1. This submission represents the views of the Chairmen of the six Advisory Committees on Telecommunications (ACTs). The committees are:

• Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Consumer Communications for England (CCE)

• The Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Telecommunications (NIACT)

1. Each committee is a statutory body established under section 54 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to provide advice to the Director General of Telecommunications in relation to his functions. The Chairmen meet in a non-statutory forum - the Telecoms Advisory Panel (TAP) - to co-ordinate their work and to raise matters with the Director General of Telecommunications.

Submission

• The Telecommunications Advisory Panel (TAP) believes that the new legislation should build on and improve consumer protection.

• TAP believes that Clause 3 should place an overriding duty on OFCOM to promote the interests of consumers and this should include promotion of universal access.

• TAP is concerned that a number of different terms are used in the Bill to identify the consumer, some of which have been defined, some are not and others are used in such a way as to leave uncertainty as to which groups of people they are intended to cover.

• TAP believes that uncertainty would be eliminated if the Bill stated clearly that it provides protection for all users and potential users of communications networks and services.

• TAP welcomes the proposal to establish a Consumer Panel and Content Board but believes that appointments to these bodies should be made by the relevant Secretary of State rather than by OFCOM.

• Clause 96 restricts the scope of the Consumer Panel to matters relating to the provision of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services (ie telecommunications).

• TAP believes that the scope of the Consumer Panel should be extended to include anything that is within the remit of OFCOM as well as anything about which the Panel considers it should advise OFCOM.

• Clause 96(6) allows OFCOM to withhold information from the Consumer Panel on the grounds of commercial confidentiality or for any other reason which it considers relevant. Such a restriction is unnecessary because adequate safeguards already exist against the disclosure of damaging confidential information by the public interest tests in the Freedom of Information Act.

• Clause 97(3) provides for consumer representation for each of the four nations of the United Kingdom but does not prescribe how this should be put into practice. The majority view of the ACTs is that there are strong arguments for the establishment of country and regional committees to ensure that the distinct economic, social and cultural characteristics of each country are adequately represented.

• When appointing Consumer Panel members OFCOM should be able to secure advice about the interests of people living in rural and urban areas, smaller businesses, elderly people, people who are disabled and those who are disadvantaged. With this in mind TAP believes that the power to appoint sub-committees, and resultant resources, should be invested in the Consumer Panel and such powers be present on the face of the Bill.

• There is no mention in the Bill of ethnic minorities and single representatives alone cannot possibly represent all of the views of such diverse groups, eg people who are disabled. The most effective way of securing such advice is to give the Panel the power and the resources to set up sub–committees.

• TAP believes there is sufficient commonality of interests between smaller enterprises with up to 5 employees and residential consumers for their interests to be represented by the Consumer Panel.

• TAP considers that the Consumer Panel should, amongst others, include members who can represent the interests of small businesses and people who are older or disabled.

• Since 90% of businesses in the United Kingdom employ fewer than 10 staff TAP suggests that the definition of small business should be reconsidered. A small business that employs 50 staff will be able to exercise more market power than a business with 10 staff.

• OFCOM will need to take account of the views of industry and the larger players are likely to have greater influence. Many small businesses are providers of communications services and TAP believes that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that as providers they can make an effective contribution to regulatory decision making.

• OFCOM will have a duty to secure "light touch regulation" (Clause 5), eg 'co-regulation' and 'self-regulation'. Consumer organisations and other groups often lack the resources of both time and money that would enable them to play a full part in such initiatives, and therefore their views may not be properly represented.

• The ACT's experience of Oftel's self- and co-regulation initiatives suggests that this is a serious problem. There is nothing in the Draft Bill to ensure that consumer groups are adequately funded to play a full role in "light touch regulation" but there needs to be.

• The Bill is silent on the relationship between OFCOM and the devolved assemblies and the regions despite this having featured prominently in the White Paper (Section 8.7). TAP believes that the relationship should, where appropriate, include consultation on public appointments.

Peter Sayers

Chair