Draft Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2006 |
|
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I welcome your wise chairmanship this morning, Mr. Forth. The arguments have been well discussed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), so I shall be brief. Silent calls are definitely a plague. The amount of distress that they cause varies from annoyance to fear, especially for elderly constituents. I am sure that most hon. Members present will have been approached by constituents who have been greatly disturbed by such calls. The figures that I have received from BT show that it received 160,000 complaints about silent calls in one month last year, so the problem is severe. The problem has occurred under the auspices of Ofcom, which has traditionally adopted a fairly light-touch approach to the regulation of telecoms and broadcasting. As has been said, there has not been a single prosecution under the legislation. There are many examples of Ofcom trying to get companies to see reason and issuing warnings, and of those companies giving written undertakings to comply, but as the hon. Member for Wealden said, unless we have the information about exactly where the complaints come from, we are not— Alun Michael: The hon. Lady is approaching this from the wrong end of the telescope. If there are complaints and Ofcom undertakes an investigation, it is then able to require the company to provide information. It will then have raw information about the calls that the company is making and be able to see whether it is generating a lot of silent calls. It is not a matter of how many people phone in to complain; it is about the companies against which complaints have been made being monitored in that way and showing compliance. Prosecution kicks in where there is non-compliance. The situation is quite explicable if that is considered. Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I move on to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I am sure that all members of the Committee have been contacted by Mr. David Hickson. The problem of silence is a great one; like other hon. Members, I was greatly heartened to hear about the new regulations. A pre-recorded message requiring companies to state who they are and why they are calling will make an enormous difference and will do more to make companies clean up their act than any other requirement, including the size of the fine. We have no problem with the fine amount being raised, but Ofcom must show its teeth and conduct some prosecutions; otherwise it will make itself and the Government a laughing stock. Column Number: 13 Unless we see some prosecutions—I am sure that the Minister will use his best offices to ensure that Ofcom tries to sharpen its act a little in this respect—Ofcom will be seen as bluffing. The size of the fine will have no bearing on compliance unless there is certainty of getting caught. As in any form of misbehaviour, that is by far the most important factor in persuading an organisation or an individual to comply with any requirements. 11.6 pmMr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Forth. I see in today’s paper that there is speculation about a future Speaker. I can see a future Speaker being groomed, which would probably help some private Members’ Bills get through. I am always reluctant to attend these Committee meetings and I have never spoken at one before. I rise to support the comments made by Opposition Members: I cannot understand why the fine is being increased to such a hefty amount. One could see the reason for that if there was a complaint and Ofcom had used the existing fine of £5,000 and found that the bad behaviour continued nevertheless. But the Minister told us that it is continuing and perhaps even growing, so perhaps the Committee should be asked not to increase the fine but to fine Ofcom. What on earth is it doing? The bad behaviour is going on and it is able to fine, yet it has not used its power. I am sad that the Opposition want to have their cake and to eat it in Committee today. They put that argument which is the most logical and sensible point to put to the Minister and to Ofcom, but then they have no argument with the fine going up. I have an argument with that. When and where will Ofcom give evidence to the Committee that the fine needs to increase tenfold? That raises another question. When a fine is increased to £50,000 it is a small amount to a big firm, but I can see Ofcom not wanting to fine a small firm because £50,000 would be such an extreme amount for it to pay. Lorely Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point very strongly. The hon. Member for Wealden talked about the telephone preference service and how his party and others rang up individuals. The prospect of a £5,000 fine to a local party that was found to be guilty of contravening telephone preference service guidelines was more than enough to put off our party from contacting anyone who was registered with the telephone preference service, although I understand it did not put off other parties. Mr. Mudie: The hon. Lady makes a serious point. I would like the Minister to answer one question. I raise the matter for one serious and one not so serious reason. The less serious point is that I hope that the Whips notice my behaviour in here, which may get me excused future attendance at these Committees. The more serious point is that the Opposition’s arguments are valid. The hon. Lady said that Ofcom regulated with a light touch, but one is tempted to think that it
11.10 amAlun Michael: I have had a word with my colleague the Whip. Although discussions through the usual channels are not normally exposed in Committee, I can reveal, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), that the Whip has acceded to my request for him to be on every Committee that I serve on from now on. It is quite clear that his contributions, teasing things out assiduously as he has done today, will be of great value to us in future Committee sittings. The £50,000 fine is intended as a maximum fine. Ofcom must be proportionate when applying its powers to fine, and has assured me that it will be, but that proportionality goes in two directions. One is having a light touch if that is appropriate: for instance, for small offences, single offences or things done by mistake or for which there is a reason. The other is being able to apply the fine in multiples if necessary if the rules are disregarded: a fine will then be imposed per event rather than per service. That proportionality is the answer to my question to Ofcom when I went back and asked why the fine would increase tenfold. Should it not be £100,000 or £200,000? The answer is that should outrageous misuse occur leading to silent calls, Ofcom will have very onerous powers, although of course it will have to be proportionate in how it uses them. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that the £5,000 level of fine that we have at the moment was intended to be a maximum fine for the most serious events: for instance, a neighbour harassing another neighbour or one person in a broken relationship harassing the other. It was intended for that sort of personal occasion. That was the sort of example that was thought of when the £5,000 level was set—pranksters and nuisance callers of a variety of sorts. Ofcom took the view that a higher penalty appropriate to corporate activity is needed now. Clare Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way? Alun Michael: Let me make one point, and then I shall certainly give way. It is important to recognise that behind the regulations dealing with the level of fine are the requirements that Ofcom has put in place. I accept entirely that as you have advised us, Mr. Forth, we should not look at all the legislation that applies and that operators must obey. That would go beyond today’s debate. In order to enforce Ofcom’s additional requirements and to make it clear that Parliament and Committee members from all parties take its requirements and powers seriously, we are giving Ofcom the increased penalty. We need to put forward the message, “We expect you to use your powers to eradicate the nuisance of silent calls.” Column Number: 15 The test will not be how many fines are levied but whether we have succeeded in changing the behaviour of those who operate the machinery that causes silent calls. I am sure that all hon. Members would say, “We want to see the behaviour change. We don’t want to see a tax-gathering activity take place; we want people to stop it.” With that in mind, we are putting in place the increased penalty to back up the measures that Ofcom is taking. Clare Short: That is the point that I wanted to make. All parties in the Committee are sending a message to Ofcom. We are fed up that firmer action has not been taken. The increased fine is okay if it will be used to implement the code and to take firmer action. Parliament is watching what Ofcom is doing, and is not satisfied with the record to date. Alun Michael: I think I can fairly say that I predicted that that message would come from the Committee today. Ofcom accepts and understands it. That is why, in parallel to our seeking the increase in penalty, it has gone through the process of consultation in order to put in place requirements on companies, which, I remind the Committee, mean the following: a pre-recorded message is to be provided for all abandoned calls, which is the very measure that members of this Committee have said should be introduced; calling line identification is to be provided for all calls made, so that the recipient is able to get the caller’s number—their identity; the redialling of numbers subject to an abandoned call will not be allowed for at least 72 hours, unless a dedicated agent is available for the call; and abandoned call rates will have to be kept below 3 per cent. of the total calls for any 24-hour period. I am assured by Ofcom that now that those requirements are in place, and presuming that we agree today that the new level of fine will be available from 6 April, its intention during the remaining part of this year will be to undertake investigations appropriate to the level of complaints that are made. I hear what my hon. Friends and Opposition Members are saying, and Ofcom will read their words, which are not unexpected. As I have indicated, in its accountability to Parliament rather than to Ministers, Ofcom is determined, as we are, to pursue these issues. Mr. Mudie: Will my right hon. Friend give way? Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend in his bid for further Committee membership. Mr. Mudie: Despite these threats, I shall continue. I simply want to ask whether Ofcom has given the Minister an explanation about why it has not fined anyone. Alun Michael: Yes, it has. Ofcom had undertaken the two sets of investigations to which I referred earlier. All of us can admit that people were slow to realise what was happening as this type of industry developed. Those investigations led to requirements being put on companies, which they observed. As I
There are requirements on Ofcom. If it receives complaints and identifies a company, it must go through the legal process set out in the 2003 Act before it can impose a penalty. It has undertaken enforcement action, but has not needed to impose a penalty to stop the nuisance because the companies concerned have, so far, complied with the notifications and the consumer harm has ceased without the need for further Ofcom intervention. The requirements to which I referred earlier, which include calling line identification, mean that from now on the nature of the complaint being made will be much clearer. Therefore, the whole of the system is being cleaned up and made appropriate to the requirements. Mr. Mudie: Will the Minister give way? Alun Michael: Of course I give way to my hon. Friend. Mr. Mudie: It does not matter now. Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole). Chris Mole: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that perhaps the appropriate parallel to reassure members of the Committee is the efforts that were made to address what were known as internet diallers? They were the plague of two or so years ago. The regulatory and enforcement framework has effectively put a stop to that type of nuisance appearing on the computers of our constituents. Alun Michael: Absolutely. What we are about here is the electronic equivalent of antisocial behaviour orders: stopping the behaviour and ensuring that the nuisance does not persist, rather than being concerned purely about prosecutions and the number of fines being paid. I understand the concern of hon. Members about the penalty not having been used, because I expressed it myself. I asked Ofcom the questions and was satisfied with the answer that I received, which I have given to hon. Members. It said that having got to the stage of the process that is required under the legislation, the companies complied. Given the requirements that Ofcom has introduced, it will be easier to identify any nuisance calls and who is making them. Therefore, enforcement will be quicker. Behind that enforcement will be the higher penalties that I trust the Committee will agree to today. It will be a great encouragement to Ofcom to know that this House is behind it in saying that we want the powers and the penalties to be used if appropriate. I have made the point that silent calls are not regulated by the Information Commissioner, who looks after the privacy regulations and does not regulate on communications matters. I am not surprised that the situation is slightly confusing because there has been a whole sequence of events
I hope that I have explained adequately to the Committee that there is a determination to make use of the increased penalty should it be necessary—in the event that companies do not comply. The hope is that the new regulations that Ofcom has put in place, the careful monitoring of them and the investigation work that it will undertake during the remaining months of this year will together mean an end to the pernicious,
Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 31 March 2006 |