Clause 6 - Duties to review regulatory burdens
Communications Bill
2:30 pm
Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)
I was about to try to answer the question put by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). He asked whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 posed an obstacle to amendment No. 4. It does not pose an obstacle because the amendment deals with clause 6, which is about self-regulation, and that is not the same as contracting out in the terms of that Act. Ofcom will be able to contract out under clause 1(7). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question because I also know the answer to that now.
Amendment No. 122 seeks to ensure that Ofcom's competition functions will fall within the scope of clause 6. That is not necessary because the Bill already achieves that. The competition functions are excluded from the general duties by clause 3, which ensures that those functions that can be exercised by Ofcom or the Office of Fair Trading are exercised within a consistent framework, irrespective of which body acts. The exclusion of the duties is set out in clause 356(11). However, that applies only to clause 3 duties, and there is no such exclusion for clause 6. That is why this amendment is unnecessary.
I turn to new clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7. New clause 2 would place Ofcom under a duty to establish a competition board. That matter was fully examined by the Joint Committee, which concluded that there was no rationale for an economic or competition board with executive functions. New clauses 2 and 3 do not make it entirely clear whether it is intended that the proposed competition board would have executive functions—as opposed to, for instance, a purely advisory role.
New clauses 4 and 7 apparently envisage a largely advisory role for the economic panel, and an industry panel. However, I assume that a key aim of new clauses 2 and 3 is to ensure that Ofcom gives due priority to competition and to proportionate regulation in its decisions on policy and individual cases, and that it has access to expert advice from people with relevant industry and commercial knowledge. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked me specifically about that. I agree that Ofcom must have constant and ongoing discussions of that kind, and I fully expect it to do so. If that happens, the arrangements that we have laid down in the Bill, and the steps that have been taken so far to create Ofcom, already make satisfactory provision for that without adding unnecessary complication to the structure and operation of Ofcom by the creation of several other boards and panels.
It is important to bear in mind that Ofcom will not be limited to internal sources of advice and expertise, significant though those are. On the contrary, it can obtain and will be offered views and advice from a wide range of sources in industry, commerce, the academic, technical and legal worlds, and the general
public. Ofcom will not go about its work in secret. The Bill obliges it to consult widely on all significant proposals—not only the general principles, but the detailed content and, especially, the impact on business. Additionally, the clause requires Ofcom to publish regular statements setting out plans for the continuous review of regulatory burdens, including proposals to remove or reduce existing regulations or to replace them by self-regulation.
We hope and expect that a wide range of industry groups and individual firms will contribute fully to all the consultations, as happens at present.