Question put, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): I must confess that trying to follow the different threads of argument in this part of the Bill is like trying to dissect all the strands of spaghetti on a plate to see whether one can find which one starts where. Occasionally, something makes my eyes light up and I believe that some explanation is due to the Committee and those who will be regulated under the provisions. That happens whenever I see a sum of money mentioned in the Bill.

The sum of money in question in clause 33 is £10,000. If I have correctly understood this morning's arguments, the Minister admitted that the provisions of the Bill in clauses 28 and 29 go further than the directive. As services have to be designated by Ofcom, we are to take it on trust that it is not going to designate unnecessarily or use its power in a draconian fashion. Ofcom designates a service, and contraventions are outlined in clauses 31 and enforcement notification in respect of those contraventions in clause 32. If the person who had contravened under clause 29 continued to contravene the matter, he would be given a financial penalty by Ofcom.

Although the Bill clearly states that any penalty should be appropriate and proportionate, the penalty could be as much as £10,000. When I first read that, I thought that some of the smaller operators struggling to compete with the big fish would find that a significant sum. However, I am slightly reassured

that the penalty needs to be appropriate and proportionate. In that case, does the Minister think that £10,000 is sufficient?

It is reasonable to suggest that, to some extent, Ofcom is being modelled on the Financial Services Authority in terms of being a single overarching regulator for a hugely important industry. Hon. Members may have heard on the radio this morning that the FSA has fined Lloyds TSB £750,000 for a breach of requirements in respect of money laundering provisions. If I remember correctly, BT's profits are significantly higher than Lloyd's TSB's, certainly in the present climate.

Where did the figure of £10,000 come from? Does it have any relevance? Is the Minister satisfied that Ofcom has sufficient power behind the provisions? At the end of the day, if people are making millions of pounds out of doing something that Ofcom thinks is not appropriate, does the Minister think that a fine of £10,000 is an adequate penalty?

Mr. Timms: I am very well briefed to deal with the question of whether £10,000 is a lot of money. My briefing is silent, however, on whether it is really enough. The offence to which the penalty is a response is a failure to provide information. The type of offence to which the hon. Gentleman referred in connection with money laundering is clearly on a different scale. The £10,000 in clause 33 is a maximum penalty. I anticipate that, were penalties ever to be imposed under the powers, they would often be significantly less than that. Given the nature of the contraventions under clause 33, a maximum penalty of £10,000 is reasonable.

Mr. Greenway: I am sorry if I wrong-footed the Minister about the position. Indeed, when I examined the matter yesterday, my thoughts were along the lines of his speaking note. However, having thought more about it, I still come back to whether, in the long run Ofcom has sufficient long-stop power. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will need to think about the matter, but will he consider whether there should be an order-making power for the sum to be varied? Once such a provision was in statute, primary legislation will be required to change it.

Mr. Timms: Given the tightly circumscribed nature of the contraventions, the figure is reasonable. The hon. Gentleman raises a broader point about the powers that are available to Ofcom to deal with other matters; no doubt, we shall have some lively discussions about them in later proceedings. However, given that the contraventions under clause 33 are tightly defined, such provisions are entirely appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.