Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 1 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment to seek clarity about what the Government are trying to achieve with this part of Clause 1 and, more significantly, to try to understand what the implications will be of the new definition of public service media content. The Minister was kind enough to write to me following our debate on this topic in Committee. In his letter, he confirmed that the Government’s new definition of public service media content could include blogs, ""to the extent that these contribute to the public service objectives set out in section 264(6)"," of the Communications Act. As I pointed out in previous debates, these objectives include a wide variety of topics, ranging from religious and educational topics to entertainment and comedy. As such, it could be argued that almost any website where an individual has editorial control could fall under these objectives—anything from the obvious, such as newspaper sites and political blogs, to comedy, show reviews or even online video games. Is it the Government’s intention that Ofcom should promote investment into almost anything on the internet? It is hard to see how this will work in practice. I am sure that the aim is not intended to be so broad, but it is what the definition provided in this Bill could lead to. The Minister argued in his letter that we need to give Ofcom sufficient flexibility to take into account new forms of public service media content. The need to allow public service broadcasters to invest in distributing public service content in new ways, notably through the internet, is understandable. However, surely what the internet shows is that public service content online is very much alive and well. The whole point of the internet is that services spring up where there is a demand for them. Excellent work is created without Ofcom promoting investment. I therefore urge the Minister to think again about whether such a duty is necessary and, more importantly, whether such a broad definition of public service media content will not make the duty so unwieldy as to become meaningless. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c1225-6 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Compensation Codes of practice Consumers Broadcasting Civil proceedings Climate change Competition Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Communication Fees and charges ICT EU law Investment Infrastructure Exemptions Emergency services Intellectual property Libraries Internet Electronic publishing Newspaper press Public service broadcasting Ofcom Music Radio frequencies Universities Telecommunications Regulation Repairs and maintenance Rural areas Information Commissioner's Office Subscriptions Internet service providers
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk