Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) 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, for which relief, many thanks. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving up his vow of silence and providing such an excellent summary of the reasons why we need this clause. We had a very extensive debate and I do not intend to repeat all that again, because that would not be using the time and resources here in an efficient way. It would certainly not be economic. Addressing the points of concern raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty and others, including my noble friend Lord Puttnam, I undertake to look at it again. However, Ofcom has a statutory duty to consider both the interests of citizens and consumers, with no hierarchy between the two. Ofcom is obliged to treat both equally. No doubt there are different views about how well it has done on particular issues, but the statutory position is clear. That is just one point. However, I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Whitty made when he said that he feared that the balance of interest would be detrimentally affected by the legislation. That is certainly not our intention and, if necessary, we will certainly make sure that that is clarified.. I could not help but be amused when the noble Earl, Lord Errol, said that he did not like the idea of mast-sharing. Nothing stirs my local residents association more than the erection of another mobile telephone mast, and I do not think that there is a popular vote out there for the idea that we should have more of them. We have to do two things, do we not? One reason why these clauses are important is that everyone is trying to ensure that—whether we are talking about broadband, mobile telephone networks and so on—we get genuinely universal coverage. It is not easy to achieve that, and there will be a number of different platforms. However, I think that mast-sharing has to be part of that solution. The analysis of Ofcom offered by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was about right. In a very complex area—convergence was emerging in 2003 but was nowhere near where it is now—Ofcom has done a reasonable job in ensuring that there is competition and a number of different offerings whether in broadband or mobile. There is a wide range of prices and services to serve people as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, removing the clause would undermine Ofcom’s role in an era when convergence has fully emerged. I therefore hope that the clause will remain and that the noble Lord, Lord Howard—it is probably a vain hope—will reconsider.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c182-3
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-11 10:06:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604866
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604866
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604866