| Communications Bill
|
|
The Chairman: Before we move on, I am of a mind that the amendments will permit a sufficiently wide debate on the clause for there to be no need for a stand part debate. Mr. Lansley: I rise to support my hon. Friend, happily. [Interruption.] Given those interruptions, I should explain that I rose to support him last time and the Minister agreed, so we may go the same way. In addition, I wish to speak to amendment No. 6 in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Devon. To avoid any confusion, on this occasion, as on others, I speak directly to recommendations from the Joint Committee on which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) and for East Lothian (Anne Picking) served. I remind the Committee of the four recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the subject of promptness standards. First, it recommended that the specification of time limits be included in the Bill, which the Government declined to do; secondly,
The Government have changed the draft so that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene to set promptness standards. There are no amendments to change that and, in practice, it ought to be sufficient, so I will not dwell on the matter. Thirdly, the Joint Committee recommended that
In substance, that is the thrust of amendment No. 59, and I happily subscribe to that intention. Fourthly, it recommended that
Column Number: 141 That recommendation is analogous to a similar provision in the Competition Act 1998 which the Government have not seen fit to enact thus far—unless the Minister tells me otherwise. In their response to the Joint Committee's recommendations, the Government stated that if Ofcom sets promptness standards and fails to meet them, it
its ''statutory duty.'' I do not doubt that that is true, but it does not answer the Joint Committee's question. If Ofcom were in breach of its statutory duties to publish and meet promptness standards under clause 8, would anyone who felt aggrieved in relation to Ofcom's failure to act be able to go to court to secure a direction for Ofcom to act? Is that possible? If the answer is no, the Joint Committee's objective has not been met and there is scope for a beneficial amendment. The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to insert specific deadlines. In recognition of the Government's objective, which is to retain flexibility for Ofcom when possible, I have circumscribed where the Joint Committee recommended the setting of timetables. In the amendment, we focused on two specifics: the undertaking of
which we will come to later; and
the periodic market review. Whereas the Joint Committee recommended a four-month standard in relation to the setting of market power determinations, I have included a six-month standard, just to make sure that the flexibility is not too constrained and that the reasonableness of the amendment can hardly be contested. A market review should be less complex than an initial market power determination, so I have reverted to the four-month standard proposed by the Joint Committee. The idea that Ofcom must have complete freedom and flexibility is somewhat contradicted by the structure of legislation in relation to market power-type decisions. In many respects, the European Commission gives itself deadlines for completion of reviews of that kind. Article 20 of the framework directive seeks from national regulatory authorities a four-month deadline for resolving disputes. We shall discuss disputes and appeals later. Disputes in relation to market power determinations of that kind, or between undertakings are relatively complex. If those reviews can be completed within four months, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that Ofcom should be able to complete them in that time too. There is a powerful industry reason for setting a standard in relation to market power determinations. One of Ofcom's most important tasks will be to conduct market power determinations to establish where there is significant market power, so that it can have the power to set conditions. The longer Ofcom does not complete market power determinations, the longer significant market power goes relatively unconstrained, other than by pre-existing licence Column Number: 142 conditions. It is important that Ofcom gets on with the job.The Minister might say that Ofcom will set challenging promptness standards for itself. That may be true, but let us remind ourselves that Mr. David Edmonds, the director general of Oftel, was asked when giving evidence to the Joint Committee whether the provisions of clause 6 of the draft Bill, which is analogous to clause 8 of the Bill, would affect his work at Oftel. He replied:
I shall not get into a long discussion about whether the customers of Oftel think that it makes decisions in a sufficiently timely manner, and whether the targets that are placed upon it are sufficiently challenging. My conclusion is that it is not the case in all circumstances. If Mr. Edmonds, who is to be a member of Ofcom, thinks that the standards are sufficiently challenging, it is probably time that we put something into the Bill that sorted out the targets from the outset. I recommend amendment No. 6 for that purpose. Nick Harvey (North Devon): This is an important group of amendments, and tabled together they offer a variety of ways of approaching the issue of promptness. During the deliberations of the Joint Committee, witnesses came forward time and again with the recurring complaint that existing regulators have been far too slow in dealing with cases that have been put before them. Those complaints were certainly in no small part directed at Oftel, but were not unique to Oftel. They also related to some of the broadcasting regulators, and indeed to the Office of Fair Trading, to which the sector had found itself referring things. Clause 8 is a welcome acknowledgement of the need for promptness standards, but as currently drafted, it frankly lacks teeth. The exchange with Mr. Edmonds to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred demonstrates that only too clearly. It is important that there be measurement of whether Ofcom is meeting its promptness standards from time to time. It is also important that the standards be rigorous. Ofcom will expect promptness from the various industries that it regulates when they respond to its inquiries. It is only reasonable to expect similar promptness from Ofcom, which is very important. The amendments would tighten requirements for Ofcom to comply with its own promptness standards without imposing an impractical obligation on it. What is good for the industry should be good for Ofcom as well. That is especially important for fast-moving industries such as telecommunications and the internet. Businesses in those industries refer complaints to Oftel at present. The complaints often relate to fundamental issues to their business such as the bundling together of packages of services where anti-competitive behaviour is alleged, or single billing where other telecoms providers are using BT lines. An aggrieved telecommunications operator could go out of business if Ofcom—or Oftel, at present—took too long to deliberate and to reach conclusions. Column Number: 143 I look forward to hearing from the Minister. A menu of different ways to approach the issue is before him. I hope that we will hear that at least some of the amendments are acceptable because the issue is fundamental to Ofcom's ability to be an effective regulator of the industries.
3.15 pmDr. Howells: As a former Department of Trade and Industry Minister, it was often extremely embarrassing and frustrating to wait for findings and decisions to come. That is especially true of findings from one of the offices that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned—I certainly will not repeat its name here. The cases could go on for a long time. I do not want to contradict myself but I started to understand why they took such a long time, and I shall comment on that in a moment. Ofcom's stakeholders and, especially, the industry need a degree of certainty about the time scales under which Ofcom will carry out its functions and any business connected with them. That is already set out in parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire gave us the example of clause 183(5), which sets a four-month timetable for making a dispute determination, as required by article 20 of the framework directive. Amendment No. 6 would set out a timetable for market power determinations. We believe that it is inappropriate to put that requirement in the Bill. As a matter of policy, we believe that setting promptness standards is an operational matter that Ofcom will understand far better than the Government or, indeed, hon. Members. It will be able to set its standards with an understanding of its resources, the urgency of each matter and the impact of not acting in a timely manner. Brian White: A danger of allowing Ofcom to set its targets is the fact that that would reflect its resources. Pressure would not be put on Ofcom to get its resources right because it would not have to adhere to an external deadline. Introducing an external deadline would concentrate Ofcom's mind, which was what the Joint Committee was getting at.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 12 December 2002 |
