Clause 7 - Duty to carry out impact assessments
Communications Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I wish to speak to amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I shall not detain the Committee with a lengthy discussion about regulatory impact assessments, but shall point out that in subsections (4) and (5), the form that a regulatory impact assessment will take is established in rather flexible terms. In the first instance, Ofcom would be allowed to do what was deemed appropriate. Under subsection (5), however, that would be done by general guidance. The Committee might be aware, from some other context, of the way in which that guidance has developed in recent years to encompass a risk assessment, the presentation of options, including the option to do nothing, the inclusion of a competition assessment and small business impacts. However, general Government guidance on the subject of regulatory impact assessments that is promulgated by the Cabinet Office, or some other responsible body, does not, so far as I am aware, relate to the responsibilities of individual regulators, particularly utility regulators, or to Ofcom, which is a kind of converged market regulator.
Ofcom is required to consider a pattern of general duties that includes the principle duties under clause 3(3), which it could take into account and set out, under its permissive power in subsection (4). It would not, however, necessarily do that. We have discussed the necessity of considering the general duties, particularly in the early stages, and the necessity of understanding the basis on which Ofcom would reconcile conflicts between those general duties and the benefits of transparency in the market place if it does act in that way.
The regulatory impact assessment was published alongside the draft Bill in order to show the benefits to industry of the introduction of a single regulator. That documents refers, for example, to the benefits of the reduction in capital costs through a reduction in regulatory risk, which would be derived directly from greater transparency about how the regulator does its job. If we can require Ofcom to be more transparent about its general duties, and if we find out how those duties would impact on decisions, or vice versa, and how that can be reconciled through the RIA, that will make for decision making which is better and is much more transparent. Amendment No. 5 would achieve that objective. It might otherwise be achieved by
Ofcom, but it would be a matter for regret if Ofcom did not use powers under subsection (4) to achieve it. It is better for it to be specified.