| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Duncan: The Minister has been asked on about five occasions what the criteria will be by which he will judge whether a statutory scheme is necessary: what are they?
The hon. Member for Banbury drew our attention to the Select Committee's recommendation, and it relates specifically to what we are doing today. We listened to the Committee and we are implementing its recommendations. The hon. Gentleman talked about the timing of bringing clause 7 into force. As he will know, it is normal to leave at least two months after Royal Assent before making a commencement order. We intend that there will be no further delay beyond that.
Mr. Duncan:
What are the criteria?
Mr. Johnson:
When I come to the criteria, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be extremely satisfied with my response.
The hon. Member for Banbury referred to the significant minority procedure and the mechanism for making deregulatory licence modifications as laid out in part III. As stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce in her opening speech, the Government will bring forward amendments so that the significant minority procedure can be dropped from the Bill. The remaining deregulatory mechanism would allow fast-track licence modifications to remove regulatory burdens only if stringent tests were met.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about the e-envoy, a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I assure hon. Members that Alex Allen is not a virtual appointment. He was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September. Although he is still in Australia he is already spending time on e-business issues. He will pick up the reins full-time in January and among other duties will be responsible for implementing the recommendations in the PIU--performance and innovation unit--report on electronic commerce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) raised the matter of international activity. We are supporting activity through the EU,the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations to develop common standards, but if we wait for such standards to be finalised, we will be the last to benefit. We want to lead, and we believe that self-regulation offers a flexible way of doing that.
In a fascinating contribution with props provided, my hon. Friend also asked about voice signature. I can reassure him that voice signature is indeed an electronic signature, within the terms of our Bill.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) referred to ideas for carve-out--another example of terminology--which would permit the electronic alternative to paper to be introduced across the board, with some exceptions. As it stands, the Bill adopts a case-by-case approach, but we are already studying the hon. Gentleman's idea and we expect to have more to say about it in Committee.
Clause 8 does provide the power to charge different fees for electronic and paper transactions, and there is no question of the Government pocketing the savings, but we will need to consider the position of the socially excluded. The Bill is flexible and Ministers may view their areas of responsibility differently. No doubt we will return to the point in Committee.
While I have time, let me draw attention to the criteria being set for regulation. [Hon. Members: "Aha!"] This should be no surprise to Opposition Members. We published a detailed set of criteria in July. Do they not read such documents? It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce when she introduced the debate.
The document states:
I do not have time to refer in detail to all the other contributions, but they were fascinating. In a shameless bid for a place on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made one of the most thoughtful contributions. He described his experience of working in the industry over a number of years, and I am sure that we all benefited from hearing his comments. He pointed out that the wording of clause 7 is technologically neutral, which ensures that developments in new technology will not affect the provisions of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) pointed out what a godsend the internet is to women who have family responsibilities and work unsocial hours, especially at this time of the year. In another thoughtful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) welcomed the Bill. He was enthusiastic about part II and recognised the need for reserve powers in part I. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) supported the Bill, and commended the extensive consultation and the changes that we made to the Bill as a result of that.
Those are all Members whose knowledge of these matters far exceeds mine. They contributed to an immensely informed debate.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the procedure for a commencement order under part I. There is no provision in the Bill for alternative or negative procedure for the commencement order. That is in accordance with normal procedure for such statutory instruments.
Mr. Johnson:
I do not have time to give way.
The situation in respect of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will be dealt with under the Finance Act 1999, not under the Bill.
Mr. Johnson:
I am not giving way. We hope that part I will not be brought into force, so there is no need to present draft statutory instruments yet. We shall report on progress on self-regulation. Clause 8 orders have to cover many Acts and we intend to propose some alternative structure.
Mr. Johnson:
I will not give way.
I do not need to emphasise the importance of our proposals; hon. Members have done that during the debate. There may be differences in our views, but we all agree that trust and confidence are essential. Therefore, it is bizarre that the Opposition amendment tries to prevent the establishment of that trust. The industry would not develop a self-regulatory scheme for trust service providers if it believed that that would damage its prospects.
Mr. Johnson:
I am not giving way. We are adopting the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton--I am pleased that he has resumed his seat--recanted on Opposition proposals. I shall remind the House of the industry's views. Microsoft says that the publication of the Bill
Mr. Johnson:
I said that we would follow the usual procedure, but we cannot say now whether the negative or the positive resolution procedure will be used.
"The Government believes any scheme should have the following characteristics:
29 Nov 1999 : Column 115
The scheme should be wide enough to cover a broad range of services including signature and confidentiality services.
The scheme should be demonstrably rigorous, impartial and trusted by all sectors of industry . . . It should not act as a barrier to new entrants to the market"--
that was one of the suggestions that we heard from the Opposition--
including a number of examples set out in the report. Finally:
"The scheme should have a means of taking into account the views of consumers.
The scheme needs effective mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these standards"--
"The scheme should take account of the draft EU Electronic Signatures Directive . . . In particular, it should provide UK providers with a means of showing that their signature service meets the standards envisaged in the draft directive".
Those criteria have been published, they are clear to the industry and they have been repeated for the benefit of the Opposition.
"provides a model for the rest of Europe to follow."
Keith Chapple, the managing director of Intel UK, said:
"We are delighted that government has confirmed in the Bill that key-escrow is off the agenda and is focusing on the real issue of legal recognition of electronic signatures".
Carl Symon, chief executive officer of IBM said:
"IBM welcomes the introduction of this important measure and hopes that it will become law very early in the new Millennium."
Keith Todd, the chief executive of ICL plc said:
"This is good news . . . This new sense of partnership between industry and Government"--
he refers specifically to part I--
"will make the UK a great place for electronic commerce."
The list continues with Cisco Systems, AOL and BT, which said:
"BT supports the government aim of creating an environment of trust and confidence in UK e-commerce. Legal recognition of digital signatures and writing on a non-discriminative basis, is an important step in this procedure."
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton):
We have received conflicting advice on clause 15. The Minister said that there would be no statutory instrument whereas his colleague said that a statutory instrument would be introduced. Will the Minister clarify that?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |