Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 February 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, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, for introducing this interesting if short debate, and to the other noble Lords who have participated. I agree entirely with the representation that he makes, that we need a coherent plan to address the environmental impact of the digital radio switchover. The difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, is that we do not think that it needs to be in legislation. We will certainly need it—a plan will have to be developed. In the Digital Britain White Paper, we set out our commitment to a full cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the digital radio switchover programme before any date is set. These assessments will include a careful consideration of the environmental impact, on which the noble Lord dwelt in his contribution. In fact, work has already begun. Three government departments—DCMS, BIS and Defra—are commissioning an independent assessment of the energy usage of digital versus analogue radio. Of course, we have obligations too. The European Union’s waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which we implemented in 2006 by regulations, insists that producers of electrical goods are financially responsible for the collection, treatment and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment. We know where the obligation is and we know the work that needs to be done. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, I always like the fact that the Liberal Benches quite often, when a constructive idea emerges, automatically assumes that it is the Government’s idea and initiative. The only problem with that assumption is that it may also involve government expenditure, which raises a different matter. I assure the noble Lord that we are quite interested in his idea of the scrappage scheme. This is an industry initiative and we would need to see details before we could comment further on how that should work. But it is a reflection of the fact that the industry knows where its obligations and its interests lie. Perhaps I am looking a little negative, which is never my wont on matters of this kind. Let me make the obvious point—my noble friend Lord Young commented on this on a previous amendment—that we have managed the television switchover in a limited area thus far. We are rather proud of the fact that the planning that went into that and the execution of it is throwing up a relatively small number of problems, sufficient for the position to win general plaudits.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c282-3 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children BBC Broadcasting Computer networks Broadcasting programmes Commercial broadcasting Channel Four Television Communication Digital technology Hearing impairment Finance Fees and charges EU law Film Equipment Internet Journalism Motor vehicles Public appointments Older people Recycling Political impartiality Public service broadcasting Ofcom Radio frequencies Radio Local broadcasting Visual impairment Registration Road traffic Waste disposal Television channels Satellite broadcasting Teletext Channel Three Digital switchover help scheme Global navigation satellite systems Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk