Digital Britain

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.