| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, the second of which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and myself.
I think that the amendments are self-explanatory, and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are a logical extension of Amendment. No. 4. The group consists of what could be called sunrise amendments which are designed to modify the amount of pre-emptive activities and expenditure that can be entered into by the embryonic Ofcom under this enabling legislation before Parliament has defined its powers and duties.
As the well-known saying goes, cometh the hour, cometh the man—or perhaps I should say person. But the Government have had more than five years—since they started drafting their 1997 general election manifesto—to formulate detailed proposals in this sphere. However, whatever their drafting problems, we cannot establish an elaborate and potentially powerful organisation, with an equally powerful chairman and chief executive, without knowing precisely what qualifications might be best suited to the performance of their duties, what the organisation is going to do, or even when it is going to do it. The only way of aligning Ofcom with the eventual substantive legislation that it will administer is to link them by ensuring that Ofcom starts to operate only when its brief and duties have been fully defined.
The amendments have two purposes. The first is to ensure that Ofcom does not go galloping off in using the fairly wide powers provided by Clause 2(3) to spend money, to set up its organisation and possibly to formulate policies that will then be presented to Parliament as a fait accompli while or—this is very important—even before the substantive legislation is being deliberated on. All we are asking is that before this legislation which the Government describe as enabling comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to see precisely what is being enabled in the long term.
In moving his amendment—which I fully supported—on this topic in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, accepted that the Government had a problem, and he accepted their assurance that they would consult as widely as possible. He also acknowledged, as I do, that the Government cannot tie themselves down to a particular form of consultation or to a legislative timetable, although we hope that they will manage to sort out their intentions and announce them very quickly. The uncertainty is not doing the communications industry any good at all. These amendments will ensure that Parliament knows what the organisation we seek to establish is all about before the Government are able to press the button starting its operation.
The second and possibly more important purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to remove uncertainty from the existing five regulators. Even before passage of this Bill, they have been working in a type of limbo, and so have their staff. Staff realise that merger of the five regulators will result in some redundancies, and it
The Minister's commitment to a six-monthly progress report from the Government is very welcome. However, no one knows whether or when the substantive legislation, still in the throes of drafting, will receive parliamentary time. We have all witnessed, particularly in the past few days, how sudden calls can be made on legislative time, thereby disrupting the Government's programme even when a drastic timetable curtailing discussion has been imposed.
The purpose of this group of amendments is only to concentrate the Government's mind on getting on with the main Bill, which, with all the constructive goodwill that exists, will inevitably require detailed scrutiny. If precedent is followed, the Bill will take from six to nine months from introduction in the other place to Royal Assent. We are not trying to limit the Government's powers or to inhibit the intended substantive legislation. On the contrary, we have made it absolutely clear that we support the general principle of having a single regulator to cover the industry entirely.
On 15th October the Minister stated that,
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I do not go quite as far as the noble Baroness in that my sunrise simply requires the publication of the draft Bill for one week. It does not require discussion; it does not require scrutiny. I rely simply on the fact that if it is published, all those interested in Ofcom will respond quickly and the Government will obtain within a week a clear idea of the public reaction to the draft communications Bill.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be sensible for the Government to wait until they have tested the water with their proposals before making key appointments like the chairman and chief executive. I warn them that we will only get public consultation when people have seen the detail of legislation. That is the only way to gauge the impact of the full consultative process.
The Government have gone a long way in giving us pre-legislative scrutiny and we all welcome that—me more than anyone—but let us be clear. We hope that pre-legislative scrutiny will improve the quality of the communications Bill, and perhaps also smooth its
I can give two possible scenarios. It is by no means impossible that the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC will be somewhat different by spring from that which exists now. Furthermore, a consultative exercise is taking place on cross-media ownership. A very tough regime will arise out of that or a very light one. Surely we need to know which before we decide how to staff up and resource that particular department of Ofcom.
All I am saying is that I started in Committee asking for 12 weeks. I dropped that to four weeks. I am now dropping it to one week. I simply say this: it would be silly to appoint the chairman of Ofcom and its chief executive before the draft communications Bill is published. I shall not press this amendment. But I give the Government this warning: if they do not wait, then on their heads be it if they get it wrong.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with a good deal of what has been said by both noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. We feel that the Government should get on as quickly as possible to produce the main Bill. We look forward to seeing the draft Bill when it comes before us.
We on these Benches appreciate that this is extremely complicated legislation, perhaps the most complicated in this Parliament. There are obvious difficulties in drafting. Whether or not it is right to set up the structures as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, we do not know. We feel that he has some good points and shall be interested to hear the Minister answer the anxieties expressed. By and large we are grateful to the Government and to both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench for dealing with the concerns expressed—many more than we expected—and we look forward to the assurance, which I am sure the noble Baroness is just about to give us, that a draft Bill will be with us as quickly as possible. We can then allay in short order many of the fears, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, expressed within the industry and staff.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was not in the House at Second Reading. I was not a Member of the House at that time, though I could and can read the debate. I was present in Committee, though I had not made my maiden speech at that stage. It is recommended that we make our maiden speech in a debate where there is a prepared list of speakers so that whoever has the misfortune to speak after us can in fact phrase in advance what they want to say about the maiden speech.
I felt in Committee that the subjects of these amendments were well worth discussing. I have two reasons for supporting the amendments, but I share with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, the feeling that it is important that the principle should be established rather than that there should necessarily be a great delay.
My first reason is that I was the first head hunter in this land and one of the things that head hunters try to insist on with their clients is that there should be extremely rigorous specifications before an appointment is made. It is possible to rue in retrospect if somebody is appointed before there is a clear idea of what they are going to do.
My second reason is that, as I believe I mentioned on Report, I had service as the chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council. One of the difficulties while building the ombudsman schemes was that the Financial Services and Markets Act took a long time to come to its conclusion—not in terms of its going through the House, but in terms of the dates of execution. Indeed, N2, which is what wound up the old ombudsman schemes, occurred only on 30th November—two weeks ago—long after the legislation had been passed. A great many people therefore were sitting around effectively taking pay but not doing much while the Financial Services Authority worked out the various codes and brought the various ombudsman schemes together. It seemed unfortunate to me that that contingency had not been foreseen, though it was necessary for us to remain in existence.
I can see the opposite happening in this scheme; that if there are considerable delays for the legislation, then the officers of the new organisation will, equally, be sitting around not doing much and drawing pay in a manner which is not necessarily the best way of running a railroad.
X( ) The appointment of chairman of OFCOM shall not be made until a bill to give effect to the proposals in section 2(3) to regulate communications is published."
Xthe work in process now embarked on by the steering group of regulators and DTI/DCMS officials provides a satisfactory process for carrying on with the planning for the new body".
So no time will be lost by accepting this series of amendments. At this time we want a simple assurance from the Government that Ofcom will remain a shadow organisation until the Government show us the substance. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page