Broadband Universal Service Obligation
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Vaizey
Thank you for keeping me on my toes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) has given me a chance to rehearse my entire speech again, but let me give him the edited highlights. My recommendations were: first, one annual robust data analysis of fixed and mobile broadband connections; secondly, more power for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture; and thirdly, more power for Broadband Delivery UK to help telcos to navigate the bureaucracy of councils.
Finally, I was going to say how far-seeing and forward-looking this Government have become, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Again, I heartily endorse the proposals announced in the autumn statement to invest in planning 5G networks. Let us be satisfied with where we are. We had a rural broadband programme that has delivered exactly what it said on the tin. We are going to see increased speeds come through new technologies such as G.fast, but the Government are now quite rightly pushing for the next phase, fibre to the premises and 5G networks. Let us start planning for a gigabit Britain.
Online Abuse
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful to have the chance to speak. I have no idea how long I have got at the Dispatch Box, but I will keep going until you indicate otherwise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can help the Minister by saying that if he works on the basis of around 10 minutes, I think we will all be happy.
Mr Vaizey
Let us go for the 10-minute special, then.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for calling this important debate. I was lucky enough to work with her when she was Secretary of State. She took on two important issues at that time: Leveson and the issue of press regulation, and equal marriage. She handled both with aplomb, and she has since shown the House how one transitions from such a position to a new role. She has taken a huge and leading role in the House on women and equalities issues. She has certainly pushed forward the important agenda of online abuse, so it is no surprise at all to find her leading this debate and setting out for the Government some very clear approaches and suggestions, which it behoves us to take seriously.
It is worth recalling that when the matter has been raised in the House—for example, when my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) first raised the question of children’s access to adult content online—it has resulted in action. Debates in this House may sometimes appear to be simply an exchange of views between Government and Members of the House, but, because this agenda is so fast moving, the House has a great deal of influence on the direction of Government policy. Without wishing to single out individuals too much, I have to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has pushed the matter forward, not least the change in legislation on revenge pornography last year.
It would be remiss of me to go through every speech that has been made. Some 18 or 19 hon. Members have made contributions, all of which have been serious and worth while. Because this was a lengthy and detailed debate, I appreciated the odd moment of light-heartedness, not least when my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) told us that she responds to online abuse with a picture of a kitten. That particularly appealed to me, because I have a picture, which is now well known, of a kitten sitting on my shoulder when I visited Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. I will use that in future to respond to my online trolls.
I was also amused when my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) complained that teenagers now live in a world in which they are surrounded by perfect people who are wonderful to look at. I wondered why he thought that that was a problem when we all exist in the perfect world of the Palace of Westminster, where people are charming and lovely, as we have particularly found during the last week or so.
Four clear issues emerged from the debate. Let me briefly pause to put them in context. The Government are, quite rightly, committed to an open internet. When I attend international forums, I find that it is very important that the UK, along with our allies, is committed to what we call the multi-stakeholder approach for internet governance. That involves civic society, business and Governments working together to keep the internet open and free. Authoritarian-inclined regimes would like to regulate the internet, restrict freedom of speech and clamp down on innovation. The Government of this country do, however, regard things that are illegal and wrong offline to be illegal and wrong online. Hon. Members have made the point that some people seem to believe that the rules of behaviour and the legal rules that we all live by in the physical world somehow do not apply on the internet. That is absolutely not the case.
The UK has led the way in approaching the issue from a perspective of self-regulation rather than legislation. Self-regulation works because it brings about partnerships and helps us to move forward more quickly. A good example is the creation of the Internet Watch Foundation, which was the first charity to focus on dealing with images of child sexual abuse. It is a model that has been copied around the world, and it became incredibly important in driving forward the recent work with search engines, such as Google, to make searching for and discovering images of child abuse online much, much more difficult. We have worked with the Internet Watch Foundation to ensure that internet service providers had the funding to increase their capacity, and we have worked with technology providers on the use of technology that enables images to be matched and traced, and that makes it easier to catch and trace perpetrators.
Similarly, by working with industry we were able to secure family-friendly filters; the default-on option means that people who log on must actively disable the filters that prevent harmful content from reaching, for example, young people. We have also worked with industry on an important and generously funded campaign, “Internet Matters”. The previous Labour Government set up the UK Council for Child Internet safety, which brings together 200 stakeholders who work on these issues. It has an important effect on driving forward policy. We continue to make progress on matters such as increasing police capability, the creation of the first Minister for Internet Safety and Security—my colleague Baroness Joanna Shields—and, with the Digital Economy Bill, the introduction of legislation to secure age verification for adult content.
As I have said, four clear issues that the Government should take forward emerged from the debate. First, although there was welcome praise for the Essex and Durham constabularies, there was an absolute recognition of the need to skill up the police force. We have the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and different arrangements in the national police service, but for cybercrime in general—it is often financial crime—and this kind of crime in particular, it should be possible to create specialist units with national capability.
The police should also think very hard about the people they recruit. There is no need for them to recruit only for conventional police training—people who can walk the beat or perform the traditional roles of policing; there is every opportunity to recruit people with specialist skills that may not be transferable to the rest of the police service but who could be recruited relatively quickly to do this work.
There was a clear call from the House for legislative clarity, both clarity in defining online abuse and clarity about the myriad different Acts and statutes that come to bear in this area. The new Government under the new Prime Minister will want to make clarifying and consolidating that legislation a priority. That was a clear call from the House that must be taken forward.
The issue of anonymity was raised, with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) debating whether it should come under our consideration. I would not want to legislate to remove anonymity. Whether to allow anonymous users should be a matter for individual platforms, just as I would not require the Royal Mail to refuse to handle any letter that had been sent anonymously. That kind of interference would be unjustified,
That point leads me on to the role of platforms. It is interesting to consider that in the online world we now suddenly have companies that in many respects are bigger and more influential than many nation states—Facebook has a population of 1.2 billion, and Twitter has a population of 300 million—yet to a certain extent are left to their own devices to create their own rules, society and regulation, without the role of Government or of civic society as a whole being taken into account. Platforms must work with Governments and civic society to create rules. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke in her call for something I have been keen to make progress on, namely a clear code of conduct within the UK that clarifies what constitutes online abuse, and, even more importantly for users, gives clarity on the rapid remedies available to people who are abused in this way. We have heard some really horrific examples, but of course we all know of those examples because we see them day in, day out, either on the news or because we ourselves or our friends are being attacked.
BBC: Diversity
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have the chance to respond to this important debate. When a Minister is told that he has to spend a Thursday afternoon responding to a debate, particularly on the day of the Tory parliamentary away day, and realises that by being in the Chamber he will miss the company of his colleagues at a luxury country hotel—you can imagine the thoughts that went through my mind. But the cloud was lifted when I saw the subject of the debate. As many Members will know, this is a subject close to my heart and I am grateful for the kind words that have been said about some of my work.
Before I move on to the issues, I want to pay significant tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his barnstorming speech. It was an absolute tour de force—the great MP at his best, reminding us of his great qualities, lighting up Twitter like a fire and making some points that, in my view, were completely unanswerable. He set the tone of the debate, and the other reason the cloud has lifted is that all hon. Members have made fantastic speeches bringing great passion, emotion and knowledge to the debate. It has been dominated by the issue of BME representation in broadcasting, but I must acknowledge those Members who have stretched the definition of diversity.
Let me briefly acknowledge, although he is no longer in the Chamber, for reasons I cannot fathom, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who took diversity to mean more coverage of Brexit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just say that the h G did advise the Chair that he needed to get to Oxford, even if others did not?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is the third time it has been in use; I think we are all getting used to it, luxury hotels and all.
Mr Vaizey
Anyway, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has apparently gone to an undisclosed location, so I apologise for misrepresenting him. If he had been here, he would have heard the Opposition spokesman explain that the Secretary of State has the director-general of the BBC in a small room and is dictating that the BBC covers only Brexit opinion, so that point is covered.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who sits on the Select Committee, rightly brought up the importance of the BBC’s representing the whole nation as regards the regions and as regards its presence throughout the country. I acknowledge what she said both about where the BBC is physically present and about the people who are represented and who work for the corporation. Those points were well made.
My old friend the Member for the Outer Hebrides, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), representing the top—we had my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) in the Chamber earlier, representing the bottom, as it were—pointed out the importance of language diversity and talked about the huge success of BBC Alba. It was good to hear his colleagues acknowledge the additional funding that the coalition Government pushed towards that—that is, the extra 2 million quid that BBC Alba was not expecting to get, which was fantastic.
The prize has to go to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who took “diversity” to mean more Scottish football on the telly. We all want to see some Scottish clubs playing in the league cup. We would like the English league cup to turn into a league cup where Scottish clubs can play English clubs. That is what viewers want. If anyone wonders about the importance of sport, that simple statement by me will dominate all news coverage.
Radio Broadcasting (Diversity)
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who made his case in a characteristically forthright, clear and brief manner, getting all the right points across as succinctly as possible. I shall try to follow his lead. I am also grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has contributed to many debates in which I have taken part.
It might sound like I am going off topic, but I hope that as I speak it will become clear why I wish to talk generally about digital radio. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, Premier Christian Radio is now available in Northern Ireland thanks to digital radio. I was interested to hear him talk about the postcard campaign that Premier Christian listeners might undertake to save their radio station. I hope that we can turn this army to another purpose, because I hope that they will work with me to promote the virtues of digital radio. As he mentioned, I have been a great supporter of digital radio precisely because it promotes diversity in broadcasting. The BBC, a laudable institution, dominates the radio airwaves, with something like two thirds of listening, and digital broadcasting is a great opportunity for a much wider platform of voices to be heard, which is why his points about whether we should have another pop music station or preserve Premier Christian Radio were so well made.
For that reason, the Government are working hard to promote digital radio, and I am pleased that figures for digital radio listening, driven in part, perhaps, by listeners to Premier Christian Radio, have risen in the last five years from about a quarter to almost 40%, and that the proportion of households with digital radios, and therefore able to receive Premier Christian Radio, has risen from about 32% when we entered office to about 50% now. It is also possible to listen to Premier Christian Radio in the car. Two thirds of new cars now have digital radios fitted as standard, although we need to do more to get cheaper car conversion kits for those of us who drive an older make of vehicle. That is all because of our digital radio action plan pushing out key improvements in digital radio infrastructure.
There are several successful digital radio music stations that have shown how viable this platform is. For example, Radio 6 Music was another station threatened with closure, not by being thrown off the mux it was broadcasting on, but by the decision of BBC bureaucrats. It might interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that I personally intervened, and although I would be too humble to claim credit for 6 Music’s survival, I hope that when the history of that station is written, I will earn a small footnote. In fact, 6 Music is now more popular than BBC Radio 3.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned pop music stations. Before concentrating on the virtues of Premier Christian Radio, it is worth saying that pop music stations do also have some virtues. Absolute 80s draws 1.5 million listeners every week, making Bauer the first radio group where more than 50% of its listeners now listen on digital radio. There is further good news for those devoted to these new digital radio stations. The construction of 182 new digital transmitters across the UK—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have given the Minister a free rein, but, in fairness, I think there are a few Members here who would like him to concentrate on the debate. All this good news is welcome, but the debate is more about Premier Christian Radio than the success of pop stations.
Mr Vaizey
I take your point, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, on the next page of my brief, it says, “This brings us on to the crux of the issue and debate today”, so I had better start reading from there.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, Premier Christian Radio started broadcasting on D1 in 2009. We are in a period of transition—I will come to that in a minute—but there is an opportunity for Premier Christian Radio arising from our announcement of another national multiplex—the imaginatively name D2, to go alongside the equally imaginatively named D1. The good news is that Premier Christian Radio is part of both bidding consortiums for D2. So Premier Christian Radio should and, I expect, will have a great future when the D2 multiplex is launched, which we expect to take place in the spring of 2016.
Now, let us get back to where we were with Premier Christian Radio on D1. It had a five-year contract, which was due to end at Christmas, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That was extended until the end of March. Since Christmas, additional capacity has become available on D1. As either my hon. Friend the. Member for South West Devon or the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned, there have been discussions with Premier about taking up this capacity. Those were on commercial terms, but in order to take up that capacity, Premier Christian Radio would have to transmit on D1 until 2018. Clearly, if Premier Christian Radio wants to move to D2 in mid-2016, it does not want to have a slot on D1 that runs until 2018. Furthermore, the D1 slot on offer is at 80 kilobits rather than the 64 kilobits that Premier, primarily a speech service, uses at the moment.
These are important matters. Technically, I should not intervene in these discussions, which are commercial, so it is not for me to influence them, but this is an important radio station—one I support wholeheartedly—and I spoke to its managing director, Peter Kerridge, this afternoon to ascertain the situation. I hope a solution can be found. I am pleased with some of the progress made. As I understand it, Arqiva is going to see if it can re-purpose some other spare capacity on D1 to create a 64 kilobit stream for Premier Christian to take over. For that to work, there would need to be some give and take on all sides.
It is important, and, I think, good news for Premier, that even if for the sake argument the contract came to an end on 31 March, Arqiva would still need to apply to Ofcom to change services and until a decision is made by Ofcom, Arqiva will need to meet the current format requirements for the slot. That would allow Premier to continue to broadcast potentially beyond 31 March. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, Ofcom would need to consider whether the multiplex was still catering to the variety of tastes and services required under the original licence. Ofcom cannot intervene in that respect or in the commercial negotiations until any application is made by Arqiva to change the current line-up of services.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that D1 carries another Christian station, UCB, which will continue to cater for other Christian listeners, and listeners to Premier can listen to it on tablets, smartphones and, of course, on Freeview until D2 comes on stream. It is available on medium wave in some areas. I want to urge both parties to continue their discussions and to negotiate in good faith. Premier was an early adopter of digital radio. When it was on the D1 multiplex, there were only three other stations on the national commercial multiplex. It is a matter of good faith, shall we say, to recognise the stations that had faith in digital radio at an early stage, which were part and parcel of the success that digital radio is now, and are therefore part and parcel of the success that Arqiva is enjoying by being a broadcaster.
I think that there is an opportunity for a solution to emerge. It seems to me pretty obvious that Arqiva should come to the table, sit down with Premier, negotiate a solution for a 64 kilobit service that runs until the spring of 2016 and then allow Premier to move seamlessly to D2. I am not influencing the outcome of the D2 bidding process, because, as I said earlier, Premier is part of both bids, so it should be on the D2 service regardless of who wins.
It is not helpful for such an important broadcaster with such a devoted and enthusiastic audience to be subject to this level of uncertainty. I think that Arqiva needs to understand that there are issues that go beyond purely commercial graft, or hard grind, and that there is something called “doing the right thing”. I hope that, in this instance, Arqiva does do the right thing by Premier.
It is important to remember that, although the muxcos must comply with the licence from Ofcom, they act as gatekeepers to a certain extent. They are subject to Ofcom oversight, but as more radio listening becomes digital and demand for capacity increases, it may be necessary to ensure that Ofcom has the appropriate powers to intervene if necessary, and we may need to think about that in the next Parliament.
I think that the right hon. Member for East Ham, and those who have intervened in the debate, have put the most forceful case possible for Premier Christian Radio. I hope and intend to see an end to the negotiations in short order, and a secure future for Premier on D1. As I have said several times tonight, I trust that it will take only 12 to 18 months to secure that future. Let us all work together to ensure that we achieve the right result.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Vaizey
I would be happy to offer my hon. Friend a glass of water for his cough, but we are out of water. I see that the military prowess of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has kicked in—he is bringing a glass of water.
As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was up in your constituency just this week, and a beautiful part of the country it is.
Mr Vaizey
I am sorry—last week. The weeks tend to blend into one. Some £50 million, 98% coverage in Lancashire, and 150,000 premises—that has to be something to shout about, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) will do so once he has had a drink of water.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sorry that we have lost a minute because we may lose another speaker. I am sure that could have waited.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Look, this debate is not going to degenerate now. If the Minister can control himself, he will be on shortly, and if Back Benchers want to intervene, will they please do it in the correct manner?
European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have to watch that we do not go beyond the scope of the Bill, and I think that the Minister is being tempted down a track that he does not want to go down on Third Reading.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want you to hear what I say, but to accept what I say. There is a difference.
Mr Vaizey
When I say that I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I mean that I accept what you say. That is my interpretation: if we hear Mr Deputy Speaker speak on a subject, we accept it without question. For the avoidance of doubt, if we encounter each other and I say that I hear what you say, I accept what you say.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that we need to progress this: we understand each other. You want to get on with the Third Reading, and I want to hear you. Come on, Minister Vaizey.
Mr Vaizey
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) reminds me of another point, which is that even if the House voted down the regulation —which seems unlikely, given the results of the Divisions—the money would not come back to the UK, but would simply be spent by the European Commission in another way, because it is part of the overall budget.
On my personal preference about what Europe should spend less on, first, Mr Deputy Speaker has made it clear that I should not respond and, secondly, even if I were tempted to do so, I would have to defer to the Prime Minister, who is in the course of evaluating our negotiating position to reduce some of the European Union’s competences. However, as a matter of principle, this Government seek to reduce interference by the European Union.
Another important point is that one should be careful about where one deploys one’s opportunities to veto or block European Union legislation. Many countries across the European Union, particularly in eastern Europe, support the programme because, as new EU members who were freed from the Soviet yoke well within living memory, they see a virtue in educating their populations about the fact that they are citizens of a free and democratic Europe, as well as of their own country.
Broadband (East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire)
Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lindsay Hoyle(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, which began rather earlier than I had expected. I am glad that the eye-level cameras have not yet been installed in the Chamber, because if they had been, they would have captured graphic high-definition images of my sweating face as I returned post-haste to the Chamber to respond to this important debate.
It is good to be back in the Chamber of the House of Commons, but thanks to modern technology—partly brought about by the advent of modern communications —one is able to keep in touch with colleagues even when one is not in the Chamber. I must say that during the reshuffle madness that overtook us earlier in the week, when some of us were hoping to hold on to our jobs, I was grateful to Twitter for giving me an insight into the mental state of some of my colleagues.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on initiating this important debate. Let me begin by saying that I think he is a great loss to the Front Bench. I know that it is only a matter of time before the Prime Minister sees sense and appoints him to the Front Bench, not least because I have read some of his tweets, which give an indication of the policies that will be introduced when he does join us. Lancashire is to be declared a rogue state; a new Department will be set up, the Department for Brigg and Goole—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to test the Chair by referring to Lancashire at this stage. I am sure that he is desperate to get stuck into Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—and only the minor parts of both counties.
Mr Vaizey
Knowing your personal interest in the future of Lancashire, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought it important for you to understand the policies that may be presented to the House in future, including, of course, the final policy—the change of name from Snickers to Marathon. But you are quite right: it is important for us to return to the subject of the debate.
Let me also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on contributing so ably to the debate. He is a soothsayer. I read a tweet from him 131 days ago, in which he said “Louise Mensch is a great talent of our party. One day she will be leader.” I read a later tweet regretting her departure from the House of Commons.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that we should have any more mention of tweets. I think that we should return to the subject of broadband, and not worry about Members who have left the House and given notice that they no longer wish to be part of it. I call the Minister, and I hope that he will return to the subject in hand.
Mr Vaizey
It is very important for us to debate the provision of broadband services in the constituency of Brigg and Goole. My hon. Friend mentioned six issues on which he would like to hear from me about progress. The first was wireless provision. The second was whether the bid from his part of the world could be moved up the ladder. The third was the role of Kingston Communications in broadband delivery. The fourth was the question of what steps might be taken if a funding gap arises. The fifth was a request for a guarantee that broadband roll-out will be finished by 2015. The sixth was an update on 4G spectrum. In responding to those six points, I have an opportunity to update my hon. Friend and the House on the progress that has been made in achieving the Government’s objective of stimulating more private sector investment in locations where the commercial investment case is weak.
Let me make it clear that we do not underestimate the importance of superfast broadband in stimulating economic growth and in providing a core service for many businesses and consumers throughout the country. That is why one of the first steps we took on coming to office was to set aside some £530 million to support public intervention. It is important to stress the fact that that money has been provided to support the roll-out of superfast broadband where the market will not deliver.
The market will deliver to about two thirds of the country, mainly the urban areas. That will be done by BT and Virgin Media in competition with each other, and I am delighted to be able to say that both of those companies are investing many hundreds of millions of pounds in rolling out superfast broadband. Virgin Media has doubled the speeds it offers to consumers to about 100 megabits and BT has advanced the roll-out of its commercial broadband programme by a year.
Everybody knows, however, that some public support is needed to get broadband to some areas, particularly rural areas where the cost of laying fibre exceeds the potential market return. The £530 million sum I mentioned has been supplemented by a £150 million urban broadband fund, as well as a further £150 million for mobile infrastructure projects, and because of the way we have set out the programme, there will be additional money from local councils. There will be between £1 billion and £1.5 billion of public money going into broadband roll-out. That is a very significant amount of public expenditure in infrastructure.
The newspapers are full of talk about stimulation for growth and investment in “shovel-ready projects”. This is a shovel-ready project that will be going ahead in the next weeks and months and over the next two years. It will not only provide jobs, as many people will be employed to lay this fibre, but stimulate the economy by providing a broadband infrastructure.
I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution made by local authorities, which have stepped up to the challenge magnificently both in identifying local funds to match the Government contribution and in leading project procurement and implementation. North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire councils have put together proposals for a joint project, and East Riding of Yorkshire council has developed plans for a project in east Yorkshire. Indeed, we have been able to approve all local broadband plans, with the exception of one, Sandwell, which I hope will be ready for approval in the very near future.
Broadband Delivery UK state aid broadband notification has taken longer to be approved by the European Commission than was anticipated. We had hoped it would be approved earlier in the year, but we believe we are now in the final stage of discussions with the Commission on the detail, and we hope it will be signed off shortly. Once we have that approval, the BDUK team in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be able to give state aid approval for all projects that are compatible with the notification, allowing for a much more rapid turnaround than if the Commission had to deal with each one separately. I recognise that there has been some impact on the project pipeline, but we will work as hard as we can to meet our 2015 deadline for having the best superfast broadband in Europe.
We have used this time to our advantage. We have prepared projects for procurement under the BDUK framework. The framework contract was agreed by DCMS with BT and Fujitsu at the end of June. It allows projects to undertake accelerated procurement with standard terms and conditions. Five projects are already in procurement using the framework, and we have agreed with the bidders that further projects will enter procurement at a rate of about one per week from October onwards. We expect procurement to be complete by next summer. I would like to recognise the willingness shown by the suppliers to accommodate our shared desire to increase the pace of procurement.
I want to say a few words about broadband in north Lincolnshire. There may be concerns about the pipeline of projects, and my hon. Friend mentioned his concern about where his project resides in the list. The situation is straightforward: projects are listed in line with the order in which local broadband plans were approved. Projects that were able to move more quickly at the early stage have therefore appeared earlier in the list. While there may be other ways of defining the list, our experience has been that the order in which the projects come forward does broadly match their readiness to go ahead. However, if projects are not ready when their procurement slot is reached, we will promote another project up the list. I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend therefore to sabotage other broadband projects, but it is important that he be aware that, in effect, the list reflects when projects are ready for procurement; but the list can change, and it is therefore important that he and the project team keep in touch with BDUK.
BDUK is working to progress projects to preparation at the earliest opportunity, and I understand that north Lincolnshire should be entering the BDUK assurance process in early November and will be able to launch its open market review in that month. That will be a significant milestone for the project.
My hon. Friend also mentioned his concern about funding gaps. Again, I do not want to give him or others who have spoken in the debate false hope, but obviously our door is always open to hear concerns and requests. However, we do need clear evidence of a gap in funding before considering a request for further funding. We certainly expect good evidence to be made available of any shortfall, and we will consider a good case if one is put forward. I stress to my hon. Friend, however, that there needs to be clear evidence of a funding gap.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the position of Kingston Communications. The use of suppliers not listed on the framework is a matter for the project teams. We have of course encouraged projects to use the framework because it saves time and procurement process costs. We expect all the remaining procurements to be undertaken using the framework. We recognise that other suppliers, such as Kingston Communications, may have an interest in this programme. However, it must be for the project team, working with BDUK, to decide whether the benefits of opening the procurement more widely would offset the benefits of effectively departing from the framework contract. That is an important point to make.