[cma-l] Digital Britain - HoC exchanges from Hansard:

[Jaqui Devereux]

Jeremy Hunt, Shadow SoS for Culture, Media and Sport, Culture, Media & 
Sport;
South West Surrey, Conservative)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me prior notice both of the 
report and of his statement, and I congratulate him on
giving his first statement to the House in his new role. With Lord 
Carter's surprising and rather hasty departure from the Government, it 
is now the Secretary of State, less than a fortnight into the job, who 
must pick up the baton in an immensely complex but vital area for the 
economy. I therefore hope that he recognises that I do not mean it 
personally when I say that today's report is a colossal disappointment.

The introduction, on page 3, says that the report seeks to achieve seven 
things. So what are they? The first is an "analysis", as is the second; 
the third is a "statement of ambition"; the fourth is a "restatement" of 
need; the fifth is an "analysis"; the sixth is a "framework"; and the 
seventh is a "review". Where in all of that is a single action?

There is one area in which the report has excelled itself, and that is 
consultation. The interim report published in January announced eight 
consultations, and this one announces 12, plus one new quango. That is
surely government of the management consultants for the management 
consultants by the management consultants.
Britain has huge competitive strengths in the digital industries, 
particularly in the production of digital content, but to embrace these 
opportunities we need a proper digital infrastructure. Will the 
Secretary of State explain why, when America, France and Japan are 
laying fibre optic cable to thousands of homes, Britain's operators have 
barely started to think about it? Why have the French Government been 
able to create competition between internet service providers to lay 
fibre in France Telecom's ducts while the British Government have stood 
by as BT makes minimal investment, protected by a monopoly over the 
local loop?

Today's solution, according to the Government, is a broadband tax, but 
rather than taxing, should the Secretary of State
not be seeking to stimulate investment through the regulatory structure? 
The cable revolution happened without a cable tax; the satellite 
revolution happened without a satellite tax. Everyone recognises that 
some public investment might be necessary to reach the more remote parts 
of the country, but simply slapping on an extra tax is an old-economy 
solution to a new-economy problem. Unfortunately, the numbers do not add 
up either. The tax will apparently raise about £150 million per annum. 
Will the Secretary of State confirm that at that rate it will take 20 
years to cover the estimated £3 billion cost of the broadband roll-out?

There are some things that we welcome. We welcome the decision on DAB. 
We welcome the moves to tackle
piracy. However, having heard promises to tackle that problem four times 
in four years, we have today been promised only a consultation. Will the 
Secretary of State make a commitment that any required legislation will 
be laid before the House before the next election, so that it can be 
sorted out once and for all? We also support the roll-out of a universal 
2 megabits broadband connection by 2012, probably the single most 
important practical outcome of today's
statement. That is all supposed to be funded by the money not used for 
digital switchover, but given that only 5 per cent. of transmitters have 
switched over, none of which covers a major urban area, will the 
Secretary of State tell us what will
happen if costs are higher when the other 95 per cent. of transmitters 
are switched over?

Let me turn to regional news. Does the Secretary of State accept that 
the traditional model for regional news, based on the old ITV 
transmitter regions, has failed, and that what people really want is not 
regional news but local news? Why does Birmingham, Alabama have eight 
local TV stations when Birmingham in the UK, four times its size, has 
none? Why is the Secretary of State using the public's money to prop up 
a failed system when people in his Exeter constituency have to watch the 
news from Plymouth, and people in my constituency in Surrey have to 
watch news from Southampton? In America, much smaller cities have not 
just one but a whole clutch of local news channels, greatly enhancing a 
sense of community and vibrant local democracy. None has access to a 
licence fee. Instead of putting yet more of a burden on taxpayers, why 
are the Government not embracing a digital era version of syndicated 
local TV, something that could also be a lifeline to our local newspaper 
industry?

On the licence fee, this afternoon's statement shows breathtaking 
inconsistency on the part of the Government. Less than a month ago, the 
Secretary of State's predecessor insisted at the Dispatch Box that the 
BBC needed an inflation-busting £68 million per annum rise in the 
licence fee to fulfil its core purposes. So, why is the Secretary of 
State saying today that it has a spare £100 million a year to give to 
other broadcasters? If that money really is spare, should we not first 
consider giving it back to licence fee payers, which is what nearly 
three quarters of them have said that they want?  There are some bright 
spots in the report, but overall it does not feel like an agenda for a 
new digital economy. It reads more like a top-down attempt to protect 
and prop up old business models using yet more public
cash. The Conservative Government deregulated telecoms and launched 
Channels 4 and 5. They unleashed the cable and satellite revolution. 
Instead of digital dithering from a dated Government, we need 
new-economy dynamism from a new Conservative Government.

Ben Bradshaw:

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the role that Lord Carter of 
Barnes has played in this report, because I omitted to thank and commend 
Lord Barnes on his excellent piece of work.  Contrary to what the hon. 
Gentleman said, the report contains some 78 action points. In the main, 
we are consulting only on matters that require primary legislation, and 
I hope that hon. Members on all sides will think that that is generally 
good practice. However, we are
consulting on one thing that does not require primary legislation, and 
that is the idea of sharing some of the BBC's
  licence fee. I acknowledge that we have decided to do that, because it 
is quite a big move of principle?but
if the hon. Gentleman does not think that we need to consult on it, he 
can just send me a letter saying that he agrees with the proposal. That 
would be very helpful indeed.  The hon. Gentleman implied that there was 
no need for public investment in the next generation of broadband 
roll-out. I appreciate that he has not had time to read all 250-odd 
pages of the report yet, but when he looks at it more closely he will 
see that virtually every other country in the world is using public 
funds to help ensure the provision of good-quality next generation 
broadband. Australia is using £22 billion
sterling of taxpayers' money to that end. By no means are we saying that 
the amount of money that we intend to use from the digital underspend 
and the levy on fixed lines will be sufficient in itself, but we do 
believe that it will be enough to pump-prime as the market would not 
otherwise do, that is, to complete the final third of provision for homes
and businesses. That final stage of provision will cover many people in 
the rural constituencies of Opposition
Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of legislation. As he will 
appreciate, I am not going to comment on the next Session in Parliament: 
suffice it to say that this Government have made it clear that the 
digital revolution is one of our main priorities. As I said in my 
statement, it is a major part of our industrial strategy. He was wrong 
to say that not one urban area in the country has so far enjoyed digital 
switchover, because Exeter has.  My constituents would be very offended 
if their city were to be described as anything other than a major urban 
centre. Exeter recently became the first
digital city in the country, and very successful the switchover was too. 
  Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, we anticipate that the rest 
of the digital switchover will go very smoothly. We are confident about 
that. We think that we are likely to be able to make the savings from 
the underspend that we have projected, and in fact believe that that may
even be a conservative estimate.  The hon. Gentleman also said that we 
are ignoring local news in favour
of regional news. Far from it: the m odel that I have just outlined 
would enable exactly the sort of local news provision that he described, 
and not just by the independent television providers who will be invited 
to bid for this new pot of money. The introduction of digital radio will 
free up radio spectrum for local and community radio stations, which
will be able to provide exactly the sort of very local news and content 
that he advocates.  The hon. Gentleman said that instead of spending the 
digital underspend on the vital protection of the public service content 
of news in the
nations and the regions, he would rather give the 75p a week back to the 
licence fee payer. All the way through his response, however, where he 
agreed with us about outcomes, he was prepared to will the ends but not 
the means.

-- 
Jaqui Devereux

Director
Community Media Association

15 Paternoster Row
Sheffield
S1 2BX

+44 114 279 5219


Join the CMA now for discounts, networking,
workshops, streaming, information, support
and a voice for community media

www.commedia.org.uk

Access to the media for people and communities