Schedule 17 - Minor and Consequential Amendments
Communications Bill
11:00 am
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 309, in
schedule 17, page 465, line 45, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (4), for ''specified under subsection (3) shall include'' there shall be substituted ''must include provision for''.'.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 310 to 312.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
These are drafting corrections. I should be happy to go into detail about the implications of them if members of the Committee wish me to do so, but I do not want to detain them unnecessarily. The amendments are minor drafting proposals, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 123, in
schedule 17, page 472, line 42, at end insert—
'Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
36A In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments and authorities subject to investigation), there shall be inserted (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order) the following entry—
''Office of Communications''.'.
It might be owing to a lack of imagination on my part, but I find it difficult to see how the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, they have a capacity to surprise me. The purpose of the amendment is simple. It would give the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, known to most people as the ombudsman, the ability to adjudicate on complaints against him. We, as Members of Parliament, have regular dealings with the ombudsman and refer to him complaints from constituents against Government bodies. That is a useful avenue of appeal when it seems that a Department or body has acted improperly, or that maladministration, negligence or delay has occurred.
The ombudsman is an important safeguard for consumers. He is entitled to investigate many matters, such as avoidable delay, faulty procedures, unfairness, bias, prejudice and giving misleading or inadequate advice. Most hon. Members consider it important that an independent body is capable of scrutinising the
actions of Departments and adjudicating whether they have behaved properly.
The list of Government bodies that the ombudsman is already entitled to investigate runs to many pages, and I shall not read out all of them, because that would take the rest of this morning's sitting and most of this afternoon's. The ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints against other regulators: it can examine the activities of the Office of the Director General of Water Services, the Offices of the Rail Regulator and of the International Rail Regulator, the Postal Services Commission and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. Ofwat, Ofgem, the OFT, Postcomm, Ofsted are in the ombudsman's remit, but also capable of being investigated is Oftel—the Office of the Director General of Telecommunications. Ofcom is replacing Oftel. In addition, the Broadcasting Standards Commission is on the list of organisations that the ombudsman can investigate.
Unless the Government accept our amendment, they will remove the ombudsman from areas in which he can currently investigate complaints, such as telecommunications regulation and the standards of broadcasting regulations. Given that they can see merit in allowing him to examine complaints about other regulators and a large part of the area of responsibility that Ofcom is taking over, I cannot understand how they can argue that Ofcom should be outside the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Will the Minister think again and accept the amendment?
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I support the persuasive case made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. Given the smile on his face, I expect the Minister to say that Ofcom's functions will be governed by the ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration because, as has been rightly pointed out, such a service is much valued by citizens.
People do not necessarily question the decisions that have been made, but the manner of the administration is often the reason why complaints are made to the ombudsman. I draw attention to notable Inland Revenue cases, in which people query its treatment of them. I can foresee circumstances in which individuals consider that Ofcom has treated them poorly and it would be appropriate to take such cases to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, or tell us that some other part of the Bill provides that the ombudsman will cover Ofcom.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I can soothe the hon. Gentlemen's ruffled sensibilities. We are ahead of them. The Cabinet Office is updating schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and will shortly make an order to amend it. Ofcom will be included in that order. We shall reach the precise position that the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford have argued in favour of, albeit by a different route.
Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)
Was the Cabinet Office taking such action before we tabled the amendment?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I can say that the matter is in hand. For the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, it would be unthinkable for Ofcom to be outside the scope of the ombudsman.
Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)
Given that the review of the position of the ombudsman has been taking place for two years, can my hon. Friend assure me that it will be finished before the Bill is enacted?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that will have happened before Ofcom is in operation by the end of the year. The answer to his question is yes.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I am disappointed by the Minister's response. Although I am encouraged by the fact that he accepts the principle of my argument, he said that the Cabinet Office will deal with the matter. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, Northeast rightly pointed out, it is taking a long time.
Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)
I am talking not about a review of an individual component, but about a complete review of the ombudsman's functions, including removing the MP's filter and improving the way in which the ombudsman works in a collegiate form.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
That increases my concern, because the hon. Gentleman is saying that the review will be huge and that it will examine a host of areas. Surely, everyone, including the Minister, accepts the simple proposition that we have advanced. I accept that it is the Government's intention that Ofcom should be brought under the terms of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, but we have offered a simple and easy method of achieving that straight away. All the Government have to do is to say, ''Yes'' to our amendment, and that will be it. We have made the life of the Cabinet Office easier by doing its work for it. I am not persuaded to withdraw the amendment, given that the Government accept the merit of our case.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
The amendment is also valuable for whiling away a few minutes of the Committee's time. I understand that the exercise will be completed within two months, which is well before the period to which members of the Committee have drawn attention.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
If the Minister is giving me a guarantee that Ofcom will be brought within the remit of the Parliamentary Commission for Administration at least as fast as—if not faster than—the enactment of the Bill, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
Yes.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford, Conservative)
I regard that as a triumph. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 672, in
schedule 17, page 480, line 20, after '2003' insert 'and, in the case of a direction to a provider of a public electronic communications network, notwithstanding that it relates to him in a capacity other than as the provider of such a network.'.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government amendments Nos. 673 and 674.
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
Paragraph 70 of schedule 17 deals with several minor and consequential amendments to update section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which currently gives the Secretary of State powers to serve directions on public telecommunications operators in the interests of national security or relations with a foreign Government. The updating of section 94 principally involves replacing the concept of public telecommunications operator, which has no direct equivalent in the new framework for the regulation of electronic communications. On reflection, we have reached the view that the amended provision under the Bill runs wider than is needed, in that those principally addressed are the providers of public electronic communications services. The existing power of direction is addressed principally to public telecommunications operators, a much smaller group.
We have therefore concluded that the scope of amended section 94 can be reduced, so that people with whom it is concerned are no more than the providers of public electronic communications networks. It is, however, necessary to ensure that a direction, while it may be addressed only to such a person, can apply to him in any capacity. That is consistent with the provisions of subsection (8) of section 94. We are narrowing the scope of the provision on the basis of further reflection. I hope that the Committee will consider that that is helpful.
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I have no complaints about the amendments, but can the Minister tell us how many Government amendments have been accepted? On Second Reading, we were told that the Bill was just about perfect after being subject to scrutiny of the Joint Committee. I offer a wager that 100 amendments have been accepted. Can he tell how many have been?
Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)
Sadly, I am unable to tell the hon. Gentleman whether he will win the wager. I will make sure that he has such information by this afternoon's sitting.
Amendment agreed to.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.