SACOT MINUTES OF THE 77^th MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 14 MAY 2002 AT 28 THISTLE STREET, EDINBURGH

Present: Jeremy Mitchell (Chair)
Mark Hagger
Kenneth Murray
Wendy Reynolds
Alastair Robertson
Barry Stevens MBE

George Halford (Secretary)
Lisa Proffitt (Administration Support)
Colin Adamson – For Item 13

1. OPENING REMARKS AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1. The Chair welcomed members to the 77^th meeting. Colin Adamson had been invited to present the findings of the SACOT research project (see item 13). Apologies received from Chris Griffith and Peter Wilson who were both away on holiday.

2. MINUTES OF THE 76^th MEETING HELD ON 18 MARCH 2002

2.1 These were approved.

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 76^th MEETING

• 3.1 SACOT Annual Report

1. The SACOT Annual Report had now been published. Members had received copies and all MSPs and contacts on SACOT’s distribution list had been sent a copy of the Annual Report with individual letters from the Chair.

• 3.3 June meeting/reception

1. The draft Communications Bill had now been published and the Chair noted that WACT were to hold a briefing for Welsh MPs and peers at Westminster. The Chair thought this approach would be more effective than a briefing for Scottish MSPs in Edinburgh. After a short discussion, it was agreed to go ahead with the planning of a parliamentary briefing for all Scottish MPs and appropriate peers in late June/early July. The Chair would intend to conduct the briefing and invite the Director General of Oftel to do likewise. The Chair would prepare an explanatory note on the draft Communications Bill for MSPs. This would allow the June SACOT meeting to concentrate on its consideration of the Bill.

ACTION (Chair)

• 4.10 Oftel Price Comparison Website Group

1. The Secretary reported that he had received confirmation from Terry Walker, before he left Oftel, that this group was not active and there were no immediate plans for further meetings. It was agreed that this heading could be removed from the standing agenda items of Member’s reports (Mark Hagger).

ACTION (Secretary)

• 8.1 Project Allocation

1. Members had received requests from both Oftel, centrally, and SACOT to record their interests in Oftel’s 2002/03 projects. The Chair asked those members that had not yet returned their forms to SACOT to do so promptly so that the Secretary could prepare a proposed allocation for his approval.

ACTION (Members/Secretary)

• 9.1 September SACOT/CfB meeting Inverness

3.5 Alastair Robertson reported that the sub-committee consisting of himself, Kenneth Murray, Barry Stevens and the Secretary had met that morning to progress planning for the 24^th September meeting in Inverness. The theme would be broadband development in the Highlands and Islands. A suitable venue had been identified as had organisations that would aid with notifying appropriate persons of the event and for helping with audio-visual support. An outline programme had been agreed which included the Chair, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, the Scottish Executive and BT. It was proposed to invite the local Convenor/CEO to open the event. The Chair suggested that Mike Tedd, Chair of WACT, might be of interest to attendees if he were to speak on broadband problems in Wales. This was agreed. To allow sufficient times for Group sessions – presentations may need to be restricted to 15-20 minutes. Alastair Robertson and the Secretary expected to visit Inverness shortly to view the proposed venue and to meet with key personnel. The proposed arrangements were

• Monday 23^rd September p.m. CfB meeting
• Tuesday 24^th September 1000 Arrival/coffee
• 1030 – 1330 SACOT event
• 1330 Buffet lunch
• 1500 – 1730 SACOT Meeting

3.6 The Chair was grateful for the preparatory work that had been done and requested that a final programme be prepared for consideration at the June meeting.

ACTION (Sub-committee)

4. REPORTS FROM CHAIR AND MEMBERS

i. Chair’s Report

• Meetings of the Telecoms Ombudsman Implementation Working Group, 26 March, 30 April
• Meetings of the Telecoms Ombudsman Council, 16 April, 30 April

1. The work of the Implementation Working Group had now come to its end and had handed over to the Council. The Chair reviewed the membership of the Council but two industry representatives were still to be appointed. Invitations to telecom companies to participate in the scheme had been issued. Companies representing over 90% of the fixed line market had agreed to participate but only one mobile company. A location, outside the Greater London region, was being sought and it was planned to have the scheme operating from 1^st January 2003.

• Meetings of the Telecoms Advisory Panel (ACT Chairs), 5 March, 8 May

4.2 Minutes of the 5^th March meeting had been circulated as had the papers relating to the 8^th May meeting. Items of note were the departure of Terry Walker – his successor, Paul Rogers, would be in post in late May, and the OFCOM Consumer Panel consultancy exercise. This was going ahead after some initial reluctance from Oftel and three consultants (one of whom was Colin Adamson who would be addressing the Committee later) had been contracted to perform a rapid assessment of what structure and resources the Consumer Panel would need. The Memorandum of Understanding was to be revised and re-issued as a guidance document for ACT Secretariats. The Chair highlighted Oftel’s appreciative comments about ACT input to the finalisation of Oftel’s management plan.

• Financial Services Authority - e-Commerce Committee

4.3 Alastair Robertson stated that he had made enquiries and that this standing item on the agenda could now be deleted.

• Communications for Business (CfB)

4.4 Alastair Robertson had attended the Oftel meeting, along with the Secretary, which considered the implications of the implementation of EU directives from 15 July 2003. This meant a move away from specific licences to general conditions. Specific conditions would only be applied where a company had significant market power. There would be a review of segments of the market to determine where this would be appropriate. Oftel were currently reviewing how to define market segments and this would be followed by reviews, each of which would result in a consultation document. There was a drive for harmonisation of regulatory controls across the EU and Oftel would be participating in an EU group of regulatory representatives. There had been concern expressed that consumer representatives also needed to liase more effectively across the EU and be aware of the regulatory provisions in EU countries. For example, the UK was felt to be ahead in requirements for the disabled and elderly and it would be of concern if harmonisation were to erode the situation in the UK. Industry representatives favoured the level playing field that would result from harmonisation and were wary of minimum standards that could be exceeded to varying degrees in different member states. As the Communications Bill would not receive Royal Assent before the implementation date for the EU directives it was expected that a number of Statutory Instruments would need to be laid to cover the interim period. These were expected to be passed by negative resolution but there was a risk that these could be debated.

• Directory Enquiries Consumer Group

4.5 Alastair Robertson reported that the group had now received copies of papers from the industry group. Draft consumer guides were being considered. Service providers must supply a UK-wide service. A parallel running period was proposed during which calls to 192 would be automatically routed to a to a random and even selection of the new companies. This must not result in a higher cost than would have applied to a BT 192 call. Kenneth Murray asked whether new service providers would, like BT, allow 2 searches per call. Alastair Robertson was not sure but would follow this up. He was able to report that it had been proposed that caller must be informed of the name of the service provider in case of complaint. Kenneth Murray asked what was the source of the database and Alastair Robertson said that the BT database was being provided to each new directory enquiry service provider.

ACTION (Alastair Robertson)

• Consumer Forum on Communications

4.6 Peter Wilson was not present.

5. SECRETARY'S REPORT

• BT Customer Service Guarantee Scheme Briefing, 3 April

1. The Secretary had attended this event and copied the supporting papers from BT to Members. BT felt that the previous compensation scheme was difficult for consumers to understand and use. Their revised scheme would allow customers affected by a fault either to elect to have their calls automatically forwarded to an alternative fixed line number in the home (if one was available) or to a mobile number. In the later case the additional costs of making calls would be automatically credited to the account for the appropriate period. If no forwarding number was available a simpler compensation scheme would operate whereby accounts would automatically be credited with monthly rental costs on a sliding scale for the days affected (1-3 days: 1 month; 4-6 days: 2 month; 7-9 days:3 months; 10+ days: 4 months). Actual financial losses could also be claimed. Mark Hagger asked about the arrangements for exceptionally long periods of loss of service – he had in mind a neighbour that had lost service for 2 months – and what the arrangements would be for poor quality of service. The Chair felt that these points should be raised by SACOT at the next meeting with BT Scotland. Alastair Robertson asked whether BT had considered supplying temporary mobile handsets and the Secretary said they had. There was a range of practical and financial difficulties involved although BT had not discounted this as a future enhancement of the Guarantee Scheme.

ACTION (Chair/Secretary)

• Oftel Forum, 25 April

5.2 Already covered – see 4.4 above.

• SACOT Budget Report for 2001/2002

5.3 The Secretary had prepared a summary that was tabled at the meeting. The Secretary highlighted a 4% overspend but this had been largely due to the costs associated with the removal from Greenside Lane to Thistle Street. The Chair noted that nearly all the research costs which initially were planned to be spread across the two financial years on a 2/3: 1/3 split had been accommodated in 2000/01.

• Members Claims 2002/03

5.4 Lisa Proffitt reminded Members of the procedures for claiming allowances and expenses and provided an example of the record that would be maintained for each Member. After some discussion it was agreed that the summary could usefully be copied to members towards the end of the Financial Year so that any unclaimed allowances could be claimed. The Secretary reminded Members that the number of days allowances could exceed six but only with the agreement of the Secretary who would liase with the Chair as appropriate.

6. TAP FORWARD PLAN 2002-03

6.1 This had been distributed to Members and it was noted that it was also available on the Oftel website.

• SACOT Budget 2002/03

6.2 Members noted the SACOT budget provision. The Chair highlighted the high costs for NIACT but this resulted from the retention of complaints work. Alastair Robertson asked about how the savings resulting from the loss of complaints work for SACOT and WACT had been applied. The Chair felt that this was reflected in the increased resources available for research projects and that both WACT and SACOT were holding events in 2002/03. Although Oftel had suffered a reduction in its bid to the Treasury the allocation for ACTs had not been affected.

6. COMPLAINTS STATISTICS

1. The Oftel statistics had been distributed. Some amendment sheets that had just been received were circulated at the meeting. Mark Hagger had prepared a critique of the presentation of the data and circulated it at the meeting. He was anxious that monthly variations in totals should be highlighted on the first sheet and that thereafter proportions should be illustrated with the supporting numbers available for reference. The use of very thin slices for bar charts should be avoided with their being aggregated into an ‘other’ category. The Chair observed that the use of 3-D bar charts actually prevented interpolation of intermediate values. Use of yellow in colour versions should be avoided as this disappeared when being photocopied in black and white. After some discussion the Chair thanked Mark Hagger for his valuable contribution and asked that he now expand his critique into a draft specification that could be discussed at the next meeting.

ACTION (Mark Hagger)

• Legislation

8.1 Members had been sent material relating to the draft Communications Bill and each would receive a full set of the publications shortly. The Chair had made notes on aspects of the Bill and would work this up into a commentary that would be sent to members before the next meeting. This would enable the agenda for the next meeting to concentrate on the Draft Communications Bill, the period for consultation was due to end in August. The Secretary provided the Chair with a copy of the statement made in the House of Commons when the Bill was presented. The Minister had highlighted that representation for each of the home nations featured in the Bill in relation to the Content Board (an internal OFCOM body) and the Consumer Panel. The Minister had also given a commitment that OFCOM would have a presence in each home nation although there was no statutory requirement included.

ACTION (Chair)

• Consumer Panel

8.2 The Chair had referred earlier to the progress made with the consultancy on Consumer Panel structure and resources (see 4.2).

9.1 The Chair’s response was endorsed.

9.2 The Chair’s response was endorsed.

9.3 The Chair’s response was endorsed.

9.4 The Chair’s response was endorsed.

5. The Chair’s response was endorsed.

Consultation documents for discussion

10. i Oftel Statement (S/015): "Oftel management plan 2002/03"
    1. Members agreed that no response was necessary and noted the appreciation of ACT input. Allocation to projects would now be finalised.

    Other Items

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

    11.1 No other business was raised.

12. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS

12.1 18 June 2002 to concentrate on the Draft Communications Bill and Mark Hagger’s draft Complaints Statistics specification.

12.2 The long gap between June and the next meeting at Inverness on 24th September concerned the Chair. He appreciated that the June meeting had originally been scheduled for July and had been brought forward to facilitate a reception for MSPs. However, it had now been agreed to plan for a Westminster briefing in late June/early July. Accordingly, given the volume of consultation documents expected during this key period there may be a need for a SACOT meeting sometime in July. Members agreed to this. (Secretary’s note – this might be held in London to coincide with briefing at Westminster depending on the date and Members’ attendance.)

13. PRESENTATION by COLIN ADAMSON of his REPORT to SACOT on "PERCEPTIONS OF COMPETITION AMONGST TELECOM USERS IN SCOTLAND"

13.1 Members had been provided with copies of the draft Report and Colin Adamson presented the findings from the forums of business users and from the questionnaire to consumers. Copies of the slides that he spoke to were provided to Members. Members agreed that the conclusions were both interesting and relevant and some suggestions were made for a slight restructuring of the report to highlight the key conclusions. The Committee expressed their appreciation of the valuable work that had been done in such a limited time scale. Once the report had been finalised it would be published by SACOT and circulated to all interested parties.

ACTION (Colin Adamson/Secretary)