in the media as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. One of the difficulties surrounding the whole viability of the digital economy is that not only did the Communications Act not even refer to the existence of the internet, the principal focus of our debates regarding Ofcom’s duties were the rights of citizens and consumers, together with the plurality of provision of services. We did not focus enough on how that plurality of provision of services would be funded. In some ways, the Communications Act was an anachronism before it began, before the ink was even dry on the statute book. We all knew that there would be the rapid evolution to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has just referred. It is right that there is more of a focus in the Bill on investment. However, my concern about Clause 1, in supporting the principles behind the amendment, is that there is possible duplication here between the duties set out in the Communications Act and the duties set out in the Bill. As my noble friend said, under Section 3 of the Communications Act, there is already a duty on Ofcom to ensure efficient investment in infrastructure. I advise the Government by saying that it is really important to keep this simple and to keep it clear. There is already some confusion among various channels over what these duties really mean. Unless we keep it simple and clear, and focus on the provision of sufficient investment, there will be confusion. Confusion invariably leads to higher costs and they invariably fall on the consumer. If this clause is not otiose, can we ensure that there is real clarity? I absolutely agree with everything said by the right reverend Prelate. However, it was all said during the passage of the Communications Act. In theory, it is already there, but there is a lack of enforcement of what we looked and asked for in 2003. Maybe it is symbolism and this is the Government gently wanting to nudge industry to do the right thing. That is good, but if in so doing they create confusion and a lack of clarity in the Act, the consumer will suffer.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c150 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Devolved matters Broadcasting Broadcasting reception Broadband Communication Investment Infrastructure Northern Ireland Mergers Office of Fair Trading Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Ofcom Scotland Regulation Wales Rural areas
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk