Clause 15 - Consumer consultation
Communications Bill
Public Bill Committees, 12 December 2002, 4:45 pm
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 39, in
clause 15, page 15, line 31, leave out from 'and' to end of line 32 and insert 'consumers and small business consumers in relation to such of the following matters as are relevant to either of those classes of consumers—'.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 179, in
clause 15, page 15, line 32, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 27 on page 16 and insert 'any aspect of OFCOM's duties and the operational effectiveness of OFCOM in respect of delivering those duties to further the interests of consumers and citizens.'.
Amendment No. 198, in
clause 15, page 15, line 41, leave out 'financial and other'.
Amendment No. 40, in
clause 15, page 15, line 41, leave out 'such services or facilities' and insert 'the services or facilities mentioned in subsection (4)'.
Amendment No. 41, in
clause 15, page 16, line 20, leave out 'or of an electronic programme guide'.
Amendment No. 42, in
clause 15, page 16, line 31, at end insert 'nor the terms on which any such content is supplied'.
Amendment No. 180, in
clause 15, page 17, line 8, leave out subsection (9).
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
As you will not wish to have a clause stand part debate, Mr. Gale, I would like to make some general comments on this clause dealing with consumer consultation and the consumer panel.
The clause follows on, to some extent, from clause 13 and we find that its remit is considerably wider that it might appear, as the definition of a consumer includes small business customers. We are somewhat concerned about services and facilities that are referred to in clause 15(1)(a). The Minister talked about giving Ofcom a broad remit, but will he provide some examples of what exactly those services and facilities would comprise? Does he think that they are limited?
On amendment No. 39, we think that consumer panel advice should be required only in appropriate cases. The clause requires the consumer panel to provide advice regarding the provision of certain services to domestic customers, but the nature of the service means that it would not be provided at that level. Under the Bill, the consumer panel would give advice regarding the interests of domestic and small business consumers on various matters that could not always apply to domestic consumers. For example, it is difficult to see how an electronic communications network could be provided to a domestic consumer, as is stated in 15(3)(a), line 33. We need clarification on whether the provisions are intended to apply only to business users. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill about what services can be provided to domestic consumers. For example, in the context of digital television, it is clear that associated facilities are not provided at retail level to domestic consumers.
Amendment No. 41 relates to electronic programme guides, which are regulated at the wholesale level. An EPG service is provided to a broadcaster that wishes to list its channel, not to domestic consumers. It is hard to understand how an EPG could be provided to domestic users as a service under the Bill, other than as a broadcast service falling under part 3. In that case, it is a contents service and ought to be excluded from the ambit of the consumer panel by virtue of subsection (5). We ask, therefore, for references to EPGs in paragraph (4)(d) to be deleted.
On amendment no. 42, we are concerned that the panel's remit is wider than was intended and that it may encompass the pricing and packaging of pay TV services that is delivered through satellite and digital terrestrial television, but would exclude those that are provided by cable. It appears that in subsection (4) the consumer panel would cover the retail provision of pay TV services—services provided over an electronic communications network—in terms of a contract between the provider and the consumer. That would, however, exclude the provision of free-to-air services. It is understood by the ITC and Oftel that there is no intention to regulate the retail pricing and packaging
of satellite and DTT pay TV services under part 2 or part 3 of the Bill. That would be similar to the retailing of pay TV services by cable operators, which is not regulated.
The provision of content by a broadcaster is excluded from the scope of the consumer panel by subsection (5), neither would the provision of a broadcast signal to domestic customers fall into the ambit of the consumer panel, since that is not an electronic communications service. I understand that both the ITC and Oftel have confirmed that.
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
No, but it is specifically excluded.
Subsection (5) currently removes matters of content from the panel's ambit, but not the retail terms—pricing and packaging—through which such content may be provided. That subsection should be amended to exclude the regulation of retail terms for pay TV from the panel's ambit.
Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)
I speak to amendments Nos. 179 and 180. I freely confess that they are probing amendments, and I want to hear the Minister's reply to them.
I start from the central premise that the consumer panel is excluded from dealing with content. I accept that as part of the Bill's infrastructure, but it therefore strikes me as strange that clause 15 sets out in such great detail what the consumer panel is supposed to look at. If the consumer panel is to do its job properly in the name of consumers, then surely apart from content, it should be able to roam across the range of issues that affect consumers under the aegis of Ofcom.
I have therefore suggested that rather than set out in detail things that could be done in memorandums of understanding between Ofcom and the consumer panel, it would be better to refer back to the overarching aim of Ofcom, set out in clause 3, and simply seek to deliver
''those duties to further the interest of consumers'',
as the central remit of the consumer panel. Of course, content is excluded. That would be a much neater and more functional way of achieving the aim and would allow Ofcom and the consumer panel to come to a much better memorandum of understanding. Setting out great detail in the Bill seems to me to be destroying the consumer panel before it has started.
With amendment No. 180, I am concerned that the provision to allow Ofcom to deliver information to the consumer panel and
''provide the Panel with all such further information as the Panel may require''
contains a huge caveat: that Ofcom can reasonably refuse to disclose to the panel any other matters that it thinks are relevant. That huge caveat allows Ofcom to withhold anything from the consumer panel simply because it does not want to give it. I am not saying that Ofcom would want to do that, but I should like to hear
the Minister explain how it will work in practice, and why such a wide-ranging power to withhold information from the consumer panel is here given to Ofcom.
Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)
I was going to respond to the hon. Member for Blaby but, for the sake of brevity, I shall not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has pointed out one or two of the inconsistencies there.
The consumer panel will be giving various types of advice. I maintain that Ofcom's key role will be its economic regulator function—looking at issues to do with such things as RPI minus X, which are complex and require detailed knowledge and a skills set within Ofcom. I am concerned that if the consumer panel advises on those issues, it will have to have access to resources of an equal skill value, so will be in danger of becoming a shadow economic regulator. I am sure that that is not what the Minister wants. This is a probing amendment, looking for clarification that the consumer panel's whole point is not to become a shadow economic regulator, second-guessing what Ofcom is doing. Its advice under clause 15 should not undermine the board's activities and consumers should not be able to go to it to get a second opinion.
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I have only a couple of brief questions, on the scope of the clause, because I want to leave the Minister time to reply.
The clause mentions
''consumers in the markets for apparatus''
relating to services regulated by Ofcom. Will that be extended to people using apparatus to connect to the internet? We have moved on from the content debate but, clearly, Ofcom, in absorbing Oftel's functions, has regulatory functions relating to internet provision, so one possible reading of that paragraph would be that that gave it such a function.
My second point is on the interpretation of
''directories capable of being used in connection with the use of an electronic communications network''.
Again, does that relate to internet directory services? That is increasingly important because, certainly for the younger generation, if something is not on Google, it does not exist. Internet directories are a real issue to be raised here and looking at the consumers of internet directory services would be a major departure.
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I shall try to deal briefly with each amendment.
In amendment No. 41, the hon. Member for Blaby seems to seek to remove electronic programme guides from the panel's remit. EPGs are the tool used for gaining access to and information about programmes in the multichannel digital environment. They are something new with which people moving to digital will have to cope. For some consumers, the change will be difficult to make. Such a vital tool is of major importance to consumers, and it is right that the panel will be able to consider them. EPGs are content services, but as they are the facility through which viewers will access the digital content on their TVs, there are fundamental issues about access and choice—an important factor to bear in mind. The hon. Member for Blaby will correct me if I
misunderstood his question, but I believe that he asked me what services and facilities were covered by clause 15(1)(1).
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
Ofcom regulates all these services and facilities. In particular, it regulates electronic communications services, as defined in clause 28, and facilities associated with networks and services, also as defined in clause 28. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will debate that on Tuesday morning.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion, in amendment No. 179, returned to a subject that he addressed, I believe, on Tuesday, when he talked about giving the consumer panel more teeth. The amendment would create the consumer panel as a sort of watchdog for Ofcom. As I said, this is not the role that we want to create for the panel, the purpose of which is to be the independent voice of consumers for Ofcom.
As I said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East put it in his question—he tempts me to use the phrase that I used previously—it should be a critical friend to Ofcom. It will work closely with Ofcom and give it expert advice. To do that effectively, the panel must have a clear and focused remit. For that reason, we have ring-fenced the panel's work so that it is concentrated on areas of real concern to consumers. Issues of wider public interest, such as pluralism, freedom of speech, offence and social harm are hugely important, but we would be doing consumers and citizens a disservice if we lumped all those issues together and appointed one panel to deal with them all.
In amendment No. 198, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East seeks to remove the reference to ''financial and other terms''. However, that would make no difference to the panel's ability to consider price and other financial terms, such as hire purchase agreements, that will affect consumers. Some operators expressed the concern that the panel should not give advice on whether prices are fair. It would make no sense for the panel to be drawn into any exhaustive analysis of the relationship to costs or rates of return, which would require substantial economic expertise. In so far as that analysis is required under the regulatory regime, it will be for Ofcom to seek such advice elsewhere. In many instances, it will be a task for the Director General of Fair Trading.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked whether the apparatus extends to internet apparatus. The answer is; only to the extent that the apparatus is used as a means of connecting to the network that carries the internet to consumers. I hope that that makes the matter clear.
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.