| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.19 pm
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): I shall talk about the importance of the Bill, converging technologies and some of the new entrants that will result from the Bill. There is widespread support for the measure, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has demonstrated that there is widespread support among Conservatives for the principles of spectrum management. I was surprised by the shadow Secretary of State's comments, but he would not recognise widespread support if it was in front of him.
Before I came to the House, I spent 20 years in information technology as an assistant analyst designing systems. The United Kingdom was able to achieve a lead in that technology despite legislation and not because of it. A great deal has been achieved because those involved have been able to get round regulations and not because of Government support. Too often, innovations and new technologies are introduced in this country that run foul of the way in which it is organised. The procedures of this place result in laws that prevent innovation and thereby prevent us from moving forward. It is incredible that we achieve so much despite the restrictions that are in place.
I am pleased that the Bill will increase flexibility. If some of the restrictions that have been advocated are put in place, new technologies that we shall see being introduced in the next century will not be able to use the radio spectrum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy(Dr. Moonie) talked about Germany and France and our lead over them, but they are not the only countries in Europe. The Nordic countries also have a lead. Finland, for example, has 98 per cent. usage of mobile phones. Surely we have something to learn from the innovations of Nordic countries, with public sector companies competing with other public sector companies as well as with private sector companies. The dynamic market that has been created has led to a 39 per cent. use of the internet, for example. There are many lessons that we can learn so that the lead and leading-edge technologies that we have developed can remain in place.
The Nordic countries have learnt that outdated dogma, from wherever it comes, is a barrier to innovation. I am pleased that the Bill does not rely on that dogma.
There will be a convergence of technologies. We will not be talking about only radio, television or cable. I can already e-mail via my digital phone, and it will not be long before that and other technologies improve, providing access to many more people.
There will not merely be a convergence of technology but a mix-and-match approach. The individual will be able to use part wireless, part cable and part satellite technology all in one transaction. Apart from convergence, we should talk about the appropriateness of technology to enable someone in a rural area to use appropriate technology in the same way as those who live in inner-city conurbations. It is important that we build in flexibility so that licences allow for mix and match. We should not push people down a particular route. A problem of the past is that we have seen things in isolation and not as ways of communicating. Technology has been perceived as a way of sending a message by means of a certain medium and it is important that in future we see things in the round.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) talked about some of the technologies to which I intended to refer. I know, of course, that it is not compulsory in the Chamber not to repeat ourselves, but I shall be abstemious and not repeat some of my hon. Friend's remarks. There will be new technologies, and I am not talking about third generation mobile telephony, which is already here and being developed. There will be new technologies that go beyond that and we must not make short-sighted mistakes. Instead, we must consider allowing new entrants to use wireless in the century ahead. It will be a mistake to confine ourselves to what we already know about.
New technologies will be introduced, and the Bill must provide for new entrants. We must not erect barriers against technologies that we do not yet know about. Some of those who have contributed to the debate seemed to be suggesting that we should put in place barriers based on current technology instead of looking to the future.
I welcome clause 5 and the giving of grants for future research. It is important that we provide support for research in the early days. All too often, however, we have put money into research and stopped before that research can lead to products. It is important that money is made available for new companies that are setting up new technologies. In the early days when things are a struggle, when banks do not want to know and when sufficient capital is not available, the Government should provide support.
When I read about auctions back in June, I thought, "My God, here we go again. Have we learnt nothing from the television debacle and experience in the United States?" I have been reassured by comments made in the other place and by those of my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon.
It is important that our approach is selective and appropriate and not one that is used for anything and everything. Conservative Members seem not to recognise that it is appropriate in some circumstances to use auctions. At the same time, I think that it would be inappropriate to use them in every circumstance.
I am pleased that the Minister gave reassurance to existing companies based on the investment that they have already made. He has said that they will not be subject to auctions for existing services. It is an important message which needs repeating. We are talking not of a tax but of the management of the spectrum.
My experience of the Ministry of Defence is that it is not likely to give up the bands that it already has. A small dose of commercial reality would be especially appropriate for the MOD.
We need to be aware of what happens in terms of costs and benefits when new technologies are introduced. It has been said that costs will be passed on to the consumer. However, new technologies rapidly give value to the consumer, and prices fall quickly. The new technologies that will be introduced by means of the Bill will be no different.
There has been a good deal of consultation with industry, but I make the plea that practitioners are also involved. We should not confine ourselves to company directors. It is important that we talk to those who are developing technology and who are involved at the sharp end, who will maintain our leading edge.
Consultation must have appropriate time scales. Companies should know in advance what the issues are and what they must plan for. Consultation has too often taken place at an inappropriate time. It has either been too far in advance and nothing has happened or it has been far too quick and no one has had time to plan. We must ensure that we get the balance right.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
I support the general principles that are set out in the Bill, which represent a useful step forward. They have been described fluently by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and by many others.
I welcome the generally high standard of debate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced serious arguments. I should perhaps exempt the absent shadow Secretary of State, who made up for seriousness with a particularly entertaining speech. I enjoyed his description of the history of Conservative policy in the area covered by the Bill. Apparently, there was a shining light during the time when he was last responsible for these matters, followed by a dark tunnel leading all the way to the general election, including the drafting of the Conservative party manifesto. A new light has now returned and we can bask in it.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State, criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not being present throughout the debate. Having said that, he immediately disappeared.
I shall introduce a note of dissent in the consensus that appears to rule between the two Front Benches and the Liberal Democrats. I hesitate to do that, because new Members have been told that our maiden speeches should be non-controversial, and although this is my second speech, I have not yet got used to the idea of being controversial. There seems to be a broad consensus between all the parties that fee increases should be made only as far as is necessary for spectrum management. The Conservative party wants that principle to be established, but it does not trust us to keep to it. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench teams want to stick to it.
That reminds me of the first experiments under the late President Leonid Brezhnev. He started to introduce market principles into the Soviet economy. He said,
"We're not actually going to introduce profit or make money. We're just trying to introduce small reforms that will help with bottlenecks in the market. Relax comrades, nothing will happen." He was right; nothing did happen.
There are two problems with that self-denying ordinance: it is undesirable in principle and illusory in practice. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have one of these machines in my hand, but it is switched off. I brought it in to show that I am not opposed in principle to mobile telephones. When I see people in the street speaking into mobile telephones, I do not react with horror like most people do. I am pleased that the British people are learning to do two things at once and increasing the gross national product.
Nevertheless, it would be idle to pretend that companies, such as Vodafone and Agent Orange or whatever it calls itself, are desperately short of money and are threatened by the smallest increase in the cost of wavelengths, especially as it may be 20 years before they pay it.
Given the priorities that the Labour Government have set in education, unemployment reduction and health, we should take more seriously the need to raise revenue from appropriate areas. Wavelengths are currently general public property, so if we are unable to raise revenue from that area, where should we do so?
The European directive seems to put up a barrier to that. It says:
The waveband spectrum belongs to the British people, and they should get a fair price for it, which is what we would expect in any other commercial transaction not involving destitute groups. I reiterate that Vodafone and Orange are not destitute groups: they are happy to work in the market on this basis.
"Member States may set fees at a level higher than cost recovery only where this is justified to ensure the optimal use of scarce resources (such as radio spectrum)."
All of us who have worked in business know that it does not happen like that. If there is a scarce resource, either the fees are set at the market level, or the attempt to raise fees to clear the market will not work. Each company will calculate the cost to it of entering this market. It will consider the fees that we set, and will take part in the auction, application or whatever procedure we require to the point where it makes sense in the market in marginal terms. When we say that we will use this measure only for the purpose of spectrum management when the European Union says that we should use it only for that purpose, we are either limiting ourselves to the extent that we will fail in spectrum management, or deluding ourselves and, in practice, we will have to put up prices to the market level to get an orderly market. Ministers should be willing to accept that and regard it as a natural part of Labour Government policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |