| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Brian White: Some of the other parts of the debate that I found incredible were the references to other countries. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about South Korea without putting his remarks in the context of that country's economic structure or talking about Government involvement in companies there; for example, the tower blocks are constructed so as to encourage broadband connection. In Germany, the regulator acquiesced in the stifling of competition by Deutsche Telekom. Are the Tories seriously advocating
that we should have a national championing of broadband through BT, as some of their comments in the debate suggest? If so, there will be serious problems and we need to address that point.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to note the intervention of the Government of South Korea, but there has been no such intervention in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in Australia nor, surprisingly, in Portugal. All those countries—in fact, 19 countries—are ahead of Britain in the broadband stakes.
Brian White: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman cited figures from August 2002. If he actually looked at the rate of broadband growth over the past few months, he would see that the UK is at the forefront. He should look at those figures rather than relying on historical, out-of-date figures.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way to me for a second time.
As I pointed out earlier, the more recent figures are based on definitions of broadband that no other country would accept and that many scientists in this country—including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman—would never accept. All that has happened is that the definition of broadband has been expanded by the Government to include more services.
Michael Fabricant: The Minister may say no, but the Minister knows the truth of the matter.
Brian White: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have held several discussions on broadband over the years, but my understanding is that the figures are based on comparable definitions. If I am wrong, I will apologise, but that is my understanding. That is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other studies have put forward. The hon. Gentleman should look at the definitions again.
One of my concerns is that although the Lords amendment encouraged competition and markets, the Government amendment does not. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us how Ofcom will deal with the provision? Will it have a duty to encourage the markets? If this is about encouraging an incumbent supplier to do more, that is a very different prospect from allowing entrants into the market and the kind of data-stream and internet protocol competition that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) mentioned earlier.
These are serious issues. The House is in danger of latching on to the latest fashion. We did so with local loop unbundling; we are in danger of doing so with broadband. I am very concerned that we will create more problems for ourselves if we accept the amendment. At best, it is neutral. At worst, it is the thin end of the wedge. I am concerned that we will not give Ofcom clear instructions that broadband should be delivered by competition and creating markets. That is the only sustainable way to deliver it.
Mr. Lansley: I had feared, before I heard the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) speak, that I would be in a minority of one on this subject. I have to say hesitantly that, not for the first time, he and I see things more closely than perhaps some of members of our pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and, sometimes, even those who served on the Standing Committee.
Before I enter into the subject matter, I want to join in congratulating and welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench. Once again, as he did in Committee on many occasions, he has demonstrated the extent and, often, the depth of his knowledge of technological matters.
I fear that, on this occasion, enthusiasm and knowledge of the technology have diverted some Members from the debate at hand. The debate is not about the desirability or otherwise of further broadband roll-out, or the desirability of functionality at higher speeds and developing new forms of broadband or high-speed data transfer services. All those things are very important and interesting subjects for longer discussions, and they are not least the responsibility of the Government. The question is whether Ofcom should have an additional specific duty, as proposed either by the Lords or by the Government.
My view is that neither of the amendments is necessary and both may be undesirable. Why is that true? Essentially, the problems that might arise are these: if we accept the Lords amendment and give Ofcom the responsibility to consider what are the best means of gaining access to those systems, we introduce to Ofcom an element of picking technological winners that is not evident elsewhere in the Bill and is completely inappropriate to the responsibilities of an independent regulator. If we include, as the Lords amendments does, the specific reference to encouraging competitive markets in such systems, we have to ask why that is necessary. As Ofcom will have a wider responsibility to encourage competitive markets in all electronic networks and services, why is it necessary to specify that requirement? Doing so will simply cause confusion about the nature of the Bill in other respects. Although well motivated, the Lords amendment is deficient in those two respects.
Let us move to the Government amendment, which raises the harmful possibility that the Government could give Ofcom a duty about the development, availability and use of high-speed data transfer services that could conflict with its other duties that relate to the promotion of consumer interests through competition. That would be highly undesirable. We want Ofcom's pro-competitive duty to be clear. Even if we wanted to give Ofcom that duty, is Ofcom the right body to exercise it? It is not; the Government should do so.
Almost everything that I have heard about the desirability of different forms of intervention—we can argue about how much there should be and whether it should simply involve aggregating public sector purchasing, promoting certain technology with grants or developing access in certain areas using subsidy—suggests that those are matters for the Government, not for Ofcom. Ofcom will not have the powers or the resources to do those things.
6.45 pm
The most harmful aspect is that—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said in response to my intervention—the proposal might be short of a universal service obligation. The idea that we must give Ofcom responsibility short of a universal service obligation in relation to high-speed data transfer will simply allow the Government to say, "We gave Ofcom the duty to promote broadband; it may not have done it well enough." I shall not try to interpret the history too much, but Oftel picked local loop unbundling as the way to try to promote broadband. It subsequently said, "If we aren't going to do it, we'll let BT do it, by cutting prices. That will do it for us." Neither of those approaches represents the simple pro-competitive operations on which Oftel should have focused.
Oftel's job was not to promote broadband. Oftel's job was to ensure that the markets were competitive. In so far as that involved diminishing the monopoly aspects of BT's operation, that was what Oftel needed to do. Unfortunately, other questions got left on one side, especially those related to spectrum allocation and the availability of alternative technology, because everyone became focused on local loop unbundling.
The issue now is to define Ofcom's role. Ofcom's role is to provide a competitive market in all electronic communications, networks and services, but if the Government conclude that the economic or social necessity suggests that there should be a universal service in high-speed data transfer services, clause 62 will allow the Government to establish a universal service obligation by order. That is how the Government would need to act. The Government could get off the hook because Ofcom had a subsidiary duty but no power to give effect to it. That could be damaging.
Mr. Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly missed his grammar. Neither the Lords amendment, nor the Government amendment would give Ofcom a new duty. Surely it would have only to exercise its other duties with regard to the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high-speed data services.
Mr. Lansley: That is not a matter of grammar; it is a matter of interpretation. In relation to clause 3, yes, furthering the interests of citizens and consumers is subsequently qualified by the things to which Ofcom must have regard. We have to consider the way in which Ofcom exercises those duties. The hon. Gentleman will find that, so long as Ofcom asserts the primacy of its consumer interests, it will also have to show that it is giving effect to the subsidiary aspects of its general duties.
All those things are Ofcom's general duties. The risk—I put it no higher than that—is that the Ofcom's subsidiary duty in this respect will come into conflict with its primary duties, and we ought not to countenance that. Moreover, many hon. Members are extolling the benefits of broadband roll-out, and they perhaps think something should be provided for the 10 per cent. of the population that will not have access to BT's broadband or cable. However, when they find that it is uneconomic do to so and they come knocking
on the door called "universal service obligation" and the Government say, "Oh no, we can't do that, but we have given Ofcom some responsibility", they will find that this debate will ring hollow because it will not have served our purpose at all; it will have inhibited us from going down the path that will probably be necessary in due course.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |