Clause 8 - Duty to publish and meet promptness standards
Communications Bill
3:00 pm
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
As we said at the beginning of the debate on this Bill, Ofcom will be an extraordinarily powerful body. It is therefore all the more important that its regulatory functions should be subject to the appropriate checks and balances. It should be required to meet standards and to demonstrate that it is doing so. We therefore welcome clause 8, which lays down a clear requirement on Ofcom to act properly, to set out its policy, to keep the achievement of that policy under review, and to publish its success. All those things are welcome. The purpose of our amendments is to strengthen clause 8 a little further and to clarify it a little more.
The amendments split into two sets. I will first talk about amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60, which focus on the publication of the promptness standards and the review of that publication. It is fitting that Ofcom should expect timely responses from those that it regulates. It is therefore only fair that Ofcom itself should demonstrate its promptness. Amendment No. 57 would require Ofcom to review annually its statement of promptness standards and, later, to publish regular reports on how it has performed in achieving those standards. I acknowledge that clause 8(7) requires Ofcom to include a statement in its annual report on whether it has achieved its promptness standards. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 seek to strengthen that subsection a little to provide the reassurance that a number of industries seek.
The second set of amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends relates to clause 8(4). At the moment, the subsection says that, in carrying out its functions, it shall be the duty of Ofcom to ''have regard to'' the statement of promptness standards. We feel that the words ''have regard to'' are not sufficient. They provide Ofcom with a let-out to fail its promptness standards. The Bill should be strengthened. Amendment No. 33 does that by removing the words ''have regard to'' and inserting
the words ''comply with''. The statement therefore becomes much stronger.
The Minister may feel that that is expecting too much. I hope that he does not, but, in case he does, we have given an alternative formulation that makes the same point but in not quite such strong terms. Amendment No. 58 is also intended to tighten up the requirement on Ofcom to comply with its promptness standards. However, it does not impose what some may regard as an impractical obligation to comply. It requires Ofcom to comply with its promptness standards but it includes the words
''unless exceptional circumstances prevent this.''
I offer the Minister those alternatives. Both are designed to achieve the same thing but, if the Minister feels that he cannot go so far as to require Ofcom to comply with its promptness standards, he may, at the very least, consider amendment No. 58, which requires it to comply unless prevented by exceptional circumstances.