Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 245, in

clause 116, page 107, line 27, after 'content', insert ', promotion'.

This is the first of several extremely important amendments proposed by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—ICSTIS, if I can pronounce the acronym correctly. It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee that ICSTIS is the independent body responsible for regulating premium-rate services in the United Kingdom.

Clause 116(1) gives a detailed legal definition of those services. They are delivered as a result of some

form of telecommunications call in which content is provided, generally information or entertainment, and when payment is made through a charge on a telephone bill for the call and when there is some form of sharing of revenue between a communications network and the party responsible for the provision of the service. I shall cite a few brief examples. The services include voting on television shows—such as ''Big Brother'' and ''Pop Idol''—chat and dating services, visa and Government information services, sport, weather, directory inquiries and so on.

The first concern that has been drawn to our attention is that the wording of subsection 116(1) refers only to giving Ofcom power

''for the purpose of regulating the content and provision of premium rate services''.

The subsection does not include the word ''promotion'' that amendment No. 245 seeks to insert. In the experience of ICSTIS, it is often the promotion of such services that gives rise to some of the greatest consumer harm and mischief. Sadly, because we need to press on with other matters, time does not allow me to regale the Committee with all the details of cases drawn to my attention. However, one that will provide some entertainment concerns an organisation called Slick Industries of St. Vincent in the Caribbean, where

''Members of the public complained about receiving an unsolicited e-mail which invited them to call a premium rate service and enter their mobile number and the mobile number of a person they 'fancied'. A text message would then be sent to that person inviting them to call the service to find out who 'fancied' them.''

A document has come to my attention that also relates to the promotion rather than provision of a service. At my tender age, I find this matter difficult, but someone would apparently send a message saying:

''Totally crazy about you!!! A person who knows you has asked us to send you this message. The person is madly in love and crazy about you, and has said that: You are Charming''

and so forth. The message then gives a number to ring, which is where the money is spent. That case relates to the promotion not the provision of a service, and the Committee will be glad to know that ICSTIS upheld various breaches of its code of practice and the companies concerned were fined.

I could mention cases relating to other mischief. For example, people received unsolicited letters purporting to be from a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases. Substantial fines were imposed on those companies.

I have probably said enough to convince the Committee that the work undertaken by ICSTIS—supervising, controlling and taking necessary action against the companies promoting such services when appropriate rather than being limited to the content and provision of those services—is extremely important.

I do not intend to press the amendment, because it may be that the Minister has thought through the problem and will stand up and say, ''Yes, that is a good point.'' He may say, ''Actually, the wording already caters for the problem'', but that is not the view reached by the lawyers who advise ICSTIS.

Before the process of the Bill is concluded over the next six months, I hope that the Minister will at least agree to examine the problem and ensure that the provisions allow ICSTIS to continue its valuable work.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to support strongly the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ryedale. Many of my concerns about premium rate services are in precisely the area of promotion that he mentioned. When the first premium rate numbers were published, there was a big fuss about people running up huge phone bills. ICSTIS was born out of that process and has done a good job regulating the straightforward premium rate numbers with which everyone is now familiar. It works well.

What is more insidious and dangerous is the way in which people disguise the use of such numbers. The ones that really irritate me are the fax-back services that say in very small letters at the bottom of the page that calls are premium rate. They do not make that fact obvious and use devious and appalling psychological techniques to try to get people to use them. Some of the worst of them that I have seen say things such as, ''An animal will die if you do not fax this back now to vote on this issue.'' That kind of statement really gets to people—[Interruption.] I will not be drawn on that. They will use that kind of technique and the people who fax them back will end up paying £2 or £3 for the privilege of having done so. That technique is appalling, as is the fact that they hide the costs in very small print at the bottom—that is a promotion issue. Action must be taken on such matters.

I turn to the issue of what I call ''naughty diallers''—although I am unsure whether that is the correct technical term. Naughty dialling takes place on the internet, and I have seen it take place in the UK. I have a child who was using the internet; she came back to the service that she had been using, and by using a wholly innocuous service a naughty dialler that replaces one's normal internet dialler with a premium rate number that costs £1 a minute had insinuated itself on to the machine.

These things are happening now; as we speak, people are having them downloaded on to their machines. The technology for doing that and for disguising the fact that one has got someone to use the naughty dialler—naughty in an adult sense in many cases, but also naughty in the sense that it is not the internet dialler that one intended to use—is improving. People are developing these technologies.

I think that all of this subject falls into the area of promotion. At some point, someone might have clicked a box on a web page—often a disguised box that is not doing what it looks like it is doing. If one clicks on a box that says ''OK,'' that may be taken for implied consent for substituting this expensive dial up connection for one's normal dial-up connection.

We will have to run quickly to keep up with some of these changes. If someone is using devious methods but has kept to the letter of the law, Ofcom should have the flexibility to say, ''No, that was sufficiently devious for me to rule you out of order and stop that

service taking place.'' Unless the Minister can give us further assurances, I am concerned that if the amendment is not accepted some of these devious practices that occur in the area of service promotion will not be caught. That would be a great shame, and people's confidence in the use of such services—and the internet, in particular—would decrease if they did not feel that they had some kind of protection against such awful practices.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

Premium rate services are a billion-pound industry in this country and a lot of goods things come from it. However, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has highlighted some relevant issues. One of my concerns is the way in which innovative services are coming in. If public confidence in these services is lost, that will prevent the good and proper use of them.

There are legitimate uses that need to be protected. Unscrupulous companies could simply unbundle the charging mechanism, and there are ways in which they could get round the Bill—I appreciate that that relates to the next set of amendments. I was struck by Bryan Carsberg's comment that what will drive the regulator is what is in the legislation rather than the intention behind it. I am concerned that there is a gap here, and I ask the Minister to look at it again.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Important points have been raised. The unscrupulous operators of this type of premium rate service will be looking for the loophole that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) just referred to. He also said that while the majority of people who offer premium rate services provide very good services and run honourable and decent organisations, sadly there seems to be a large degree of latitude on the standard deviation between those that are very good and those that are very bad, regardless of whether they are in St. Vincent or in parts of the UK. It is important that we can be assured that there will not be a loophole if the word ''promotion'' is not used.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that premium rate services is a billion-pound industry and I think that it will get larger for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned. His comments reminded me of a famous front cover of the American National Lampoon magazine. It had a picture of a puppy dog with a hand and a gun pointing at its head. Underneath was the headline, ''If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog''. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam pointed out that that example is used in several types of internet promotion.

ICSTIS has said that it regards child protection as fundamentally important because children could be those most affected by such things—especially when considering puppy dog protection. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench feel strongly about that because I can see their conviction.

However, not only children, but older people are affected. ICSTIS has laid down regulations on the publication of the cost of using services, but costs vary

considerably. People may vote on issues featured on BBC News 24. May I say how much I enjoy BBC News 24? It has been getting a little bit of stick of late but people need to stand up for it. If one phones in to vote on such issues, the likely cost is only 10p for a minute. However, one finds that participation in other television companies' phone-in shows covers the cost of almost all the show.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

Like ''Who Wants To Be A Millionaire''.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Yes, like ''Who Wants To Be A Millionaire''.

Mr Chris Bryant (Rhondda, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is issuing a foul calumny against many broadcasting companies. He will know that when the Select Committee expressly asked representatives of Granada and Carlton about the issue, they made it clear that they do not try to make significant amounts from the polls.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I am grateful for that helpful intervention.

The hon. Gentleman will know that several companies that advertise put in very small writing that phone calls to them can cost up to £1.50 per minute, which is the current maximum premium rate. Is the Minister convinced that the wording of subsection (1) is such that no third party could promote the provision of a premium rate service in such a way that it could threaten the conscience of young children, provide other attractions to young children that might otherwise be banned by ICSTIS or disguise the actual cost of the call? If third parties could get round such aspects by not using the word ''promote'', that is a major loophole. The Minister can be assured that unreasonable people and organisations in the United States make considerable amounts from such services because legislation contains loopholes. It would be unsatisfactory if bad drafting created such a loophole in this country.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I shall add a few words to those of my hon. Friends because the issue is provoking a lot of concern in the Committee. Two particular examples worry me. One is junk faxes, which is my particular bugbear and was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. The majority of faxes that I receive in my office promote premium rate services. Most of them tell me how I can achieve a miracle diet, although I am not sure whether I have been singled out for that promotion, although I agree that that is highly unlikely. However, receiving the faxes involves a considerable cost because twice during recent months I have had to buy new ink cartridges, which hon. Members know are not cheap. I object to financing junk faxes that are cluttering up my fax machine.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my sense of outrage that although several of the faxes give a number at the bottom that one can fax if one wants them to stop, the number given is a premium rate number that costs £3 to fax.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right to be angry, as am I.

I kept my eyes open during the Christmas recess, and in every single magazine that I opened, I obtained

a card telling me that I had the opportunity to win £1 million, £30,000, a multi-media PC, and all sorts of other wonderful things. All I had to do to see if I had won a prize was to scratch over various symbols to see if I had three matching symbols. I had five cards and, extraordinarily, Lady Luck must have been smiling on me, since for every single card I was a top-tier prize-winner. Retirement from my current occupation beckoned. However, I looked at the bottom of the cards, and, as my hon. Friends have already said, in each case I had to ring a number, the calls cost £1.50, and the amount of time for which I would be on the telephone varied from three minutes to five minutes. It does not take more than simple arithmetic to work out that that represents a significant cost, and one that is likely to be far greater than the value of the minor prize that I might receive as an alternative.

I believe that members of the Committee are sufficiently astute to see through that kind of promotion. I generally abide by the principle of caveat emptor. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield raised a valid point, because my excitement at finding the cards was outweighed only by that of my nine-year-old son, who insisted that I should ring up in order to obtain my £1 million. He became quite upset when I told him that I did not think that that was a good idea. He pointed out to me that I was a top-tier prize-winner, and that therefore it was more or less guaranteed that I would receive one of the wonderful prizes. I spent some time explaining the ways of the world to him, and I fear that the trusting innocence of the child has been rather damaged by that experience.

There has been an explosion of that sort of promotion, so that they are almost impossible to avoid. They represent a deception that raises real concerns, particularly in relation to children, who inevitably will be taken in by them. I hope, therefore, that ICSTIS will continue to examine them. The amendment is important in strengthening the hand of ICSTIS in dealing with this sort of thing.

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

We have had a lively debate on amendment No. 245, and I am impressed by the degree of consensus that has emerged across the Committee in support of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Ryedale.

I agree that ICSTIS does an excellent job, and is a good model of effective self-regulation without, until now, any legislative support. We recognise the success of ICSTIS, and want to support and strengthen its work.

I also agree that it is important for it to be possible to make conditions in the proposed code about the promotion and advertising of premium rate services. Such services account for a large proportion of the complaints that ICSTIS deals with, and it should be possible to include those aspects in the code.

In drafting the legislation, our view was that promotion and advertising fell within the scope of the phrase ''provision of premium rate services'' which appears in subsection (1) in the second line of clause 116. Concern has been expressed in the debate that we may have been a little optimistic on that point, and I understand that some legal thinking confirms that. In

the light of what has been said, and the unanimity of the Committee, I will make a commitment to look again at the matter, to see whether there is any doubt about whether promotion and advertising is covered by the current wording. If there is such doubt, I will return with a fully considered amendment to rectify that deficiency.

I agree with what every Member who has spoken has said, that ICSTIS should have a clear ability to deal with problems with promotion and advertising of the kind to which hon. Members have drawn attention. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had indicated that I suspected that the relevant matter had been caught during the initial drafting and I am willing to accept that the matter needs to be reconsidered. The purpose of introducing such amendments is so that we can debate such issues. The Minister is right to catch the mood of the Committee, because this is a growing problem and one that ICSTIS needs all power at its elbow to deal with.

We have made valuable progress on the Bill in the past half an hour, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in

clause 116, page 107, line 40, after second 'power', insert—

'(a)'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 275, in

clause 116, page 107, line 41, at end insert 'and

(b) to determine, subject to such conditions as they think fit, that any premium rate service of any description, or any individually specified such service provided by a person, is not to be treated as a premium rate service for the purpose of any condition set under subsection (1).'.

Amendment No. 295, in

clause 116, page 108, line 5, at end insert 'and that charge is set at an amount or rate which exceeds such amount or rate as OFCOM may specify by order for the purposes of this section.'.

Amendment No. 247, in

clause 116, page 108, line 5, at end insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 296, in

clause 116, page 108, line 6, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—

'(7A) This section does not apply to a premium rate service unless—

(a) the charge for that service is required to be paid to the person providing the electronic communications service by means of which the premium rate service is received directly by the user of the premium rate service, and

(b) that charge is imposed in the form of a charge made by that person for the use of that electronic communications service.'.

Amendment No. 246, in

clause 116, page 108, line 7, leave out first 'service' and insert 'network'.

Amendment No. 248, in

clause 116, page 108, line 8, leave out from 'provided' to end of line 10.

Amendment No. 297, in

clause 116, page 108, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) that person—

(i) is the provider of the electronic communications service through which the premium rate service is received directly by the user of that premium rate service, and

(ii) charges that user in respect of the use of the electronic communications service for the use or reception of that premium rate service, and

(iii) has made an agreement with the content provider under which that charge is shared with the content provider.

(9A) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (9) a person is a content provider in relation to a premium rate service if that person falls within paragraph (a) of that subsection in relation to that service.'.

Amendment No. 249, in

clause 116, page 108, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert—

'(c) he is the provider of an electronic communications network used for the transmission of communications comprised in the service.'.

Amendment No. 298, in

clause 116, page 108, line 39, at end add—

'(12) Section 388 shall apply to the power of OFCOM to make orders under this section.'.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

We had a general debate on the first amendment, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. Rather than repeat it, so I shall concentrate on some specific provisions of the amendments. My hon. Friend might seek your leave to say a word on one or two of the others.

Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 are designed to give extra flexibility in one respect and to close off the possibility of extension in another. It is intended that those amendments should give Ofcom the flexibility to exclude from regulation certain services that would otherwise fall within the definition, if it believes that it would be proportionate to do that. In the draft general conditions produced for consultation by Oftel in May 2001, a paragraph was inserted that gave Ofcom the power not to regulate a service that would otherwise fall within the definition of a premium rate service—potentially a useful power if Ofcom decides, at some point in the future, that it is either impractical or undesirable for a service to fall within the remit of the ICSTIS code. I will not give any specific examples in which use of such a power that might be appropriate, but it is felt that it might be helpful to retain that power in order to achieve the deregulatory principle in the Bill, if that is possible.

Let me talk briefly about amendments Nos. 295 to 298. Clause 116(7) defines a premium rate service as one for which there is a charge for its provision. That could mean any level of charge and it might bring within the scope of the regulation, in what is a deregulatory Bill, services that are not currently regulated. The purpose of amendment No. 295 is to preserve the status quo in defining what charges would lead to a service being brought within the scope of Ofcom.

Amendment No. 296 is intended to clarify the drafting of 116(7), which is not entirely clear. For example, references are made to ''the service'' and it is not clear whether that is intended to refer to the premium rate service or to the electronic communications service.

Moving on to amendment No. 297, from the viewpoint of a consumer of premium rate services there are two relevant parties: the content provider, from which the consumer directly receives the service and for which he pays, and the telecoms company, which shares the revenue and has the power to disconnect the service, should that be necessary. It is possible that other intermediary electronic communications service providers, in addition to the originating provider, will be involved in provision before the consumer can access a service. Such providers might not necessarily have charge-sharing arrangements in place with the content provider; they may simply act as a conduit in transmitting the service to the consumer. Such intermediary providers should not be caught by the proposed regulation, but, at the moment, the provision appears to encompass them. Amendment No. 297 is therefore intended to clarify that the relevant electronic communication service provider for the purposes of regulating premium rate services is the one from which the consumer directly receives the PRS.

Finally, amendment 298 would incorporate the procedural requirements of clause 388 into Ofcom's powers to make orders under clause 116.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

This group of amendments is important to fleshing out provisions on premium rate services in future. It is an irony of legislation that we are starting to regulate the telecoms world just as we are on the verge of entering a different telecoms environment with the arrival of third generation, or 3G, mobile services. That is a primary area of a concern. The public largely understand what we mean by regulating the 09 series of telephone numbers, which would provide me with a more or less dubious or useful voice service if I phoned them up. We understand that to be a premium rate service, but in the world into which we are moving the question of what is a premium rate service will be a lot cloudier, especially when we consider services such as those that allow people to send pictures via mobile telephones.

The information service of the future is potentially a picture-based service that comes to a screen on people's mobile phones. Many different players may be involved in that, and we might, once again, encounter boundary issues. If I used my phone to search for a piece of screen-based information, we would understand that to be part of the internet, which would be regulated as an internet service provided by my mobile telephone supplier, not a premium rate service. If, however, I went directly through to an information service to get the same information on the same screen, would that be a premium rate service? We are getting into difficult areas of definition, and I do not know how we can work out a definition that effectively covers all the potential future circumstances when they are still evolving. However, it is helpful to have amendments that try to tease that out.

The particular points raised by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about the carrier are important. It is much clearer that a voice telephone carrier is purely a carrier. For example, BT may be the intermediary that carries the telephone connection and the voice signal from the information service supplier to the individual. However, where there are various players, as is likely to be the case with multi-media services, we are in a much more difficult situation. Some of the carriers—those providing mobile telephony services—are, reasonably, seeking assurances that they will not be dragged into an area of regulation that they do not think should apply to them and that the public may feel does not need to be applied.

The regulation can be justified only on the basis of public interest, which clearly exists for some of the 09 telephone number services, as was mentioned in our previous debate. However, I am not sure that that public interest can be used in the same way if we have well understood additional rate services that cost more but are supplied by a range of highly competitive telecoms companies, with the result that the public do not feel that they are being cheated and the scope does not exist for the fraud that has gone on in the traditional telecoms environment.

It would be helpful if the Minister stated the Government's position and their intentions for Ofcom in relation to premium rate services in the new telecoms environment, as opposed to the one that we are on the point of leaving.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I shall be as brief as possible. I commend amendments Nos. 246, 248 and 249 to the Minister. They have been suggested by ICSTIS and it will probably be easier if I explain as briefly as possible what the amendments would do. In debate on an earlier amendment, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned a situation in which network and service providers split the cost involved of providing a premium rate service on which they have collaborated. That is covered by the current ICSTIS code, but it will not continue to be so unless we alter the wording of the Bill.

We think that confusion will be caused to the consumer, who would not know how the services were being paid for unless and until he received the bills. To be as brief as possible, the purpose of amendments Nos. 246 and 248 is to ensure that even when there is unbundling of the different elements of the provision of the service, the code—and the consumer protection that it brings—will still apply.

Amendment No. 249 is somewhat complicated. A service provider may—and, indeed, often does—subcontract to a number of parties between the service provider and the actual provider of the content. In other words, it is not only one organisation that provides the service in the end. There is significant subcontracting, and I understand that some of the subcontractors can be extremely small—almost a one-man band. There is concern that the relevant provisions should apply to enable all of those subcontractors to be caught by the code. That is why we suggest that we amend clause 116 to ensure

that it is clear that anyone involved in the provision of a service

''is the provider of an electronic communications network used for the transmission of communications comprised in the service.''

That way, anyone involved in the process would be caught by the code, and subcontracting would not enable some parts of the operation to escape the net.

I could have given a much longer and more thorough explanation, but I am sure that the notes with which the Minister has been provided to respond to my points will help the Committee to understand the issue, if some aspects of what I have said are not entirely clear.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

As if by telepathy, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made the main points that I wanted to make. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Gale, that that rather curtails what I intended to say.

The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that the ability to recognise a premium rate service will diminish over time. What role does the Minister envisage for Ofcom in educating subscribers to recognise a premium rate service? At the moment we know that a premium rate telephone number commences with 09, but that is quite a recent innovation, before which there was no standard system of numbering. We all know that 07 numbers are mobile telephones or pagers, that 08 numbers are special rate numbers, including toll-free numbers, and that 09 numbers are premium rate numbers.

In the past, Oftel has had a role in educating people in what the numbers mean, because they have a direct impact on how the numbers are used. Does the Minister envisage Ofcom having a role in ensuring that subscribers recognise whether a number is premium rate? As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked, what will happen in future, when premium rate numbers are not only 09 numbers, and there are other ways of accessing or sending data such as television or still pictures by means of mobile telephony, for which services there are extra charges? What role will Ofcom have in ensuring that the subscriber recognises that?

Finally, does Ofcom have a role in ensuring that the numbers system, including the 09 system, is maintained? Does the Minister envisage that future services will also be categorised logically? I remind the Minister that the 07, 08 and 09 numbering system is quite a recent innovation. How will it be maintained in future, and how will it be extended into the new systems of communication so admirably described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam?

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

The ICSTIS arrangements are based on Oftel having backstop powers with telecommunications licences. With the passing of the Bill and the coming into force of the new European Community telecommunications directive, telecom licences will cease to exist. The backstop powers will no longer be available, so the basis of those ICSTIS arrangements will be removed. We therefore need to provide a new basis for the effective and often speedy

co-regulatory regime within the new framework. Clauses 116 to 120 are designed to achieve that. Our aim is to provide continuation of regulation comparable to the present system. We have worked closely with the industry and with ICSTIS itself.

Translating largely voluntary arrangements to those based on statute has not always proved easy. I have already conceded that one or two drafting points may not yet be perfect, so the amendments are helpful and I am grateful to the hon. Members who tabled them.

Amendment No. 248 would remove subsection (7)(d), which is designed to ensure that the only services being regulated are those where the charges for the content and carriage elements of the premium rate service are levied as one combined charge on the telephone bill. That is considered necessary on the basis that the customer is unable to distinguish between the two elements making up the charge and runs the risk of being unable to change the amount relating to the content of the premium rate service.

We are not trying to embrace services where a consumer uses a telephone to make a purchase with the charge appearing on a credit card or bank statement, as that is clearly outside the scope of the regulations. We also want to avoid catching purchases made over the internet through credit and other cards. However, I accept that in some future cases the charge for the premium rate service may appear on the phone bill but be identified separately from the charge for the carriage of that service. Such services would be at the margins of what might need to be regulated and I can envisage some definitional problems. I would like to reflect further on the amendment and, if the provision needs changing and the wording altered, I shall table an amendment later. The same applies to amendment No. 247.

Amendment No. 249 is designed to draw an electronic communications network provider into the PRS regulatory regime, a move that would be unhelpful. There may be a desire to embrace network providers because, in the last resort, ICSTIS can go to the network operator to request pulling the plug on an offending PRS provider. Under the new framework, the person to whom one will go in the last resort will be the electronic communications service provider who conveys the PRS to the consumer. The person whom we will describe in future as the network provider—the one who simply provides the wires and so forth over which the electronic communications service carrying the PRS is conveyed—is unlikely to have a direct relationship with a provider of a PRS where he is not also the provider of the electronic communications service. For that reason, I am doubtful about including network providers within the ambit of this regime. Again, however, it is a difficult matter and I undertake to reflect further and, if changes are necessary, to table amendments on Report.

I think that amendment No. 246 is inappropriate. I am prepared to re-examine the matter when I review the provisions, but the wording is broadly right. With

respect to amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249, I accept that further work needs to be done.

I understand the purpose of amendments Nos. 274 and 275, especially in the light of the previous consultation by Oftel on the possible general conditions relating to the premium rate services that might be set under the new regulatory regime. However, the details of that regime have slightly changed since the consultation was launched last May. In particular, the Bill has specific provisions for regulating premium rate services in clauses 116 to 120 that were not in the draft Bill published last spring. The general conditions will no longer have to deal with premium rate services, so I am not convinced that the drafting needs to be changed to achieve the results that we all desire.

The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford seeks to exclude from the regulatory regime premium rate services in circumstances in which it would be disproportionate to include them. However, that effect can be achieved by provisions in the Bill as drafted. Clause 116(1) enables Ofcom to set conditions

''for the purposes of regulating . . . premium rate services''

and subsection (2) goes on to provide that such conditions

''may be applied either

(a) generally''

or

''to every person who is of a specified description . . . or who provides a specified''

service.

As in all such aspects of regulation in the Bill, in setting such conditions, Ofcom is required under (3)(b) to have regard to

''the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed''.

Taken together, those provisions make amendments Nos. 274 and 275 unnecessary. When Ofcom considers it disproportionate, and particular premium rate services fall within the regulation provided in the Bill, clause 116(2) would enable Ofcom not to apply conditions to such services, which is the objective of the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

On amendment No. 295, I have sympathy for the notion that low-cost premium rate services might be excused by the regulation foreseen by clauses 116 to 120. Again, however, subsections (1), (2) and (3) should make the amendment unnecessary. When Ofcom considers services to be of such a low level that it would be disproportionate for them to fall within the regulation, subsection (2) would allow it not to apply conditions to such services. Amendment No. 298 is consequential on No. 295, and is therefore also unnecessary.

Amendment No. 296 would not achieve anything that is not achieved by subsection (7) as drafted.

On amendment No. 276, the scheme provided by the clauses, especially by the totality of the definitions in subsections (7) to (11), is that a premium rate service is one that is carried by an electronic communications

service and for which the charge is collected by the electronic communications service provider. The amendment requires that part of the charge be remitted to the provider of the premium rate service. That adds nothing to the clarity of the definition. The definition that we have is fine.

I do not fully follow amendment No. 297. It appears to rewrite part of subsection (9) and contradicts amendment No. 249, which, as I have said, I will take away and reflect on. In the case of amendment No. 297, the existing provisions already have the effect aimed for by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford.

Yes, Ofcom does have a role in ensuring that consumers understand the process. The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to clause 10, in which Ofcom is given the duty of promoting media literacy. Subsection (1) paragraphs (a) to (e) sets out the things that Ofcom has a duty to promote. He should be satisfied that the type of issues that he raised are covered in that list.

As for where the numbering system will go from there, clause 23 requires Ofcom to ensure that consumers are provided with adequate information. Of course, people may be able to obtain information about many different things from the number, including the cost of the call, the geographic location and the type of network that is being used. I do not want to be too prescriptive about how the numbering system will evolve. Ofcom will certainly be responsible for that and will take all such issues into account in exercising its responsibilities.

It might help the Committee to know that I shall reflect on amendments Nos. 250 and 251, which are yet to be moved, when I consider amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249 again.

Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

Thank you very much.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. Before I ask the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford to wind up the debate, I should point out that the Minister referred to amendment No. 276, which was not selected. I am happy to have his remarks placed on the record, but I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to pick up on them.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I shall resist that temptation. I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful comments on the amendments. I note that he will consider the amendments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, but that sadly he has not been persuaded by the ones to which I referred. However, I shall not take that personally. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.