Office of Communications Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
May I say what a pleasure it is to be chaired by you, Mr. Stevenson? I
feel that we are a little Staffordshire coterie here in the Committee.
I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I suspect that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary because the schedule already states that there will be sufficient sums as the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
may think fit for the purpose of enabling OFCOM to incur or meet liabilities in respect of capital and revenue expenditure.
I think it right, however, that my hon. Friend has tabled the amendment. As she has pointed out, some of the organisations that will be incorporated into Ofcom are not necessarily happy ships, if ships' happiness is measured by staff turnover.
I am not sure what the situation is in Oftel. It certainly contrasts with the Radio Authority, which is a very tight ship on which staff serve for many years. David Vick, its deputy chief executive, came from the radio division of the old Independent Broadcasting Authority; he has been there for the Radio Authority's whole life, as has Tony Stoller, its chief executive.
As the schedule stands, the Secretary of State and the Treasury will be tempted to make provision only for the bare minimum of services that Ofcom will provide, especially as the paving Bill deals only with the shell organisation of Ofcom. Shell or not, Ofcom will have important functions to perform, especially in liaison with the organisations that it will eventually absorb if the main communications Bill is enacted. Continuity is therefore needed. That can be maintained only if there is longevity of staff. If only the bare minimum is maintained in the operation of the shell organisation, there may be a lack of continuity through staff leaving. That would be a shame.
The amendment points out that money must be available for Ofcom not only
to fulfil its statutory functions,
which is to some extent included in the Bill, but
to employ sufficient staff for that purpose.
One might ask whether high staff turnover in Oftel has been caused by its having insufficient staff and people feeling that they are overworked, abused and not appreciated as much as they should be. We Members of Parliament should all understand that: we too are overworked and not appreciated as much as we should be.
I hope that the Committee will support the amendment and that the Minister will not fall back on his little piece of paper from his officials and say simply that the amendment is redundant because its purpose is already covered in the schedule.