Proceeding contribution from Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-affiliated) 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]
I thank the Minister for his answer, which was reassuring in some respects but not reassuring in others. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their support for the amendment. I am glad that the Minister has indicated that the Government are taking this issue seriously, because it is a serious issue. However, I am a bit bemused by the idea that somehow requiring the communications companies to report would undermine the general approach that the Government are taking. It may undermine the general approach that the Government are taking to the regulation of the communications sector, but it seems to me that it would bring the communications sector entirely into line with the requirement by law to report on climate change adaptation that has been laid on all the other sectors that are important in national resilience. That does not therefore seem to me to be a killer blow to the amendment. If it is sauce for all the other geese, why is it not sauce for this particular gander? Waiting for a clearer view on what the climate change impacts on the communications industries might be before deciding what to include in the triennial reports is probably a longer process than is necessary. As I said, all other sectors are required to report without the work on impacts necessarily having been gone through in detail. The whole point is to get the sectors to think for themselves about the impact of climate change on the resilience of their businesses and their services to the public and to get them to report back on their risk assessments and what they are doing about them. Spoon-feeding the communications industry in this respect seems to be out of line with the requirements that are laid on all the other sectors. I am pleased that the Minister is saying that the triennial reports on resilience that Ofcom must provide will include the future long-term impacts of climate change, not just the immediate short-term definition of what an emergency is. However, that is not a view that Ofcom currently shares, so I will take up his invitation to come back at a later stage of our consideration of this Bill to establish why there seems to be a difference of view between the Minister and Ofcom about what these reports will legitimately cover. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 14A withdrawn. Amendment 14B not moved. Amendment 15 Moved by
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c1254-5
- 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_625385
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625385
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625385