I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

BT is also now filing transaction reports with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and withholding payment in cases where it has suspicion.

The Department for Trade and Industry and Ofcom have also acted to tighten up the system. They have encouraged ICSTIS to institute a prior permissions regime for dialler software utilising premium rate numbers, they have introduced the requirement that no money should be paid out to service providers for at least 30 days, and they have increased the fines for offenders. Those actions, when they are all in place, will result in a better system, but the fact that they have had to introduce those measures demonstrates the failings of what was going on last year. However, the new measures do not address the situation of those people who have already become victims of internet rogue dialling, on which I am concentrating tonight.

Because I feel that BT took fraudulently generated money from customers and passed it on through other companies in the communications chain to the very people who perpetrated the fraud, I asked Suffolk police to investigate whether BT was in breach of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and that matter is being pursued by Suffolk police and the Suffolk Crown Prosecution Service. BT knew at that time that the money was dodgy because it was paying its share to a charity. It denies guilt today, and I am not trying to take on BT on that count. It says that it was doing only what it was contractually obliged to do.

But the great feature of the whole matter is that no one will accept blame, fault or responsibility. BT said to me that it

"has a regulatory obligation as a carrier to interconnect with any comms provider in the interests of competition, with extremely limited ability to withhold funds if there is a suspicion of wrong doing"— except that that is what it is now doing, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

ICSTS seems to blame the companies. It said:

"We did, however, introduce an enhanced registration requirement in June 2004 for service providers operating dialler services. No service provider registered international satellite numbers with ICSTIS and no permission certificate has ever been issued for a dialler licence using an international number."

It concluded therefore that

"any dialler services operating on international numbers is doing so wilfully in an attempt to hide wrongdoing."

On that basis ICSTIS told all leading phone companies back in June 2004 that any international or satellite number found linked to a dialler service should be cut off immediately, and it repeated that message in the second half of 2004. But my constituents were still being defrauded. ICSTIS says:

"The issue of BT's effectiveness or otherwise in spotting international dialler traffic and acting to cut access and withhold outpayment is something for BT to address."

So ICSTIS was tending to pass the matter to the companies. The question is: does ICSTIS and its code have enough teeth?

BT tends to blame Ofcom. It said:

"Ofcom should stop handing out premium rate numbers to companies who have no real business model . . . Service providers could also be required to pay an up-front bond—available to compensate customers if the company defrauded them and disappeared."

Where are we now? Everybody has been playing the blame game, when in fact everybody should be trying to help the victims, not just by preventing future victims, but by addressing the problems of those who are already victims.

First, these matters must be pursued through the criminal justice system. The Suffolk investigation is proceeding very slowly. Will my right hon. Friend therefore write to the Crown Prosecution Service in Suffolk in order to be kept informed and to show some interest in the matter? Of course, that might not produce a result. Secondly, BT should take a leaf out of France Telecom's book and stop pursuing the proceeds of fraud. Of course, BT is not the only company involved. Thirdly, therefore, the Government have a duty to ensure effective and fair regulation, which was not in place in 2004. That was made clear in letters dated 21 March from the chief executive of Ofcom, Stephen Carter, which all Members of the House received.

I believe that the Government have a moral duty to protect people as consumers and as victims of crime. The Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman only considers whether the processes were followed, but the process itself was flawed. That does not get to the heart of the problem. The Government and the industry, principally BT, should act together to establish a compensation scheme.

My right hon. Friend has nobly acted to improve the future. I believe, however, that we need action to redress the past. Crimes have been perpetrated, innocent victims deserve better from BT, and I think that they deserve a little bit more from the Government.