Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in

clause 48, page 48, line 47, at end insert 'but only when the value of the dispute does not exceed £5,000'.

Clauses 48 to 51 place Ofcom under a duty to ensure that the communications industry has in place effective and accessible machinery for the protection of domestic and small business customers, including procedures for dealing with complaints and disputes. It is clear from the Bill that the procedures should be simple, transparent, effective and free of charge. Complaints are to be dealt with under a code of practice, and disputes covered by the public communications providers establishing machinery approved by Ofcom.

I remind the Committee that Oftel recently adopted a voluntary ombudsman scheme. The notes on clauses—after my earlier comment about a plate of spaghetti, I should say that I find them helpful on this part of the Bill—suggest that the scheme is likely to be submitted to Ofcom for approval. Will there be a seamless transition between the Oftel scheme and the one that Ofcom is likely to approve?

One aspect of the Bill is at variance with the existing scheme. Amendment No. 77 is designed to address whether some limit on monetary value should apply to any dispute mechanism. It would place a reasonable limit on the value of the type of customer dispute that can be dealt with by the procedures in the clause. We understand that the ombudsman scheme agreed with consumers and the industry has a £5,000 limit. It would make sense to add such a provision to the Bill to ensure that the scheme does not discriminate against firms of moderate size that have lower revenues.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The introduction of the telecommunications ombudsman service is an important step forward. I can certainly confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we want a seamless transition from the arrangement that is just being set up to the Ofcom scheme. It will not be possible for Ofcom to approve the scheme until the Bill becomes law and the provision has come into force, but we want approval as soon as possible thereafter and to avoid any disruption in the setting up of the service. I recently met the telecommunications ombudsman, Elizabeth France, and had a good discussion with her. A good service will be provided from the new base in Warrington.

I cannot accede to the amendments' proposed £5,000 limit. We are simply putting into UK law what the directive says, and it makes no mention of allowing member states to exclude relevant disputes from the arrangements in question on the basis of their value or for any other reason. If the amendment were

made, that would leave us with legislation inconsistent with the directive, and we cannot have that.

Ofcom will decide whether the imposition of general conditions on the subject is appropriate. If public communications providers can demonstrate that existing alternatives satisfy the requirements of the directive in respect of certain categories of dispute, Ofcom will not need to impose a requirement for the providers to have arrangements of their own for them. That may give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, and I hope that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

That is an entirely valid and satisfactory explanation, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I do not want to debate the starred amendments, which you, rightly, have not selected, Mr. Gale, but I hope that I might use the opportunity of a clause stand part debate to draw the Minister out on a point that I am keen for him to address.

Clause 48(3)(b) on dispute procedures states that

''domestic and small business customers have the right to use those procedures free of charge''.

The universal service directive—the source of the requirement for an independent consumer dispute mechanism—states that the mechanism should be ''inexpensive''. The Government have interpreted that to mean free and have set that out in the Bill as a legal requirement, but that is not what the directive states. Although one would hope that in many cases the use of the mechanism might well be free, there is slight concern on the part of some of those who might be subjected to such complaints that there should be the ability to charge a small fee to put off vexatious complainants.

There is no attempt to push costs on to the complainant. No fee would be charged initially, especially given that the procedures are in any case subject to Ofcom's approval under clauses 48 to 51. Ofcom would have to be persuaded that a modest fee was appropriate in the event that any communications provider wanted one to be levied. As the Bill stands, there is no provision even to allow that. Will the Minister respond to that concern?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right. The directive does not require that the dispute scheme be provided free of charge, simply that it should be inexpensive. However, we do not want to discourage consumers from using it on cost grounds. A small charge might not be worth collecting—a nominal one certainly would not be. On the grounds of simplicity, the approach taken in clause 48 is right.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I propose to put clauses 49 to 59 together unless any hon. Member indicates to me now

that there is an issue that they wish to raise on any individual clause.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Clauses 52 and 54, Mr. Gale.

Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.