Present:
Jeremy Mitchell (Chair)
Chris Griffith
Mark Hagger
Kenneth Murray
Wendy Reynolds
Alastair Robertson

Peter Wilson (Consultant)

Alistair Cox, Oftel
Maura Crawford, Oftel
Ian Forsyth, OFCOM Project Team
Ray Thornton, Oftel

George Halford (Secretary)
Jan Edwards (Assistant Secretary)

1. OPENING REMARKS AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.1 The Chair opened the 81st meeting by welcoming members and, particularly, the attendees from Oftel/OFCOM.

1.2 Apologies were presented from Barry Stevens MBE who was attending his investiture and from Katherine Phipps who was ill but had accepted the role as a DIEL observer on SACOT.

2. MINUTES OF THE 80th MEETING HELD ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2002

2.1 These were approved.

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE 80th MEETING

3.2 Project Allocation

3.1 The Chair explained that this would now be a standing item on the agenda to check that the allocation of ACT Members to Oftel projects was effective. All members, other than Wendy Reynolds, confirmed that project managers appropriate to their declared interests had contacted them. Ray Thornton undertook to check with those project managers concerned with numbering as to whether they had communicated with Wendy Reynolds given that this was one of her declared interests.

ACTION (Ray Thornton)

· 3. 3 September SACOT/CfB meeting Inverness

3.2 The Secretary reported that conference packs, with the Chair's presentations, a conference report, speakers' slides and a list of attendees/contact details had been circulated both electronically to those with e-mail and in hard copy to all others. The Chair reported that subsequent to the Broadband conference he had been invited by the Communications Workers' Union to attend a dinner they were hosting in Edinburgh in connection with Broadband.

· 5.1 SCC Parliamentary Reception

3.3 The Chair reminded Members that this event was due to be held on 27 November at 'The Hub'. By that time the Communications Bill should have been published and Members would be briefed on arrival as to the key aspects for SACOT which they should raise with MSPs. The Secretary would set up a SACOT 'stall' with appropriate documents and Members should wear their SACOT badges.

ACTION (Chair/Secretary)

4. REPORTS FROM CHAIR AND MEMBERS

i. Chair's Report

· Telecoms Ombudsman Scheme (TOS) Council, 8, 22 October, 12 November
4.1 The Chair reported that the TOS had now opened their headquarters in Warrington. Seven telcos had been formally admitted including BT, Vodafone and NTL and appropriate financial support had been secured. Work was ongoing on developing processing arrangements that would be primarily electronic. Further staff appointments were imminent and the scheme was still on target to open from the start of 2003.

· Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV) Conference, Edinburgh, 12 October
4.2 The Chair had spoken on the topic of the Communications Bill at this event that attracted about 80 attendees who had found it useful.

· Scottish Media Group Seminar on the Communications Bill, 30 October
4.3 The Chair had been unable to attend due to a conflicting meeting.

· Telecoms Advisory Panel (TAP) Meeting, 31 October
4.4 The Chair had attended this meeting, to which ACT Secretaries had been invited. After a 'closed' meeting the TAP had met with Peter Waller, the deputy to the Director General of Oftel, in the afternoon. The main topics had been about the Communications Bill, transition to OFCOM and consumer representation arrangements. Ian Forsyth, OFCOM Project Team, had briefed the TAP on developments and would be addressing the meeting on the same topic under a later item on the agenda. When the minutes of the TAP were received they would be circulated by the Secretary.

ACTION (Secretary)

4.5 Since the Agenda was issued the Chair had attended a meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Cross Party Group on Consumer Issues on 13 November, which had been convened to brief MSPs on aspects of the Communications Bill. Due to pressure of other parliamentary business no MSPs in fact attended.

4.6 The Chair had also been invited to attend a Scottish Forum on the Communications Bill on 25 November, convened by the Scottish representative on the VLV, to consider whether to submit representations. This was an open meeting to which the general public was invited.

4.7 The Chair had been invited to speak at a VLV conference in London on 2 December which also was to focus on the Communications Bill. Representatives of each of the major political parties would address the meeting that was primarily to focus on broadcasting matters. However, the Chair had been invited to cover the telecommunications aspects.

4.8 The TAP chairs were to meet with Lord Currie, Chairman of OFCOM, on 11 December at which they would have the opportunity to present their views on consumer panel arrangements.

4.9 The Chair and Secretary had also been invited to meet Sandy Walkington, National Public Affairs Director of BT, on 12 December.

ii. Members' Reports

· Financial Services Authority - e-Commerce Committee
4.10 Alastair Robertson reported that there had been no further meetings of this group since the last SACOT meeting.

· Communications for Business (CfB)
4.11 Alastair Robertson reported that the Committee for Business had met and considered Comparable Performance Indicators (CPIs). The Chair of CfB had proposed setting up a sub-group to consider this CPIs in depth and Alistair Robertson and Chris Griffith were to attend a meeting shortly. Although there was, for example, a website (www.cpi.org.uk) this gave no pricing information, probably the factor of most interest to consumers. CfB had also considered the MORI awareness survey of the Telephone Preference Service (the Chair requested that this should be copied to all Members). An interesting complaint had been raised by some businesses in relation to Talk21 whereby the loss of their e-mail facility could only be reported by e-mail - a contact number is now to be provided.

· Directory Enquiries Consumer Group
4.12 Alastair Robertson reported that parallel running of the new directory enquiry operators with the current service was still due to commence on 10 December although there was now concern at the low level of service providers that had expressed an intention to register (only 6). There was concern whether systems would have been adequately tested prior to commencement. The Chair again expressed his concern as to whether consumers that had called for a service provider's number would realise that they were effectively at a gateway to a commercial service whereby the enquiry service earned revenue from forwarding calls. Alastair Robertson commented that this aspect had received little attention but he had expressed the view that some kind of statement needed to be included for consumers. Kenneth Murray was concerned that notification to consumers via telephone directories would not be widely available during the parallel running period. Alastair Robertson advised that it was intended to supply a leaflet along with directories but was concerned that this would be all too easily overlooked and/or discarded. Experience in the Republic of Ireland showed that the move to commercial directory enquiry services was very limited until the existing service had ceased. Members discussed costs and advertising; Alastair Robertson expected costs to rise, especially after the parallel running period, and thereafter it was expected that competition would ensure reasonable pricing. Alastair Robertson also advised that in considering the implications of the relevant EU directive it had been suggested that reverse searching (finding an address from a telephone number) might be allowed, provided the subscriber agreed in advance. The Committee were concerned that securing an agreement did not necessarily mean a subscriber understood what the implications of reverse searching were, there were major security implications and Alastair Robertson undertook to ensure these were pointed out to Alistair Campbell, Oftel, and also raised with ICSTIS. Alastair Robertson undertook to continue to provide written reports.

ACTION (Alastair Robertson)

· Consumer Forum on Communications
4.13 Peter Wilson reported that he had attended a useful meeting at the end of October, the main topic of which was the forthcoming Communications Bill. Although it seemed very likely that national committees would be established for the Consumer Panel it did not appear likely that these would be statutory committees and if this was to be secured significant lobbying would be required. The meeting had been addressed by Colin Brown, Chair of the Financial Services Consumer Panel who pointed out that although they had a budget of some £600k pa this was hardly sufficient to enable them to carry out all their functions. Peter Wilson had noted the Chair's comments at the last SACOT meeting, but he felt that the Forum was still allowing a useful interchange of views and he was prepared to continue attending at least in the short term.

· EU Directive Policy Group
4.14 Alastair Robertson had attended a meeting of this group. A whole series of market review consultation documents were due to be issued in late December. It had been confirmed that these would be based at a UK level. The Chair undertook to raise with TAP the reasoning why Oftel had not chosen to conduct the reviews at a sub-national level as allowed under EU arrangements. The likely outcome was that the effectiveness of competition would be overstated as far as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were concerned.

ACTION (Chair)

5. SECRETARY'S REPORT

· Secretaries Meeting, 30 October
5.1 The Secretary reported that the main item of interest had been a presentation concerning the Oftel Forum. Secretaries had asked why Oftel always convened these meetings of industry and consumer representatives in London. There were consumers representatives elsewhere in the UK that would probably attend if the meetings were not in London. The SACOT Secretary had subsequently offered to host an Oftel Form in Edinburgh but the response from Oftel still indicated an unwillingness to consider other locations as it was felt that those representatives that currently attended would not do so if the meeting was outside London. The Secretary would report any further developments.

ACTION (Secretary)

5.2 The Secretary and Assistant Secretary had also attended an Oftel 'staff away day' which was largely concerned with the implications for staff of the transition to OFCOM. Lord Currie and two board members had attended and responded to a series of questions. The Secretary had submitted a question concerning the transition arrangements for consumer representation from ACTs to the Consumer Panel. Lord Currie had responded that it was hoped to create the Content Board in advance of the establishment date for OFCOM and he would wish to consider doing likewise for the Consumer Panel. As for national panels this needed more thought but he was clear that he wished to have significant and effective representations being fed through the Consumer Panel to OFCOM. Unfortunately an Oftel staff member then argued for thematic, rather than geographical, groupings, i.e. rural, urban etc. This also received encouraging comments from Lord Currie. The Secretary was asked to respond and stated that he thought this would not bring out the distinctive cultural, social, and environmental aspects of each of the home nations and consumers would wish to feel that their concerns were being pursued by representatives that they could easily communicate with.

5.3 The Secretary had also attended meetings with BT and the Communications Management Association. The key aspect of these had been to plan meetings with the Chair in relation to the Communications Bill.

Topics for discussion

6. COMPLAINTS STATISTICS

To be inserted.

7. OFTEL'S REGIONAL NUMBERING STRATEGY

7.1 Ray Thonton, Head of Numbering, Oftel then gave a presentation on future numbering options for Scotland. The development of numbering strategy through the 1990s was briefly reviewed culminating in the adoption of 'wide area codes' in January 1997. The first introduction of '02' codes was in 1999. As available numbers were allocated it was necessary to plan in advance what strategy should be adopted within the UK for expansion within the 'wide area code' concept and this had particular implications for Scotland. Scotland could be treated as a single 'wide area', therefore all Scottish numbers would be prefixed by the same 3 digits, however, this would mean 66 out of 78 local dialling prefixes would be used (little scope for expansion). Also, it would not be easy to determine where a call was coming from simply by looking at the prefixes as some local prefixes would be shared by exchange areas in different parts of the country (e.g. Arbroath, Dalmally, Langholm, Turriff and Wick). A more robust option would be to split Scotland into three 'wide areas'- Lowlands South, containing Edinburgh, Glasgow and the rest of Southern Scotland - Lowlands North, containing Argyll & Bute, Perth & Kinross, Aberdeenshire, Moray and regions to the East and south as far as the central belt - Highlands & Islands. This would give the greatest 'future proofing' but a half -way house option would be to combine Highlands & Islands with Lowlands North making North and South Scotland wide areas. Ray Thornton then went on to explain migration paths. Public consultation exercises would be carried out well in advance of any change to allow opinions to be canvassed and considered and once the optimal solution had been agreed, to allow sufficient time for advance planning for consumers, both residential and business. Code changes in Scotland were not anticipated to be required before 2007 and it was likely that the consultation exercise would be in late 2005. Ray Thornton left maps that detailed the local codes in each of the wide area options.
7.2 The Chair thanked Ray Thornton for a most interesting presentation: the subject was of particular significance and the Chair was anxious that the Committee should have the opportunity to consider the topic at greater length. The Chair proposed that SACOT should hold a meeting in early 2003 simply to analyse the implications of code changes for Scotland and asked Ray Thornton whether he would be willing to attend to which he agreed. The Committee unanimously agreed this proposal.

ACTION (Secretary)

8. OFCOM

8.1 Ian Forsyth, OFCOM Project Team, then reviewed recent developments in preparing for the transition of five regulators, including Oftel, into OFCOM. A detailed report had been prepared for DTI/DCMS on the structure, organisation, human resource policies, HQ location etc of OFCOM. An executive summary of the salient points was under preparation and would be released shortly. Staff from the five regulators that had been assembled into an OFCOM Project Team was now managing the transition to OFCOM. Recently, the Chair of the Content Board had been announced. The announcement of the Communications Bill was anticipated in the Queen's Speech and the Bill was expected to be published shortly thereafter. Second Reading would probably follow in the first week of December. The Committee would appreciate that some of the detailed planning, especially for the Content Board and Consumer Panel, would have to run alongside the parliamentary progress of the Bill to take account of any amendments that may be made. A possible target date for OFCOM was 1 October 2003. The announcement of a Human Resources Director for OFCOM was imminent. The Chief Executive was expected to be in place in early 2003 and some 25 or so senior positions were expected to be filled between now and February 2003. Advertisements would be placed for applications for membership to the Content Board and Consumer Panel. Alastair Robertson asked whether any planning for regional structures had been carried out yet. Ian Forsyth replied that that this would be at a later stage, however, there had been a ministerial commitment that OFCOM would have offices in each of the home nations. Lord Currie, Chairman of OFCOM was anxious that OFCOM should develop flexible, pragmatic policies and effective arrangements should be planned to ensure a smooth transition.

9. COMMUNICATIONS BILL

9.1 The Chair reminded Members of the likely timetable and requested the Secretary to ensure that members received the full text of the Bill as promptly as possible given that the second reading would probably quickly follow publication. The Secretary supplied Members with a transcript of a recent debate in the Scottish Parliament in which the Minister had stated that there would be a Scottish committee within OFCOM although it was not certain whether this was to be to the Consumer Panel/Content Board/OFCOM Board. Once the Chair had considered the text of the Bill he would prepare a briefing paper for Scottish MPs, peers and MSPs. He was particularly concerned that industry representatives should not dominate appointments to OFCOM committees/boards and it was important that there should be a mix of interests. Mark Hagger reminded Members that there may be an opportunity to discuss the Bill with and MSPs that attended the SCC reception the following week. The Chair felt that a key period would be between second reading and the committee stage and he would consider preparing a more detailed brief to distribute then.

ACTION (Chair/Secretary)

Consultation document responses for formal endorsement

10. DTI Consultation Document (S052/2002): "Electronic Communications (Market Analysis and Universal Service Regulations 2002)"

Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (S058/2002): "Unfair Terms in Contracts"

10.1 The Committee approved these responses.

Consultation documents for discussion

11. DTI Consultation Document (S098/2002): "Implementing Consumer Direct"

11.1 The Chair had discussed this document with other consumer representatives. The Chair favoured the proposal for a single organisation to be responsible for overseeing and delivering the service in Scotland. However, it would need to articulate effectively with other consumer bodies and those responsible for enforcement. Although paragraph 15 mentioned Citizens Advice Scotland as a possible bidder the Chair was aware of others. Kenneth Murray questioned whether consequential funds would also be made available to the other organisations whose workload was liable to increase. Mark Hagger was worried by the short term nature (one year to eighteen months) of the proposed contract, he did not feel that this would be attractive and encourage appropriate investment in the scheme which would be critical for its success. The Chair thanked Members for their helpful input, which he would incorporate into the response.

ACTION (Chair)

Documents for noting

None.

12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

12.1 Mark Hagger drew attention to the changes in Oftel's survey and sampling methods as detailed in the annex to Oftel's quarterly residential survey.

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

13.1 Tuesday 14th January, 2003 in Edinburgh at 10.30 a.m.