Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in

clause 29, page 26, line 38, leave out from 'service' to end of line 39.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 65, in

clause 34, page 32, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

Amendment No. 65 relates to clause 34 but it is consequent upon amendment No. 64, which relates to clause 29 (1). Clause 29 (1) requires a person who provides a ''designated associated facility'' to notify Ofcom of

''his intention to provide . . . that facility''.

Apart from the fact that the definition of ''associated facility'' is so wide that Ofcom will have wide discretion in designating such facilities, there is no authority under the EU authorisations directive for making associated facilities the subject of notifications to Ofcom. On the contrary, article 3.3 of the directive states:

''notification . . . shall not entail more than a declaration . . . to the national regulatory authority of the intention to commence the provision of electronic communication networks or services''.

The directive does not therefore provide for notification of associated facilities, which should be taken out of the notification procedure. This appears to be a classic case of more gold-plating of EU directives. That will put the UK out of line with other European markets and affect our competitiveness; it will also put us out of line with Government intentions as stated by the Better Regulation Task Force—namely the reduction of red tape.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about the authorisation directive but, as I said a few minutes ago, four directives are being transposed into UK law and the access directive clearly foresees the regulation of persons who make available associated facilities. That is why such facilities are mentioned in clause 29. To ensure that regulation is effective, Ofcom may very well need to know who is

making associated facilities available. So clause 29 is not inconsistent with the directives. It is reasonable to provide for the possibility that associated facilities should be designated alongside designated networks and services, if Ofcom deems that necessary.

I emphasise that the provision is only a power. That is consistent with the Bill's requirement not to impose unnecessary obligations. Oftel's current view—I stress that it is a current view—is that, for the time being, there should be no designated networks, services or associated facilities requiring advanced notification. However, the provisions are necessary to implement the limitations that the authorisation directive imposes on any notification process and to circumscribe Ofcom's power, if it considers that such a notification process is required in the future. We need to have in the Bill the ability for a notification process to be introduced. Oftel currently has no intention of taking the option up.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend clarify a point? As I see it, one of the problems with Oftel is that it seems to slow up applications for new systems and technology and so on. That is particularly true in relation to larger companies. Is the Minister saying that, although Ofcom will need to be notified of what is happening, there will be no need to stop work and that services can continue to be put out, while Ofcom makes its mind up about whether the proposal is a good idea?

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

It will continue to be important that Ofcom is vigilant about the danger of anti-competitive behaviour, which is possible in this area, but the essential point that my hon. Friend made is absolutely right. In the future licences will not be required: that is a significant deregulatory measure.

On amendment No. 65, it is entirely reasonable to expect those who provide associated facilities, which are subject to some degree of regulation under the new regime, to share in the costs of the regulatory arrangements. It would not be fair to load all those costs on to other parties. Again, the power is an enabling one. The Bill does not mean that providers of associated facilities will be subject to the charging regime; it means that providers of ''designated'' associated facilities will be charged. At the moment there is no intention of there being any ''designated'' associated facilities. Given that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions, although I have some lingering concerns about agreeing to enabling powers that he suspects will not be used. Giving anybody powers that might be used in the future is something of which Members should always be wary. However, given the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I want briefly to follow up what the Minister said about not expecting the powers in clause 29 to be invoked. Will the decision on whether to invoke the powers on the statue book be entirely in the hands of the board of Ofcom? Is it correct that there would be no further reference to outside authority, whether ministerial or parliamentary?

My other point relates to the interaction between clause 29 and clause 40. Clause 40 states that there needs to be a publicly accessible register of the advance notifications in clause 29. If no advance notification is required, because the clause 29 powers are not invoked by Ofcom, how will there be public access and an understanding of who are network or communication service providers? Are there other provisions that will allow the public to find out who is within the regulatory framework? Clause 40 seems to be the main point at which a publicly accessible register is highlighted.

I understand and sympathise with the deregulatory idea of not invoking the advance notifications in clause 29 if they are not necessary. From the public's point of view, however, the bit that has been left out is a way of finding out which services have come on stream or, more importantly, which have gone off stream. There have been high profile failures involving communications service providers such as telephone providers that have caused knock-on problems for businesses, there is sometimes a business interest in having access to information even if one does not wish to put a regulatory hurdle in the way.

I can envisage some people becoming increasingly dependent on their communications networks. People will want to turn to Ofcom to find out who is coming on stream and who is coming off stream, which is perhaps more important. If there is no way other than invoking clause 29 for the public to find out that kind of information, there could be a problem.

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

The hon. Gentleman's first point about whether Ofcom can go ahead, should it choose to, without referring elsewhere is correct. It would be entirely for Ofcom to decide whether it took up those powers at some point in the future. His point about the register is right: at the moment, it is not envisaged that there will be any requirements for advanced notification, and therefore the register will have nothing in it. One could say that that is a disadvantage of the deregulatory approach, which we, and the rest of the European Union, are now adopting. There was never a possibility that everybody would have had to register, so there will never be a complete register.

There are, of course, other sources of information. Clause 23, which the Committee debated last week, covers the publication of advice for consumers, and it helps to fill the gap. In terms of the register, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am sorry to delay the Committee. I am losing track of what the Minister was telling the Committee about the access directive in relation to the requirement for notification of associated facilities. He has helpfully drawn our attention to the relationship

between directives and the clause, and I can see the relationship between the authorisation directive and the clause. Perhaps he will run through how the access directive relates to the clause because it will clearly stretch the clause beyond what the authorisation directive is intended to do.

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

Yes. As I was saying earlier, the access directive foresees the regulation of persons who make associated facilities available.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Where?

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

The hon. Gentleman asks me where from a sedentary position. I do not have that information in front of me but I am sure that I will swiftly have it. That is one of the things that the access directive does, which is why it needs to be picked up in clause 29. Perhaps I will drop the hon. Gentleman a line to point out exactly where that is.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

Before the Minister finishes, is he saying that the access directive and the authorisation directive are contradictory?

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

No. The Bill needs to transcribe all those directives into UK legislation, and that is what it does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.