Superfast Broadband

Debate between Stephen Timms and Richard Drax

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing and opening the debate. The question I want to address is why, as we are hearing from the debate across the Chamber, this roll-out is proving so disappointing. [Interruption.] The Minister says it is not, but one simply has to listen to the contributions made from Members from rural and urban areas to realise that there is deep disappointment about what is happening.

I think that the essential problem—the Minister knows my view—is that Ministers have lost sight of the lesson that competition needs to be at the heart of telecommunications policy. We have heard lip service paid to competition since 2010, but have seen no serious attempt to drive forward competition in telecommunications —and now we are paying the price, as seen in the complaints aired in this debate.

Earlier this month, there was a very interesting leading article in The Financial Times, pointing to the willingness of the Conservative party

“to cosy up to corporate champions and established business interests.”

It continued by saying—Conservative Members should listen—that the Conservatives’

“penchant for protecting corporate interests is not healthy. With productivity still the UK’s biggest economic challenge, their instinct should be to promote competition. Politicians of the Thatcher generation must be astonished that the lesson still needs to be learnt.”

I think The Financial Times is absolutely right.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear an Opposition Member talking about competition. If the right hon. Gentleman’s new leader has anything to do with it, there will be no competition—there will just be the state.

[Stephen Timms]

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the many examples of the effectiveness of competition in telecommunications policy—perhaps most strikingly in the design of the 3G spectrum auction in 2000. That auction was structured to make absolutely sure that there was a new entrant, and one of the licences was taken up by a company that had not previously been in the market. I think we would all agree that over the last 12 years that new entrant has had a dramatic impact on reducing prices, improving quality, extending coverage and promoting innovation. There is no shortage of examples of the beneficial impacts of competition.

As I said in my intervention, it remains astonishing to me—I raised the issue with Ministers at the time—that no effort was made to ensure that there was at least some diversity of provision in the publicly funded roll-out of superfast broadband. Instead, all the money has gone to BT. The consequence today is that BT has Ministers over a barrel. Ministers have no levers whatever to address the problems we are hearing about from Members of all parties—and they are getting progressively worse—relating to our disappointing position on superfast broadband roll-out.

I make no criticism of BT, which has simply done what any effective company would do when presented with a gift horse—it has accepted it. It is now recognised that BT was overpaid for the infrastructure it provided, so it has to start paying back some of the handout it received. Usage of the infrastructure has been a good deal higher than predicted, so BT is paying back some of the windfall it has enjoyed, but I believe only half of it. As with the 3G spectrum auction, this exercise should have been structured to make sure that there was at least some diversity of provision. Other companies bid; BT beats all of them every time. We therefore have nobody else with which to compare BT’s performance, no alternative approaches to consider and no levers at all through which the Minister could try to promote better services in the future.

In a few minutes, the Minister will do his duty and assure us that everything is fine with the roll-out of superfast broadband, but the reality, as this debate is making clear, is otherwise. What Ministers need to do even at this very late stage is to relearn the lessons embraced by their Conservative predecessors and to find ways to inject some competition into this market—a market that, as we are rightly being reminded, is very important for the productivity and prosperity of Britain.

Universal Credit

Debate between Stephen Timms and Richard Drax

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. From what I have heard, there appears to be a general consensus, with which I agree, that there is room for the universal credit system. Its aims are laudable; our welfare bill is too big and we have to tackle this problem. I think all Members across the House will agree that this bill cannot continue to grow. It is simply unsustainable. My view, which I am sure many share, is that for too long the poor and vulnerable have been trapped in a welfare mire. How often have we heard our constituents say, “There is no point working a bit longer because if I do that I will lose my benefits”? So clearly we have to examine the system and make it fairer, encouraging those in this trap to put in the extra hours as that will be beneficial for them.

I support the universal credit in principle; it will reward effort and will be responsive to changes in circumstances—if it works. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have highlighted the word “if”, and I hope that my adding to the ifs will not be to the Minister’s chagrin. I have listened at great length to Mr Kevin Hodder, the chief executive of the East Boro Housing Trust; we debated this for a couple of hours. He has been in this business for many years and has shared with me, for some time now, his extensive knowledge and understanding of the benefits system. He has done so for my benefit, so that I can understand my constituents’ concerns. One or two of them—I suspect there will be many more—have come to me with their worries about the introduction of this new system.

The first risk, which has already been highlighted, is the reliance on one computer system. There are 8 million or 8.5 million claimants—we have heard the latter figure cited—so if the system goes wrong, the risks are obvious. There is no room for error or delay because we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society, and if the money does not arrive on the day they expect it, they will face serious problems. As far as I know, no Government national computer system has worked; I remind Members of the armed forces payments system, the NHS single patient record system, the tax credit errors and the collapse of the Child Support Agency—all of us get many constituents complaining about that. The problems were, in the main, the result of computer glitches. The risk of relying on one gigantic system is that failure would be catastrophic. Mr Hodder’s wise suggestion is that universal credit software could be circulated to the local authority housing benefit departments so that consistent rules are applied.

[Stephen Timms]

I am listening with great interest to the important argument the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the situation is rather worse than he says, because this involves not one great big computer system but two? The parallel real-time information, pay-as-you-earn system in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also involved, and the two systems have to interlock perfectly for universal credit to work.

[Richard Drax]

I agree with the shadow Minister. When I was a soldier, the great cry was, “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” I am a little concerned that, on this policy, the worst has perhaps not been prepared for. Will the Minister, when he sums up, reassure us that there is a system in place that will cope?

In dealing with the inevitable snags, community care grants and crisis loans could be administered by the local departments if this computer system were rolled out to them. The local housing benefit departments in my constituency are already running down their offices, yet their local knowledge could be invaluable in administering universal credit. In the world of IT and computers, how often have our constituents rung a telephone number and got a disembodied voice saying, “If you want flowers, press 1. If you want somebody else, press 2. If you want to go to heaven, press 3. And if you don’t want to bother us at all, press 4.”? At that stage the person wishes they had slammed the phone down and they give up the will to live. Although I welcome IT—I am not a luddite in that sense—I am a great believer in the human touch. Nothing beats eye-to-eye contact with constituents, including, as in this case, the many who need help. If people lose that contact with human beings—leaving aside the distress that will be caused if the computer system goes down—there will be an awful lot of concern, particularly among the elderly, many of whom do not understand the system in any case.