Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, we have a number of concerns with Clause 28. Noble Lords will recall from previous debates that we do not believe that the solution to the problems in the regional and local media sector is more taxpayers’ money. I did not find the Minister’s comments in Committee particularly reassuring as he could give no clear indication of when and how these independently financed news consortia would become commercially sustainable. The establishment of consortia that will be reliant on the state for subsidy is an approach to the need for plurality in local news which in our view is not sustainable. It seems almost a slur on the media to suggest that they cannot adapt to the new realities of the media market and become commercially successful. Indeed, a number of the organisations involved in bidding for the pilot schemes have indicated that they are doing so only because their rivals are also bidding, not because of a desperate need for public subsidy. They are quite capable of innovating, adapting and creating new models of local news provision that the public will like and which will be financially independent from Government. That brings me to our second point. If we become reliant on public subsidy to provide regional news we are creating a system under which the appointed news providers would need to keep Ofcom, as the primary source of their funding, happy to an even greater extent than they would need to keep audiences happy. I cannot believe that that is good for the future of regional and local journalism. Equally worrying are the practical ways that this clause would implement the Government’s preferred model. We feel that the clause as drafted gives Ofcom far too much power in determining the output of the appointed news provider. It can shape the form and character of any media content that is produced. I am worried that the result will be an official world view as directed from Riverside House. I am sure this is not what Ofcom intends but it could be the result. I see many problems with Clause 28 and I gently remind the Minister that my honourable friend in the other place described it as a "red line" for our party. I hope that our concerns will be heeded as opposition to its provisions seem to be growing. With so many problems apparent, I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c1511-2 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Children Codes of practice Consumers Appeals Broadcasting Costs Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Channel Four Television Channel Four Communication Digital technology ICT EU law Film Internet Educational institutions Journalism National security Motor vehicles Protection Pornography Public service broadcasting Ofcom Music Radio Local broadcasting Registration Standards Universities Technology Channel Three Subscriptions Internet service providers Television licences
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk