Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) 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, I absolutely agree with the objective of the amendment, which is to ensure that Ofcom considers in its reports the interests of persons living in rural areas. However, as I said in Committee, the amendment is unnecessary because the Communications Act 2003, taken with the provisions in this Bill, already require Ofcom to do just that. In precise terms, the objective of the amendment is already achieved by Section 3(4)(l) of the Communications Act 2003, which requires Ofcom to have regard, when relevant, to the different interests of persons living in rural—I stress that—as well as in urban areas. When that is read together with new Clause 134B(1)(b), which requires the report to cover, ""the geographic coverage of the different UK networks"," I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that the object of the amendment is achieved. The clause talks of "geographic coverage" because there are sometimes circumstances where coverage may be problematic even in more urban areas, but as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are well aware, the vast majority of areas where coverage of communications networks is an issue will be rural areas—or in some cases, as my noble friend Lord Maxton reminded us, it might be even more difficult for some of the more remote areas. That is precisely what paragraph (b) is intended to deal with. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I say that we should remember that we are talking not just about the reports of Ofcom. I remind noble Lords that our report on Digital Britain made a specific commitment to ensure that all areas, including rural areas, have access to broadband of at least of 2 megabytes per second by 2012. That is not the end of the problems of universal broadband service, but it is a commitment to ensure a basic standard for everybody. If only we could ensure that providers delivered that, it would please the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, if no one else. In response to the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I say that the commitment is already in existing legislation, coupled with the new requirements. It is amply demonstrated also in our commitment to ensuring a universal broadband service. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will feel capable of withdrawing his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c1247
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-05 10:22:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625374
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625374
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625374