Clause 80 - Review of services market identifications and determinations
Communications Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I agree that Ofcom needs to keep under review the significant market power determinations that it has made and the conditions that it has set as a result. Clause 80 provides for that. However, I would argue that the timing of those reviews ought to be in the hands of Ofcom and not set by the rather rigid mechanism that the hon. Gentleman proposes.
We have already agreed that the general duties of Ofcom should include a requirement for it to have regard to the principle that regulatory activity should be
£''transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed''.
£That is in clause 3(3)(b). Clause 6(1) requires Ofcom to ensure that regulation does not involve
£''the imposition of burdens which are unnecessary; or . . . the maintenance of burdens which have become unnecessary''.
£There is no need for an additional requirement on Ofcom to review significant market power analyses and determinations as a result of market changes. If such changes rendered a review appropriate, Ofcom would already be required to act.
I would be loth to set in statute the two-year limit that the hon. Gentleman proposed. We do not know at the moment whether that is the correct frequency. It may well be far too often, and would therefore impose unnecessary work on Ofcom and those required to
provide information for the analyses that Ofcom would have to carry out. It would be better to rely on the obligations of Ofcom that are already agreed, rather than set what is, inevitably, a somewhat arbitrary time limit.
The provisions are simply the sensible next steps, moving on from the initial determinations of significant market power to reviews of the situation. Ofcom is required by the clause to carry out further analyses of the markets for the purposes of reviewing the determinations made on the basis of earlier market analyses and reviewing any SMP conditions set as a consequence. That is very much in keeping with the aim of keeping any regulatory burdens appropriate to what is needed in the market. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman might feel that imposing a strict two-year limit would not be the best way for Ofcom to exercise its responsibilities.