Communications Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Dr. Howells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that that would focus the mind. As somebody who spent a long time with the DTI, I think that the overriding priority is for the regulator to reach correct and accurate decisions. Nothing is gained by taking a quick decision that is overturned on appeal or that proves ineffective in practice. I saw that happen on several occasions, and it incurred greater delay and more heartache, and several companies suffered badly as a consequence. Getting a right decision on highly complex cases that can often involve dozens of issues and many operators is not an inherently fast process. Detailed analysis of markets, costs and contract conditions is usually required, and many interests need to be consulted and taken into account.

It may help if I explain briefly why, for market analysis, putting the timetable in the Bill could cause operational difficulties for Ofcom. Its ability to carry

Column Number: 144

out this work will depend largely on external factors such as its ability to obtain information. Unless analogous time limits are imposed on stakeholders, Ofcom may well not be able to meet its statutory time limits. Stakeholders will respond to requests for information in very different ways, certainly if the experience of the competition regulators is anything to go by.

Mr. Lansley: That those who are to be the subject of market power determinations might be able to frustrate the conclusion of such determinations seems to be an inherently bad reason to allow promptness standards to be more lax. Those determinations need to be completed quickly in order to restrict the operation of market power.

I turn to whether those who sat on the Joint Committee were a bunch of amateurs. As the Minister knows, before we made this recommendation, we discussed the matter carefully with, among others, Sir Bryan Carsberg, who was a former director general of Oftel and the Office of Fair Trading.

Dr. Howells: I have great respect for Sir Bryan Carsberg. His experience came through in the evidence that he gave to the Joint Committee. However, if the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire had asked Sir Bryan whether everyone responded promptly and in the way in which we would like them to respond when the regulators approached them for information—perhaps he did ask that question—I am sure that Sir Bryan would have told him that the response can often be very tardy. As a former Minister with responsibility for competition, I know that companies will hold out until the last moment, and then come forward with the evidence accompanied by some thinly disguised threats from very heavy lawyers about where they intend to move on those issues.

Nick Harvey: Are not companies likely to respond more quickly if they know that the regulator has to deliver a verdict by a tight deadline, and that the regulator might assume the worst about that company if it does not respond quickly?

Dr. Howells: No, I do not believe that. In a perfect world, that might well be true, but I think that sometimes they would rather cast shadows across the regulator than cough up the information that they have been asked to provide. Therefore, I do not share the view of the stakeholders on that matter.

The amendments raise valid points. We have not set out the standards in the Bill. Instead, we have given that task to Ofcom so that it can reflect on what happens in practice. Subsection (1) places a duty on Ofcom to publish a statement setting out the promptness standards that they expect to meet. Subsection (7) requires it to provide a summary of the extent to which it has complied with the statement in its annual report. I am unsure what amendment No. 59, for example, would add. We have ensured that Ofcom will be publicly accountable for its record. As for requiring Ofcom to review its standards annually, we have built into this clause the capacity for it to revise the statement of promptness standards.

Column Number: 145

I turn briefly to compliance. We come here to the concept, which has been raised before in the Committee, of ''have regard to''. This clause places a duty on Ofcom; it cannot simply ignore its promptness standards. If it fails to have regard to the standards, the way in which it carries out its functions could be the subject of a judicial review. However, a compliance obligation would imperil the proper carrying out of its functions; in particular, enforcement action that took slightly too long would be rendered invalid. It would force all decisions of a similar kind into the same time scale, unless those fell under the exceptional circumstances that are referred to in amendment No. 58, and lead to bigger and more complicated decisions being unduly rushed. I resist the amendments.

Mr. Whittingdale: I am disappointed by the Minister's response. He acknowledged that promptness is important and the Opposition parties feel strongly that that needs to be included in the Bill. He also made various observations on the amendments. Regarding amendment No. 6, I am always slightly fearful that if one specifies maximum time periods, those become the actual time periods. I can understand why the Minister is reluctant to accept that. However, his arguments about compliance are not wholly persuasive.

It would not be going too far to require Ofcom to comply with its promptness standards, and doing so would indicate strongly that the Committee attached considerable importance to that matter. I accept that there might be exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Lansley: On the question of compliance, I can see why the Minister wants to retain the words ''have regard''. He has not, however, answered the Joint Committee's point about whether those who believe that there has been undue delay should be able to go to a court in order to direct Ofcom to reach a decision. It was seen fit to apply that to the OFT, although it was never brought into force. The Government seem to be evading that issue, but it would be desirable if it were included.

Mr. Whittingdale: I do not want to make the Minister's arguments for him, but he referred to the possibility of a judicial review if there were an undue delay. That would be an option, but it seems to be somewhat like the nuclear option. There is a case for strengthening the provision at least, and making an allowance for the possibility of exceptional circumstances. I would be more inclined, for that reason, to press for amendment No. 58, rather than for amendment No. 33. Hon. Members feel strongly about that matter.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 57.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 58, in

clause 8, page 9, line 23, leave out from 'have' to end of line and insert 'due regard to the statement for the time being in force under this section with a view to compliance with the standards contained in it unless exceptional circumstances prevent this'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]

Column Number: 146

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Division No. 3]

AYES
Allan, Mr. Richard Fabricant, Michael Greenway, Mr. John Harvey, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark Lansley, Mr. Andrew Thomas, Mr. Simon Whittingdale, Mr. John

NOES
Bryant, Mr. Chris Coaker, Mr. Vernon Howells, Dr. Kim McGuire, Mrs. Anne Miller, Mr. Andrew
Murphy, Mr. Jim Palmer, Dr. Nick Picking, Anne Robertson, John White, Brian

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Function of promoting media literacy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

3.30 pm

Mr. Whittingdale: No amendments have been tabled on this clause, but it will be worth while to detain the Committee briefly because the clause covers an interesting area—the duty of Ofcom to promote media literacy. We would like to explore that important issue with the Minister. What precisely does he have in mind for Ofcom and how he will bring it about? It is almost undeniable that a great deal of media illiteracy exists. I hope that something similar is not true of this Committee—although one occasionally has a faint suspicion.

Earlier, we discussed amendments relating to the needs of disabled people. We wondered how technology—for example, closed caption subtitling—could help them. It is pretty complicated to access such technology and we must help people to understand how to do so. Some elderly people may not have a great grasp of the most recent technological developments.

Later, when we discuss content, I suspect that we will discuss whether material is offensive or distasteful, and how best we can prevent children from accessing such material. Technology exists for that. I use parental locks—I strongly recommend others to use them—on, for example, set top decoders. PINs are also effective in ensuring that children cannot access material that may be suitable for adults but unsuitable for very young people. However, if we are to allow choice and not censor material that is suitable for adults, we must ensure that parents understand how best to take advantage of technology to use locks or other devices. There is a genuine need to increase understanding of the capabilities of technology in the area of media literacy.

I do not oppose clause 10 in any way, but I would be interested to know how the Minister sees Ofcom going about its function. Will a specific area of its budget be reserved for this purpose? How will Ofcom

Column Number: 147

achieve these objectives, which I think we would all support?

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) rose—

Brian White: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

When we discussed the general duties of Ofcom on Tuesday, I said that, due to my incompetence, I had not tabled an amendment to promote community media as a general duty. However, Ofcom will have a duty to promote media literacy, which will relate not only to existing media forms but to new forms as they appear. Community media is one of the most exciting new forms and I feel that Ofcom has a duty to promote it. I hope that one thing to come out of this debate will be a recognition by Ofcom's board that it has a key role in that. Clause 10 will be vital.

Community media covers not only radio but television. A number of pilot schemes exist up and down the country. Ofcom must have a role in presenting a range of options; it should not interpret this clause narrowly. In the White Paper, there is much about the need for people to be literate in new forms of media such as the internet. However, there are other new technologies and community media is the current one. Others will come along later and Ofcom will have a key role in their development, especially in the early stages.

 

---

Prepared 12 December 2002