Clause 3 - General duties of Ofcom
Communications Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
Again, I am losing the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that he is simply making semantic distinctions. The interests of citizens can be wider than those of consumers. I am trying to say that that wider interest should be recognised in the Bill, and my amendment endeavours so to do. I remain completely lost as to the argument of the two Conservative Members.
I come to amendment No. 153, which stands in my name. It relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East about the duty that Ofcom will have regarding better regulation. At the moment, Ofcom is to ''have regard . . . to'' a list of factors that
''appear to them to be relevant''.
That includes the principles of good regulation: transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and targeting—they were laid down by the Government's Better Regulation Task Force. However, that gives the principles too little prominence. The Bill rightly gives Ofcom considerable discretion in many areas. However, that is why it is essential that Ofcom should embrace, adopt and fulfil the principles of the Better Regulation Task Force as it uses its discretion over a wide front. Ofcom should be required to comply with the principles rather than simply having general regard for them.
Either the Government believe in and support their Better Regulation Task Force or they do not. The previous chair, and the current chair, of the body have given up time to do their work and they set about it with considerable vigour. I know that the Government suggested that when considering such matters as national security it would be impossible to adhere to the Better Regulation Task Force principles. If so, fair enough. Ofcom should be required to comply with the principles except for specific reasons such as national security. That could be spelled out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 152 is the only amendment in the group that specifically addresses access, which is a very important issue for many consumers. It is a glaring omission that that is not specifically and explicitly recognised in the general duties under clause 3. The clause makes no mention of the regulator working toward equal access to communications services for groups such as disabled people or older people. Given the number of people involved and the current extent of exclusion, that is a great omission. Disabled people, older people and people on low incomes often do not enjoy acceptable access to basic communications services. For example, some 2 million blind and partially sighted people face exclusion from digital television and radio because screen-based technologies fail to build in the ability to manipulate text or to get speech output in order to produce information. People with dexterity problems cannot manipulate remote controls or mobile phones with ease. Deaf-blind people have great difficulty in accessing basic telecommunication services and they require expensive equipment. Users of hearing aids have difficulty using digital mobile and cordless phones because they interfere with many hearing aids. A reference in the Bill to Ofcom having regard to disabled people's needs is meaningless unless those needs are defined. Adding a reference to the goal of equal or equivalent access for disabled people would strengthen the clause. The amendment, which mentions access explicitly, would allow that to happen.