The diagrams for this document have been removed and are currently under construction.
Oftel's goal is to achieve the best possible deal for customers in terms of quality, choice and value for money of telecoms services. To pursue this goal effectively requires open and transparent regulatory processes and procedures which maximise the engagement of telecom consumers and suppliers in policy development and promote consistency of regulatory decisions made. Where these principles of openness and transparency apply they significantly increase Oftel's accountability to Parliament and more widely to the public.
It is timely to consider ways in which Oftel's procedures and processes can be enhanced so that its accountability can be improved. Recent reports by Parliamentary committees and consumer organisations, the establishment by the Government of a review of utility regulation and the Government's intention to publish proposals on a Freedom of Information Bill all indicate a high level of interest in these issues.
This document sets out what Oftel does, the current statutory framework within which its activities take place and identifies ways in which it can be more accountable within this framework, particularly to consumers who are the focus of Oftel's goal.
Your views on the actions Oftel is taking and proposing are sought. I look forward to your responses.
This document sets out the ways in which Oftel seeks to be accountable and transparent, and puts forward some actions to further improve how Oftel works. Your views on these proposals and on the questions in Chapter 5, and any other ideas you may have on the issue of improving accountability, are invited.
Please send your responses to:
Christine Farnish
Consumer Director
Oftel
50 Ludgate Hill
London EC4M 7JJ
E-mail address: crs.oftel@gtnet.gov.uk
Please respond by 31 October 1997. All responses will be publicly available in Oftel's Library so please mark as confidential any material you do not want to be seen there. If you have a Web site on the Internet, contact Cate McLaurin on 0171 634 8752 and she will arrange to link this document on the Oftel site to your response on your site. Further comments on any of the responses received should be sent by 14 November 1997.
For further background information relating to this document
please contact Geoff Delamere,
tel: 0171 634 8745.
Chapter 1 Summary
Chapter 2 Introduction
Chapter 3 How Oftel works
Chapter 4 Consumer Representation
Chapter 5 How could Oftel better achieve its objectives?
Annex A Recommendations of Parliamentary Committees
Annex B Relevant Oftel publications and how to get copies
Annex C Statutory framework within which Oftel operates
Annex D Respondents to Oftel consultative document on consumer representation
Annex E Results of 1996 Oftel client satisfaction survey
Annex F National Consumer Council's consultation code of practice
Annex G Membership and functions of Oftel Expert Panels
1.1 The communications industries will be a major contributor to the success of the UK economy of the twenty-first century. A key role in ensuring these industries can deliver this contribution is played by Oftel, a non-Ministerial government department, which was set up by statute to regulate telecommunications. In order to fulfil its key roles of promoting competition and delivering consumer benefit, Oftel has to take a number of decisions. These decisions are important because they not only impact directly on telecoms companies and their customers, but they flow through to the wider economy.
1.2 In their recent reviews of economic regulation, both the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Trade and Industry Select Committee (TISC) have called for: a review of regulatory structures, including whether power should be vested in an individual or in a panel or commission; a review of appeal arrangements for regulatory decisions; and greater openness and transparency (see Annex A). Many of these recommendations are for Government. There are, however, some matters which Oftel can address. Oftel considers that transparency and accountability are very important issues in view of the significance of the impact of regulatory decisions, the confidence of consumers and industry and the legitimacy of the regulatory regime generally.
1.3 Oftel has sought to improve its own processes and procedures in recent years in order to make them more open and to improve accountability. Oftel has published information about its procedures and performance targets; it publishes an annual Management Plan; increasingly sought advice from expert advisory panels; improved its consultation procedures; and sought to involve consumer representatives more fully in the decision making process. All of this goes well beyond the statutory requirements set out in the Telecommunications Act 1984 under which Oftel operates.
1.4 But more could still be done. A client satisfaction survey carried out in 1996 indicated that there was scope to improve further the timeliness and the transparency of Oftel's decision making. Responses to Oftel's recent consultation on consumer representation suggest that Oftel needs to put more effort into the effective involvement of independent consumer representatives in identifying and delivering policy developments.
1.5 This document sets out a number of actions for further improving Oftel's accountability and transparency, and its efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the goal of `best possible deal for the customer'. Oftel would like feedback from all interested parties on the actions and questions detailed in Chapter 5, but you are welcome to comment more generally on the issues raised.
1.6 Oftel intends to act without delay to implement the actions listed where possible. Feedback on the detailed questions in this document will help guide implementation. Should any further process or procedural changes be needed, Oftel will publish these following this consultation.
Oftel will consult the industry and consumer groups and Government on the shape of its forward work programme and the relative priority to be given to different issues prior to publishing its annual Management Plan.
Oftel will seek to write documents for publication more simply and clearly and will always include a summary and a named contact for further information. All documents will be published on the Internet. Responses should, where possible, be put on the Web sites of those responding and a hyperlink set up to Oftel's site. Oftel will look into other ways of supplying responses on-line where they are sent in electronic form using a range of common programs. Respondents will be asked to avoid confidentiality markings wherever possible, and otherwise to keep them to a separate annex.
Oftel will continue to take full account of all responses to consultations and other feedback. It will publish full explanations of why it has taken a particular decision and why alternative options have been rejected. A list of respondents to consultations will be published.
Oftel will continue to use high level advisory panels in future on key areas of policy development as set out in Oftel's Management Plan.
Oftel's target timescales for key areas of work will be as set out in Table 2 in Chapter 5.
Oftel will publish consumer complaint/enquiry data and analysis twice a year with the aim of developing broader awareness in the consumer sector.
Oftel will establish a Research Advisory Panel with membership drawn from consumer bodies and the ACTs to commission and advise on consumer research.
Oftel will strengthen independent consumer representation by consulting with consumer bodies about its forward work programme and involving nominated consumer representatives in policy development on key projects.
Oftel supports the Advisory Committees on Telecommunications (ACTs) Action Plan and their efforts to develop `special interest' networks to gain broader input to their consideration of consumer interests.
Questions are posed in Chapter 5 in respect of the above actions, to which consultees are invited to respond.
2.1 Industry regulators are independent, non-Ministerial government departments set up to regulate sectors of the economy on the privatisation of a former public monopoly. They are established by specific statutes which set out their duties and functions. The Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) was set up under the Telecommunications Act 1984 to regulate the telecoms sector. Section 3 of the Act sets out the main duties of the Director General of Telecommunications and his office, Oftel, duties which are shared with the Secretary of State.
2.2 In the light of these duties, Oftel's primary focus is on customers. Hence Oftel's goal is to secure the best possible deal for the customer in terms of quality, choice and value for money. Oftel strives to achieve this through the promotion of measures to achieve effective competition and through consumer protection.
2.3 The statutory framework within which Oftel works includes some provisions which help to ensure accountability - both to Parliament and to the public more generally. Oftel must, for example, publish an Annual Report of its work, appear before Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee, ensure that there is public consultation on proposals to modify licences and maintain a Public Register of formal decisions made. A section of the Telecommunications Act 1984 states that the Secretary of State may give the Director General general directions indicating the order of priorities. Moreover, decisions in the exercise of Oftel's statutory powers may also be challenged before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and are liable to judicial review if it is considered that there has not been procedural fairness.
2.4 Conscious of the importance of the decisions it has to take, Oftel has sought to develop its own procedures to build on the statutory requirements and ensure it can at a minimum achieve standards of fairness. For example, it has published a statement on its consultation procedures and transparency, and has recently consulted on how to improve the effectiveness of consumer representation in telecoms. Full details of relevant Oftel publications are given in Annex B.
2.5 Last year Oftel carried out a client survey of the telecoms industry and consumer bodies to test satisfaction levels with how Oftel works, and assess how its procedures and processes could be improved. While respondents in general felt Oftel was doing an effective job with limited resources, and recognised the value of the steps Oftel had taken to enhance its accountability, a number of areas were identified where Oftel could further improve its openness and transparency.
2.6 Recent reports of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee have also focussed on the issue of regulatory accountability. Relevant extracts from their recommendations are given in Annex A. For example the Public Accounts Committee, in its Report of 20 March 1997, The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services & Electricity Supply states:
"We therefore welcome the emphasis given by the Directors General to consultation. We recommend that the Directors General ensure that when they consider significant decisions, they do all that they can to consult in advance on the issues that they must consider, to explain the reasons for the decisions they have made, and to publish, so far as they are able, the financial and other information that they consider justifies the particular conclusions that they have reached."
2.7 Further emphasis on consultation and transparency of approach stem from European Union Directives that impact on telecommuni-cations. In particular the Council Directive on `Establishment of the internal market for telecoms services through implementation of Open Network Provision' requires basic principles of transparency and publication to be followed in dealings with telecommunications operators.
2.8 Oftel's proposals in this document are therefore timely and take account of a number of concerns raised recently by interested parties. They do not, however, seek to address all concerns which have been raised, including the recent recommendations of relevant Parliamentary select committees. This is because a number of issues would involve changes to the current statutory framework. These issues are rightly for Government to consider, not for Oftel. They include:
2.9 It should be noted that the reform of competition law heralded in the Queen's Speech in May 1997 could change the context within which Oftel operates quite significantly by allowing, for example, tougher sanctions and enhanced appeal mechanisms.
2.10 Competition law reform aside, this document focuses on how Oftel's work could be further improved within the current regulatory framework. The next chapter describes the statutory framework within which Oftel works and sets out what processes and procedures it follows and how it seeks to be open and transparent. Chapter 4 discusses Oftel's recent consultation on consumer representation, summarises and reviews the responses received, and outlines action which the independent Advisory Committees on Telecommunications (ACTs) themselves are planning in the light of this consultation. Chapter 5 then outlines where Oftel could improve its accountability and effectiveness further, including some areas of work where it interfaces with other bodies. It sets out some specific actions and questions. Your views on these proposals, including answers to the questions raised and any comments on other related issues, are invited. Click here for details of how to respond.
3.1 The Office of Telecommunications (Oftel), is a non-Ministerial government department. Oftel is a small, London based organisation with around 170 staff.
3.2 The duties and functions of the Director General of Telecommunications, some of which are shared with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are set out in Annex C. Broadly speaking the Director General regulates the telecoms market by the enforcement or modification of licences granted to commercial operators by the Secretary of State to authorise the running of telecommunications systems. Individual licensees are companies who have licences granted on an individual basis to run telecoms systems as defined in the 1984 Act. There are also class licences which authorises the running of telecommunications systems by a particular group, or class, of people. For instance the class licence for conditional access systems for digital broadcasting, recently issued by the DTI, falls to Oftel to enforce.
3.3 Oftel's work can be broadly grouped into five types of activity. These are:
For example, the review of controls on BT's prices, the regimes for independent service providers, numbering policy, interoperability and mobile service providers.
This involves advising DTI on the granting (and content) of new licences, and making changes to conditions in existing licences in order to implement policy decisions reached after consultation.
This covers the monitoring and enforcement of licence conditions including those designed to protect consumers. This work increasingly focuses on the investigation of significant competition cases as Oftel develops its role of promoting and monitoring competition in the telecoms market.
This centres on the use of powers by the Director General to take various actions, eg to determine issues in dispute between telecoms companies, to consent to specific matters, or to direct a licensee to take or refrain from specific actions.
This involves dealing with around 35,000 consumer complaints and enquiries to Oftel each year.
3.4 These areas of work are linked and may overlap at times. All eventually feed into the policy development process. The publication of information about these processes and the issues concerned is critical to making Oftel's work transparent.
3.5 Oftel publishes its annual Management Plan setting out the issues it has identified as needing to be addressed and timescales for the tasks involved. The 1997/98 Plan was published in early June. It invites comments on the plan from all interested parties, although feedback to the publication of the previous plan was limited.
3.6 Oftel's policy development work is geared around a consultative process through which initial policy proposals are put forward as a basis for consultation and to draw in others' views on how Oftel should take issues forward. A consultative document is prepared, largely based on work by a multi-disciplinary team within Oftel, but also incorporating external advice and sometimes outside consultancy input and market research of customer views. Pre-consultation policy development can include input from representative organisations and individuals outside Oftel. An example of this is the Numbering Advisory Group, comprising representatives of residential and business customers, the telecoms and IT industries and numbering experts. It has had a remit of advising the Director General on UK numbering policy.
3.7 To safeguard transparency and accountability, Oftel has set up several advisory panels using its powers under the 1984 Act. These bodies allow the Director General to call on high level expert advice on key issues.
3.8 Oftel also gains valuable input into policy development from its six statutory Advisory Committees on Telecoms (or ACTs, covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and two others focussing on the specific interests of smaller businesses and disabled and elderly people). The remit of the Advisory Committees is to give independent advice direct to the Director General. Issues raised recently have included local call prices in Wales, conversion of `hardwired' phones, portability of telephone numbers, access to telecoms for customers with special needs, more customer friendly mobile service provider contracts, and better customer information on tariffs and service quality. The ACTs' funding is agreed between Oftel and the Department of Trade and Industry on the basis of a three year forward strategic plan.
3.9 Other groups have had similar types of involvement. Short term groups - such as the Education and Public Access Points Task Force involving a wide range of interests from education, libraries, publishing, IT and telecoms sectors - have been successful in promoting change for the benefit of customers. Other groups such as the Interconnection Policy Forum (a joint industry/Oftel forum) and the Network Interoperability Consultative Committee (primarily an industry/Oftel forum with some input from consumer organisations) provide important mechanisms for securing a wider input.
3.10 Consultative documents are issued free of charge and are available on the Internet. Oftel follows a two stage consultation process with an opportunity for interested parties to `comment on comments', thus enhancing transparency. The consultation period is normally three months but occasionally external events may drive a shorter timescale. Increasingly comments are made available by respondents on the Internet as well as being available for inspection in Oftel's library.
3.11 Oftel has introduced initiatives to address the imbalance in terms of industry and consumer resources available for responding to the consultative process. On subjects of particular importance to consumers, such as the review of BT's price controls and universal service, Oftel has published separate Consumer Guides which try to crystallise the issues and options in a short, user friendly booklet.
3.12 Oftel tries to ensure that the consultation process which follows publication of a consultative document includes a range of channels for dissemi-nation of the proposals and for input of views - for example through working parties, public work-shops and seminars. These allow issues and ideas to be explored and enable the interplay of arguments. The recent Price Control Review involved a series of public hearings across the UK which gave BT, other telecoms companies and consumer bodies a chance to put forward their views to the public. The Universal Service project involved joint consumer and industry working parties looking at issues such as disconnection policy and special affordability schemes for low income customers. Public workshops were also held. On the Fair Trading Condition a public hearing was held where independent experts as well as the industry were invited to argue their case.
3.13 A review stage follows the public consultation process, involving consideration of responses to the consultative document and further quantitative or qualitative analysis of the issues. As a result a further consultative document may be issued or a statement of policy proposals published. Oftel's decisions have in the end to be made by the Director General in the light of his statutory duties.
3.14 Consultation is aimed at promoting wider consideration and understanding of issues. It is also intended to enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of decisions by ensuring that the views of all interested parties are factored into the decision-making process. Those views are taken seriously, as the differences between first consultation documents and later documents or final statements of policy often illustrate. There are frequently adjustments to the detail and sometimes to the broad substance of Oftel policy as a result of the points made during the consultative process. Oftel tries to ensure that major points made in consultation are addressed either in subsequent policy statements or by meeting respondents to discuss major issues. Reasons are given in documents for decisions. Oftel sees this as a fundamental means of ensuring understanding of its decisions and improving its accountability.
3.15 While the regulatory role is independent, the Government is responsible for setting the broad policy and regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry and for issues of social policy which are related to telecoms. The Director General has therefore consulted closely with relevant Ministers before proceeding with any actions that involve significant social policy elements, eg the Director General has stated that before proceeding with arrangements to prescribe a level of universal service that should be funded proportionately by the industry he would wish to confirm that the Government was content. Similarly he will proceed with proposals to secure service under the Disability Discrimination Act only in concert with relevant Ministers.
3.16 The outcome of a consultation process is often a need to modify the licence of one or more telecoms companies. Licence modifications made with the agreement of the licence holder involve the steps set out in.
3.17 Licence modifications may also take place where the telecoms operator whose licence is being modified does not agree. This results in a much longer process involving the MMC.
3.18 Once a licence has been granted by the Secretary of State, Oftel has a role to play in ensuring that the licensee complies with the conditions of that licence. Licences granted to individual operators, especially those granted to public telecommunications operators (PTOs) such as BT, Mercury, and the mobile and cable operators, are long and complex documents containing varied obligations and prohibitions that may apply in different circumstances.
3.19 Increasingly Oftel's licence enforcement role takes the form of dealing with matters relating to fair competition. These include:
3.20 There are two main sources of cases for investigation: complaints from other licensed operators, independent service providers, equipment suppliers and large business customers; and Oftel's own initiated investigations.
3.21 Oftel adopts a two stage investigation process in respect of competition complaints. A preliminary phase determines whether there is a case to answer and whether to proceed to a full investigation. An investigation phase may follow with information gathering, analysis and assessment to decide whether there has been a breach of licence and/or any other competition law, and, if so, determine appropriate remedial action.
3.22 In order to make competition policy and casework more visible, Oftel publishes a quarterly Competition Bulletin, which outlines current enforcement investigations. Oftel also holds monthly competition "surgeries" and operates a competition hotline (0171 634 8833) to give easier access to complainants.
3.23 At an individual case level, the timescales over which a case may be resolved can vary from around 6 weeks to 6 months. The speed with which a case is progressed is often dependent on the quality of information available from key parties. The current manual case monitoring system is soon to be automated, which should improve case handling and ensure feedback is given more systematically to complainants.
3.24 Determinations mainly concern interconnection but may relate to other issues, such as whether a licensee is a `well established operator' and consequently should have more extensive obligations to provide telecommunications services. Interconnection determinations largely come about as a result of disagreements between licence holders over interconnection terms, such as availability or cost, and are referred to Oftel for resolution by one of the licensees. Other determinations may be made at the request of a licensee or following a complaint by a third party.
3.25 Where Oftel is satisfied that a request for an interconnection determination is valid, interested parties are advised of its receipt and their comments sought. Where a determination may have broad implications for the industry, the request is discussed at one of the regular meetings of the Interconnect Policy Forum, to which all operators are invited. Following this, a draft determination is prepared and sent to interested parties for comment. Copies of responses are placed in the Oftel Library and a further short period is allowed for comments on comments. In the light of consultation a final determination will be drawn up.
3.26 All determinations made are placed on a Public Register in Oftel's library and on Oftel's Internet site. Oftel also publicises periodically a determinations update setting out the latest position and a current list of live interconnection determinations is kept up to date on Oftel's Internet site. This indicates when consultation drafts or final determinations can be expected. The timescales involved in individual determination cases can vary significantly, often depending on the quality of information provided by the companies concerned.
3.27 Orders can be made by Oftel under the Telecommunications Act 1984 where it appears to the Director General or where he is satisfied that the licensee is contravening, or has contravened and is likely to contravene a condition of its licence. There are two types of orders: provisional and final orders. A provisional order can be made without giving 28 days notice and is valid for three months. It is used only in cases where immediate action is required to deal with a licence breach that is likely to cause loss or damage to third party.
3.28 Before confirming a provisional order or making a final order, the Director General must give 28 days notice. The effect of an order is that a third party (be it a competitor or customer) who is harmed by breach of the order may enforce it directly through courts, either by application for injunction or by seeking damages to recover loss caused. A copy of an order is placed on the Public Register kept in Oftel's library.
3.29 Consents are sometimes granted by Oftel so that licensees are not bound by particular licence requirements. The licence holder must apply to Oftel for a consent and a similar consultation process to determinations is usually followed. A copy of any consent granted is placed on the Public Register kept in Oftel's library. Given that licence conditions should be as transparent as possible, the use of consents is not, and is not expected to be, a common feature of regulation.
3.30 Directions can be made by Oftel under licence conditions directing the licensee to take, or refrain from taking, certain action. The power allows a necessary element of flexibility in the application of licence conditions by permitting Oftel to apply a degree of judgement in specified circumstances. It may be used to permit Oftel to require the licensee to take action (for example, to perform obligations owed to a third party), to trigger the application of provisions or to modify these provisions to fit particular situations. Again, a copy of every direction given under licences is placed on the Public Register in Oftel's library.
3.31 Oftel also deals with consumer complaints. Before dealing with a complaint, Oftel aims to ensure that the relevant telecoms company has had the opportunity to resolve the complaint directly. Oftel's prime role is to ensure that licensees operate fair and reasonable complaints handling procedures. Oftel has a statutory duty, however, to deal with individual complaints where they have not been resolved to the customer's satisfaction. The steps involved for handling consumer complaints are set out in.
3.32 Handling consumer complaints and queries involves:
3.33 Around 35,000 complaints and queries were handled by Oftel in 1996, this total splitting as follows:
Mobile (15%),
Other operators (2%)
Non telecoms issues (6%).
Complaints and queries typically concern disputed bills, quality of service, repairs and privacy issues.
3.34 To assist consumers, details of how to contact Oftel are given in phone books. Contact is through a local rate call number (0345 145000).
3.35 To help make all of these processes accessible - from policy development to consumer complaints - Oftel has set out how it works in a number of publications. A full list is given in Annex B but three are particularly relevant:
3.36 Oftel also publishes its Management Plan each year, setting out its work programme for the next 12 months and beyond. Most Oftel publications are available on theWeb site as well as in printed form. Older documents and those which are charged for are generally not there. Some 7000 organisations and individuals have asked to be included on Oftel's mailing list and receive Oftel News (Oftel's quarterly newsletter), as well as some major publications. This service is free of charge.
3.37 In addition, the Public Register held by Oftel includes:
3.38 Records on the Public Registers held by Oftel are currently available in paper format. Anyone may visit to inspect the Public Register. A review underway is considering the scope for making these available in electronic format, allowing remote access to information.
3.39 Oftel also encourages greater transparency in the telecoms market through publishing, or enabling others to publish, key information of value to players in the market place and to consumers, for example:
3.40 The demand on Oftel's resources is such that it cannot provide a comprehensive library function for the telecoms industry. Nor is it appropriate for Oftel to undertake this function for private sector companies. Oftel has taken action, however, to improve the electronic distribution of documents through its Web site on the Internet. The aim is to achieve, as far as possible, simultaneous publication on the site and to expand the range of information available. For example, Oftel's forward diary over the next few months is now published on the Web site and regularly updated. Feedback on the type of information that would be useful is welcomed and a form on the site provides for this.
4.1 Oftel's overall goal is to secure the best possible deal for consumers in terms of choice, quality and value for money. For Oftel to work effectively, there needs to be effective input from consumers and their representatives. The involvement of the telecoms industry is usually readily obtained but for consumers there are more barriers, including resources and low levels of experience, familiarity and perceived concern with varied and often complicated telecoms matters.
4.2 Oftel issued a consultative document in October 1996 entitled Meeting Consumer Needs in Telecoms: The role of consumer representation. This sought the views of consumers, consumer organisations, telecoms companies and all other interested parties on how current arrangements for consumer representation could be improved.
4.3 The document recognised the change in the UK telecoms market from one being dominated by a single telecoms company - where most consumers required protection - towards a competitive, multi-firm market where increasing numbers of customers are able to benefit from falling prices, improved quality and a choice of telecoms suppliers. But at the same time, the change towards competition is uneven - both geographically and by customer group - leading to differing needs for consumer representation.
4.4 The proposals in the document focussed on:
4.5 The document also recognised, in the longer term, the likely need for Government to review the structure and remit of ACTs and other consumer representative bodies in a world where the distinctions between telecoms, IT and broadcasting become blurred.
4.6 The consultative document was issued in October 1996. The consultative period ran to February 1997 and generated just under 190 responses from a wide range of organisations (respondents are listed in full in Annex D). A summary of groups who responded is set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Summary of responses to consultative document on consumer representation
| Representative | Number of responses |
| ACTs* | 6 |
| Businesses & business organisations | 7 |
| Consumer Organisations | 9 |
| Disability Groups | 7 |
| Local Authorities | 46 |
| MPs | 28 |
| TACs* (including Joint TACs and POAC*) | 76 |
| Individuals | 3 |
| Telecoms Companies | 7 |
| TOTAL | 189 |
* ACT - Advisory Committee on Telecommunications
* TAC - Telecommunications Advisory Committee
* POAC - Post Office Advisory Committee
4.7 The opportunity to contribute to general discussion about consumer representation was welcomed by all respondents. In broad terms there was agreement with the principle of informed, independent consumer representation in telecoms. There was also agreement that opportunities existed to redirect resources to allow for more consumer input into policy development. The ongoing importance of consumer protection within the industry was also emphasised.
4.8 The responses can be broadly split into three main themes:
4.9 Some consumer organisations argued that existing structures reflected a lack of independence which compromised the ACTs' ability to develop a higher profile, and a clear and publicly understood role as distinct from the regulator's. They would prefer to see a single body that operated completely independently of Oftel, modelled along the lines of the Gas Consumer Council. They emphasised the importance of such a representative body being able to determine its own policy agenda and conduct analysis and market research independent of the regulator. Other suggestions included: greater advocacy and representation of a broader cross section of society; accountability and openness by holding meetings in public and publishing minutes and other relevant papers.
4.10 These arguments from consumer organisations raise two main issues. Firstly to examine what can be done within existing structures to encourage more consumer-led activity to contribute to the development of the policy agenda, rather than just responding to Oftel-set policy developments; and to improve openness, advocacy and accountability. And secondly, in the longer term, to examine the scope for enhancing or replacing existing structures to achieve the independence of thought and action desired by consumer representatives.
4.11 The first issue falls within the remits of both Oftel and the ACTs. Oftel believes that a number of improvements could be made to make existing statutory consumer representation arrangements more effective, and to secure a more consumer led approach to policy development. The ACTs themselves have identified ways in which their representation of consumer interests could be enhanced. Actions proposed by ACTs, and issues concerning their independence, are addressed below under Improving the effectiveness of the ACTs.
4.12 The second issue, which would involve changes to the statutory framework for consumer representation, is a matter for Government not Oftel.
4.13 Clearly it may be the case in certain sectors that a single independent consumer body is the most appropriate structure for ensuring that consumer interests are effectively represented. However, Oftel believes the current arrangements for the telecoms industry work well on behalf of consumers although they could be improved. Oftel has a statutory duty to promote the interests of consumers in respect of the price, quality and variety of telecommunication services provided. It involves consumer representatives directly in key policy areas. Such close liaison has a direct influence on Oftel's policy making and works to the benefits of consumers. In telecoms, one of the main functions that a utility Consumer Council might carry out - complaint handling - is already largely handled by the industry. Oftel finds it derives considerable value from directly handling residual complaints itself. It gains hands-on, immediate intelligence about customer concerns which can feed into regulatory policy. This consumer input could be lost if Oftel no longer handled complaints.
4.14 The six ACTs have coverage as follows:
The Committees' role is to advise Oftel on the particular interests and needs of consumers which they represent.
4.15 In general, responses from ACTs acknowledged the external perception that there was scope to improve their effectiveness, enhance their public profile, and develop better networks with other bodies representing the interests of particular groups of consumers.
4.16 Regarding independence, the four territorial ACTs are independent of Oftel, with members appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. NIACT, SACOT and WACT are all serviced by their own independent Secretariats. Whilst the non-territorial ACTs - BACT and DIEL - are appointed by the Director General of Oftel, they are serviced by an entirely autonomous London based Secretariat, which also services ENACT. Although located within Oftel, this Secretariat's resources are dedicated to supporting the ACTs and their budget is ring fenced. The location does have a number of benefits, not least ready access to telecoms information and related intelligence. On balance, it is considered by these ACTs that these benefits outweigh the perceived "independence" gain of a separate London location.
4.17 The NIACT, SACOT and WACT argued strongly that territorial ACTs should be retained. They highlighted the importance of their local handling of complaints, rather than having the function handled centrally by Oftel. It was also noted however that local complaint handling should involve agreed standard procedures to ensure consistency of approach across different consumer representative bodies. Others felt that there were worthwhile efficiency and quality gains in handling complaints centrally, and that this was desirable provided complaints data could be sufficiently disaggregated to give meaningful feedback on customer complaints to the various ACTs.
4.18 ENACT noted that consumers' telecoms needs did not relate to their `Englishness', but rather to other factors, such as whether they lived in remote rural areas or were on low incomes. ENACT therefore queried the ongoing need for separate territorial ACTs and felt that independent consumer representation could potentially be more effective if absorbed into fewer overall bodies. Other responses questioned whether the coverage of the six existing ACTs was organised in the most appropriate and effective way.
4.19 All the ACTs saw scope for greater involvement of active representatives from the TACs and other relevant consumer bodies in their own work. It was suggested this be done both via e-mail or correspondence, and via task-based and probably time-limited groups to focus on particularly issues which might concern consumers across the boundaries represented by the present ACTs' structure.
4.20 The ACTs shared a desire to develop a more effective dialogue with other consumer bodies and to build more robust external networks. ENACT and NIACT recognised the importance of openness and accountability and suggested different means by which this could be achieved. For example, ENACT proposed conducting a conference involving other organisations in developing a clear programme of consumer activity, whilst NIACT referred to releasing its minutes publicly. DIEL highlighted the importance and effectiveness of ongoing dialogue with specialist groups representing disabled and elderly consumers.
4.21 There was support amongst responses for inclusion of "consumer" in the names of ACTs. This was recognised as a way of re-affirming their role, and public perception of that role, as consumer representatives. It is believed that this matter is being actively considered by some ACTs.
4.22 Those TACs who responded in the main perceived that their future role was threatened by the consultative document. Many felt that their original role of complaint handling and consumer protection remained necessary despite improvement in telecoms companies' complaint handling and quality of service due both to growing competition and pressure by Oftel.
4.23 Only around half of the TACs responded, despite the fact that the consultative document was of direct relevance to the future role of TACs. Responses that were received varied but, in aggregate, included the following:
4.24 Responses from ACTs and other organisations identified weaknesses in the present TAC network. Some committees were recognised as being moribund, and co-ordination and communications between TACs tended to be low. WACT could not strongly support the TAC network in its present form, whilst NIACT and ENACT suggested that more effective use could be made of TAC resources. SACOT supported the role that TACs play in representing individual consumers at the local level but acknowledged that the role of TACs requires clearer definition.
4.25 Oftel indicated in the consultative document, and in response to specific enquiries received, that the purpose of the consultation was not to `abolish TACs' (which is in any case outside Oftel's power) but to consider ways in which consumer representation overall could be made more effective. The responses will provide an opportunity to identify key players from the TAC network who wish to make a contribution and have involvement in consumer focused policy development. They will also help guide the development of more effective consumer networking by the ACTs.
4.26 In light of all the responses received, including strong representations for more clearly independent consumer representation, separate courses of action have been developed by Oftel and the six ACTs. These are oriented towards improving the accountability and openness of the existing consumer representation structures and making other consumer advocacy work more effective. Generally this is intended to progress towards greater consumer-led policy development in Oftel. Oftel's proposed actions are detailed in Chapter 5, in the form of recommendations and questions inviting further response. The action plan developed by the ACTs is detailed below. The ACTs will be carrying out their own independent consultation on detailed arrangements separately from Oftel.
ACTs ACTION PLAN FOR EFFECTIVE CONSUMER REPRESENTATIONThe Advisory Committees on Telecommunications and their Secretariats have initiated the following agenda to increase their effectiveness, accountability and profile following the consultation process on consumer representation in telecoms. Further consultation with interested bodies is planned by the ACTs during 1997 in the course of developing and implementing this plan. Increasing visibilityThe ACTs will make greater use of their Web site, investigating whether moving to a site independent of Oftel will enhance accessibility, and publishing more information on the site including agendas and minutes of meetings and papers submitted to Oftel. Working styleThe ACTs will be reviewing their meeting formats over the summer with a view to increased working in task-based groups, drawing in co-optees with relevant experience from the TAC network and other organisations on specific time limited topics, and holding meetings in public. The use of e-mail and the ACT Web site will be publicised as a key channel of communication and consultation with consumer bodies. These links will be actively used for consulting on draft documents, seeking input of views to the ACTs and comments on ACT work and priorities. The ACT Secretariat will identify key contacts among other consumer networks - including TACs - who are willing to make proactive use of these links, and will work with Oftel to strengthen consumer representation on Oftel working groups. The ACT Secretariat will work closely with Oftel policy branches on arrangements for consumer fora and workshops, on the establishment of an initiative to better understand the needs of those customers seeking to make more use of advanced services and on input to the next Oftel Management Plan. Committee membershipThe ACT Secretariat in consultation with DTI, will work to secure timely recruitment, as all the ACTs are currently short of members. The aim will be to get members able to represent the range of consumer interests appropriate to the committees. Names of committee members will be published on the ACT Web site. There will be procedures for recruitment and selection by open competition, including an agreed matrix of the skills and knowledge base each ACT needs. Subject to agreement on working style issues noted
above, the Secretariat will seek an increase in the time
commitment new committee members are able to offer for ResourcesResources may be secured to enable significant additional contributions by ACT members to be recompensed. In addition, the leverage of external resources by ACTs, for example to sponsor a campaign or a research study, will help support further development. The ACTs will also play an active part in the proposed independent Research Advisory Panel. |
5.1 So far this document has outlined current concerns about regulatory accountability, has described how Oftel currently works, and has reviewed customer representation arrangements. Oftel does not work in isolation and its processes at time impinge on other bodies. This chapter seeks to set out ways in which Oftel could further improve its openness and transparency and operate more efficiently and effectively. Oftel hopes that the changes suggested will further enhance the legitimacy of the regulatory process. Some of the proposals inevitably have wider implications for other bodies with whom Oftel interacts.
5.2 The proposals draw on feedback from Oftel's 1996 client satisfaction survey, published external commentary on utility regulation and responses to Oftel's consultation on consumer representation.
5.3 While most feedback is generally positive (see for example the analysis of responses to Oftel's client satisfaction survey in Annex E), a number of concerns have been raised. These tend to focus on three main themes.
5.4 These issues are discussed in turn below, and the actions which Oftel intends to take to address concerns raised are described. A number of questions are asked on which Oftel seeks views from readers.
5.5 The general theme of feedback referred to in paragraph 5.2 above was that while Oftel has made considerable progress in this area, particularly with publication of its Management Plan and with its two stage consultation process, more could be done. Many industry players and consumer bodies have commented that they would like to have more involvement in setting and prioritising Oftel's forward work programme. By the time the annual Management Plan is published in early Summer, the shape of Oftel's work programme is fairly well set. Oftel accepts these comments and therefore proposes that interested parties should have an opportunity to consider and influence Oftel's forward work programme. This could be achieved by circulating an outline to interested industry and consumer bodies in the New Year, prior to final settlement of the Plan for the next financial year.
5.6 Action 1
Oftel will consult the industry and consumer groups and Government on the shape of its forward work programme and the relative priority to be given to different issues prior to publishing its annual Management Plan.
Q1 Do you agree with the proposal to consult on an outline work programme in the New Year, prior to finalising and publishing the Management Plan for the following financial year?
Q2 Should Oftel organise a workshop to discuss its draft Plan?
Q3 Is the level of detail published in the Plan about right?
5.7 More could be done to make relevant information accessible to interested parties. This means not only ensuring that all published consultative documents are clearly written but that named contact points are given from whom further information can be obtained or queries followed up. Consultative documents and statements (unless on technical industry specific issues) should also contain summaries mentioning the key issues and recommendations.
5.8 The National Consumer Council has recently published a document entitled Government Consultations: Not Just a Paper Exercise which includes a code of practice for consultation (see Annex F). Oftel welcomes this and fully supports the spirit of the guidelines in the code, and will aim to follow them wherever possible.
5.9 In order to disseminate information efficiently and in a timely way, Oftel intends to use its Web site on the Internet as the main publication and information dissemination route in future. Naturally, paper copies of documents will still be available where necessary. Oftel is not aware of any organisation with whom it has regular dealing which is without access to the Internet, and believes use of electronic communications will speed up and enhance information flow. Oftel will ask respondents to put their responses to consultative documents on their own Internet Web sites and arrange to hyperlink these to the consultative document on Oftel's site. Oftel will consider other ways of making available on-line responses supplied in suitable electronic form. These moves should make it much easier for interested parties to `comment on comments'.
5.10 Oftel will make available in its Library, all responses to consultative documents, unless clearly marked confidential. Respondents will be asked to avoid such markings wherever possible, and where they cannot avoid them, to indicate clearly which parts of their representations are confidential. In these circumstances, Oftel will place an edited version in the library indicating where excisions have been made. Oftel hopes that such excisions can be kept to a minimum, especially in representations from operators with a dominant market position or privileged access to information.
5.11 Where an operator makes confidential representations in response to such public consultations and the Director General considers that information withheld is of material significance to the performance of his duties or to the outcome of the consultation, he will consider in consultation with the operator whether it could be appropriate for him to arrange for the information provided to be published. In pursuing these developments the Director General will take account of statutory duties regarding confiden-tiality under sections 48(2) and 101 of the Act.
5.12 Oftel is reviewing its `library' arrangements. While there is no intention to reopen the library for general use, the `Public Register' functions are very important and interested parties need access to current information on licences, proposed notifications, determinations and the like. Having this information available publicly on the Internet is likely to be far more useful than keeping it on paper in Oftel's library.
5.13 Action 2
Oftel will seek to write documents for publication more
simply and clearly and will always include a summary and a named
contact for further information. All documents will be published
on the Internet. Responses should where possible be put on the
Web sites of those responding and a hyperlink set up to Oftel's
site. Oftel will look into other ways of supplying responses
on-line where they are sent in electronic form using a range of
common programs. Respondents will be asked to avoid
confidentiality markings wherever possible, and otherwise to keep
them to a separate annex.
Q4 Do you think it is acceptable for Oftel to publish consultation documents primarily on the Internet, with limited paper copies available on request or by arrangement?
Q5 Are you able to provide responses to Oftel in electronic form on your own Web site or using a commonly available program?
Q6 Would the ability to gain access to Public Records information (such as operators' licences or recent determinations) in electronic, rather than paper form in Oftel's Library, be more convenient for you?
5.14 Some commentators, whilst praising Oftel's consultation procedures, have indicated that Oftel does not always appear to take account of others' views in reaching its decisions. Some feel Oftel has already `made up its mind' and is not always open to the view of others. Others suggest that consultative documents do not always contain a full analysis of options available. This feedback is of concern to Oftel, because Oftel genuinely wants its processes to be as open and responsive as possible. More effort will be made in future to publish an analysis of the pros and cons of different policy options, and ensure that the main responses to consultations are properly assessed and addressed. A list of all parties who responded to the previous consultation will also be published in the next document. It is not possible, however, because of the resource implications, for every response to a consultative document to have a tailored reply.
5.15 Oftel takes note of comments about the need to present alternative policy options for consultation, and will take steps to ensure this happens. Experience so far however suggests that unless clear proposals are made in a consultative document, it is sometimes difficult to generate meaningful and constructive responses.
5.16 Action 3
Oftel will continue to take full account of all responses to consultations and other feedback. It will publish full explanations of why it has taken a particular decision and why alternative options have been rejected. A list of respondents to consultations will be published.
Q7 Do you support this approach?
Q8 Could more resource be put into holding workshops or hearings to enable interested parties to explain their views and raise issues for consideration? Bearing in mind resource constraints, when, how and on what should such events take place, and who should be invited / how should they be advertised?
5.17 Oftel has put considerable effort into improving its new processes and procedures to make them open and transparent, and wants to make them still better. It believes transparency is essential to the legitimacy of the regulatory regime. Oftel is conscious that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC), as effectively the `appeal body' when agreement with a licensee making a modification cannot be reached, is a very important link in the regulatory decision process. It is important for public confidence and accountability that the MMC operates and is seen as an impartial and independent body. This means thoroughly exploring all the issues with Oftel and licensee(s) involved and with others with an interest (for example competitors and customers). It is Oftel's duty to publish MMC reports submitted to them following references, so the MMC's conclusions and reasoning are fully transparent.
5.18 In view of the importance of the MMC, and whilst not being able to fetter its statutory discretion, Oftel would not wish to depart from the substance of any licence modifications made by the MMC in its report(s). Oftel will be seeking to develop its arrangements with the MMC so that both parties can work together in a manner, which is clear to all parties to a reference, to ensure a continuity of transparency of process on issues that cross the boundaries between their respective functions.
5.19 Both the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee have recently recommended that Directors General make more use of advisory panels of experts to help them in reaching effective decisions. Oftel has over the last few years made increasing use of such independent expert advisory panels, to input into key policy issues and give advice to the Director General. The Consumer Panel, the Fair Trading Advisory Body, the Technical Experts Panel and the Economics Expert Panel are important examples, whose input to Oftel's work has been invaluable in recent years.
5.20 Action 4
Oftel will continue to use high level advisory panels in future on key areas of policy develop-ment as set out in Oftel's Management Plan.
Q9 Do you support Oftel's use of expert advisory panels? Do you think the range is appropriate (see Annex G) or would you recommend any changes?
5.21 A number of parties have expressed concern about the sometimes protracted timescales involved in some areas of Oftel's work, and about the lack of systematic procedures to ensure clients are kept informed of progress on specific issues. The results of the client satisfaction survey in Annex E bear this out.
5.22 In view of this feedback Oftel has reviewed its internal procedures and intends to set new performance targets to improve timeliness. It should be noted that achieving these targets is not entirely down to Oftel - industry in particular must play its part in ensuring the requisite information to process a case is provided in a timely way to Oftel.
5.23 Action 5
Oftel's target timescales for key areas of work will be as shown in Table 2.
Q10 Are the above performance targets acceptable?
Q11 Are there any areas where you would like to see changes bearing in mind that while there is some flexibility over use of resources, speeding up work in some areas could have an impact elsewhere? If so what changes would you want to see?
TABLE 2 Oftel processes: Summary of target times for external clients
| Initial stage targets--------------------------------- | Closure target times---------------------- | |
| General | Phone - Aim to answer in 5 rings, contact name given 1
Initial acknowledgement - in 5 working days provide named contact to letter, fax, Internet e-mail2 |
|
| Policy development | Overall timescales as published in Management Plan For consultative documents: up to 3 months3 for responses to Oftel and 2 weeks for comments on comments |
|
| Licence modification | 28 days and 2 weeks formal consultation | |
| Competition cases | Complete preliminary enquiry in 30 working days | Complete investigation -75% within a further 3
months, all within a further 6 months4 Update on progress every 6 weeks or by mutually agreed dates |
| Determinations | Complete preliminary enquiry in 30 working days | Complete in a further 3 months4 |
| Directions | Complete preliminary enquiry in 30 working days | Complete in a further 3 months4 |
| Numbering allocations | Decision to applicant within 28 days of correctly submitted application | If consultation required, decision within 3 months |
| Consumer complaints and enquiries | Telephone complaints/ enquiries: Same day5 | Full response to customer: 10 working days5
Complete investigation on a complaint in a further 2 months4 |
1 Between 9am-5pm.
2 Externally generated substantive issues.
3 The length of time depends on the issue and the
extent which previous consultations have taken place.
4 Completion contingent on adequate provision of
relevant information by parties.
5 Unless special investigation required.
5.24 Effective consumer representation requires that bodies representing consumers identify issues that are important to consumers and have input to relevant Oftel policy development so that their interests are taken into account. Significantly, it is intended that the outcomes of Actions 1-3, concerning Oftel openness and transparency, lead to consumer representatives having greater input and opportunity to influence the work undertaken by Oftel. More specific and detailed actions to ensure effective consumer input are discussed below. A number of these actions follow on from Chapter 4 which reviewed responses to Oftel's consultative document. They are proposed in addition to Oftel supporting the Action Plan adopted by the ACTs.
5.25 Firstly, Oftel proposes regular publication and analysis of the number and nature of consumer complaints received by Oftel. It is felt that this would help improve awareness of issues causing concern to consumers, and serve as an incentive for the industry - and Oftel - to address these areas of concern. Publication of this data would of course also enhance transparency of Oftel complaint processes.
5.26 Action 6
Oftel will publish consumer complaint/enquiry data and analysis twice a year with the aim of developing broader awareness in the consumer sector.
Q12 How useful do you think regular publication of Oftel's consumer complaint data would be? How would you like it to be disseminated? Are there any sub-groups which should be identified, eg complaints from disabled consumers and do you have views on how such information could be obtained?
5.27 Oftel also proposes the establishment of an independent Research Advisory Panel, with membership drawn from consumer bodies and the ACTs, to commission and advise on research. This action follows consideration of responses which highlighted the importance of consumer bodies providing direction on research into key matters concerning consumers.
5.28 The Panel would have access to a modest budget allocated by Oftel for research on agreed consumer focussed topics. As well as inputting to the design of market research studies commissioned by Oftel or the ACTs, it could also generate its own topics for study and commission independent research. There would also be scope for such a Panel to seek additional funds from other sources such as telecoms industry representatives, independent funding bodies or even larger telecoms users. The intention is to set up the Panel in 1997 with a remit initially to advise on research to influence or impact on Oftel's 1998/99 Management Plan.
5.29 Action 7
Oftel will establish a Research Advisory Panel with membership drawn from consumer bodies and the ACTs to commission and advise on consumer research.
Q13 Do you support the proposal for a Research Advisory Panel and if so what terms of reference would you suggest?
5.30 It is recognised that in certain policy areas the early involvement of nominated consumer representatives is extremely beneficial. In the past this has been the case with a consumer panel's involvement in price control and universal service policy development, with the panel having access to a wide range of information on the basis that they respect confidentiality where appropriate. It has also applied to numbering and the Numbering Advisory Group's work. Oftel intends to continue this approach, for example in the course of forthcoming policy development on broadcasting and telecoms convergence.
5.31 Responses indicated strong support for Oftel involving different representatives interested in telecoms consumer issues in the course of its consumer oriented project and policy development work. It is evident that opportunities can be developed along these lines, and that much can be gained from the range of skills, expertise and interest that different groups have, eg TAC representatives, the Public Utilities Access Forum, and other consumer bodies interested in telecoms consumer issues.
5.32 Action 8
Oftel will strengthen independent consumer representation by consulting with consumer bodies about its forward work programme and involving nominated consumer representatives in policy development on key projects.
Q14 How might Oftel best identify and nominate consumer representatives for informal consultation and involvement in policy development? Which projects are most appropriate for such input?
5.33 Action 7 and to a lesser extent Action 8 do have resource implications for Oftel. These will largely mean ensuring that consumer research and other projects involving consumer representatives input are included in Oftel's forward work programme so that sufficient funds are allocated. In addition, Oftel will be open to considering whether particular consumer issues that emerge warrant the development of additional projects and re-allocation of resources accordingly.
5.34 Oftel welcomes the Action Plan of the ACTs which focuses on how they can enhance their interaction with other consumer bodies and strengthen their independent consumer representative role.
5.35 Action 9
Oftel supports the Advisory Committees on Telecommunications (ACTs) Action Plan and their efforts to develop `special interest' networks to gain broader input to their consideration of consumer interests.
5.36 Ensuring consumer groups have the opportunity to provide effective consumer input to Oftel and influence its work requires more open, early dialogue on Oftel's future work programme. This dialogue is to be promoted through Action 1, the publication of Oftel's draft Management Plan with the invitation for comments and suggestions.
Q15 Would consumer representatives like a separate workshop with Oftel to review Oftel's draft Management Plan?
5.37 It is recognised that much can be achieved directly by consumers and consumer representatives where they have sufficient and appropriate information to bring greater transparency to the telecoms market - helping customers to make choices and obtain the best deal for themselves. Oftel will seek and respond to further opportunities to bring useful information to the attention of consumer groups or to make it accessible to them. For instance, as has happened with Oftel facilitating the provision of information on BT's customers call patterns to the Consumers' Association to carry out wide ranging pricing comparisons.
5.38 Oftel is aware that constrained resources and experience limit the capacity for some consumer representatives to become involved in telecoms issues. Accordingly Oftel will aim to develop broader interest and understanding of telecoms issues across the consumer sector, particularly in the area of converging telecoms and broadcasting services.
Q16 How could Oftel, within the resources available, improve information dissemination to develop broader consumer awareness of telecoms issues? What strategies would you suggest?
5.39 Oftel's proposals to publish information primarily on the Internet would of course enhance information availability to consumer representatives provided they have access. However, it is recognised that for some groups and individuals this may not be the case and Oftel seeks to identify where other arrangements may be necessary.
Q17 Would electronic publication as the main vehicle for disseminating consultative documents and responses cause major problems to consumer groups? Where would paper copies still be needed? What other arrangements might be needed for people with special needs?
Q1 Do you agree with the proposal to consult on an outline work programme in the New Year, prior to finalising and publishing the Management Plan for the following financial year?
Q2 Should Oftel organise a workshop to discuss its draft Plan?
Q3 Is the level of detail published in the Plan about right?
Q4 Do you think it is acceptable for Oftel to publish consultation documents primarily on the Internet, with limited paper copies available on request or by arrangement?
Q5 Are you able to provide responses to Oftel in electronic form in a commonly used program or put your response up on your own Web site?
Q6 Would the ability to gain access to Public Records information (such as operators' licences or recent determinations) in electronic, rather than paper form in Oftel's Library, be more convenient for you?
Q7 Do you support the approach (to consultation responses) as set out in Action 3 above?
Q8 Could more resource be put into holding workshops or hearings to enable interested parties to explain their views and raise issues for consideration? Bearing in mind resource constraints, when, how and on what should such events take place, and who should be invited / how should they be advertised?
Q9 Do you support Oftel's use of expert advisory panels? Do you think the range is appropriate (see Annex G) or would you recommend any changes?
Q10 Are the performance targets ( in Table 2 in Chapter 5) acceptable?
Q11 Are there any areas (re performance targets) where you would like to see changes bearing in mind that while there is some flexibility over use of resources, speeding up work in some areas could have an impact elsewhere? If so what changes would you want to see?
Q12 How useful do you think regular publication of Oftel's consumer complaint data would be? How would you like it to be disseminated? Are there any sub-groups which should be identified, eg complaints from disabled consumers and do you have views on how such information could be obtained?
Q13 Do you support the proposal for a Research Advisory Panel and if so what terms of reference would you suggest?
Q14 How might Oftel best identify and nominate consumer representatives for informal consultation and involvement in policy development? Which projects are most appropriate for such input?
Q15 Would consumer representatives like a separate workshop with Oftel to review Oftel's draft Management Plan?
Q16 How could Oftel, within the resources available, improve information dissemination to develop broader consumer awareness of telecoms issues? What strategies would you suggest?
Q17 Would electronic publication as the main vehicle for disseminating consultative documents and responses cause major problems to consumer groups? Where would paper copies still be needed? What other arrangements might be needed for people with special needs?
This annex summarises those recommendations made by Parliamentary committees that have particular relevance to issues of accountability and transparency.
The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services & Electricity Supply (March 1997)
"(xxvi) We note that the role of the Directors General as single regulators has been established by legislation, and their view that these arrangements work well. The statutory arrangement does, however, confer great power on single individuals so we consider it to be essential that the Directors General ensure and demonstrate that they exercise such power responsibly.
(xxvii) We also note how, within their existing powers, the Directors General have developed the use of advisory panels of experts to assist them in reaching their decisions. We believe that the use of expert panels of high standing helps to instil public confidence in the regulatory process and should also help the Directors General to reach sound regulatory decisions. In the absence of any Legislative change to their position as single regulators, we recommend that the Directors General should seek to make increased use of high level advisory panels.
(xxix) We note that customers or competitors of companies in regulated industries have no appeal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission against regulatory decisions. Although judicial review might provide a form of appeal for customers or competitors, it was little used.
(xxx) We recognise that there might be difficulties in devising a mechanism which allowed for appeals by all customers and competitors while at the same time including safeguards against frivolous applications. In the absence of such an appeal mechanism however, we consider that the Directors General need to strive to ensure that the quality of decisions is as good as it can be and that the reason for decisions are clear to those affected by them.
(xxxi) We therefore welcome the emphasis given by the Directors General to consultation. We recommend that the Directors General ensure that when they consider significant decisions, they do all that they can to consult in advance on the issues that they must consider, to explain the reasons for the decisions they have made, and to publish, so far as they are able, the financial and other information that they consider justifies the particular conclusions that they have reached.
(xxxvi) We call on the Directors General to ensure that they are alert to the implications for customers of developments of this kind, in taking further action to protect customers' interests."
Telecommunications Regulation (March 1997)
"4 We recommend that the Government and Oftel consider establishing a regulatory panel on the American collegiate model.
9 We recommend that the Government undertake a review of the regulatory structures of telecommunications and broadcasting within the next two years, with a view to redefining roles and setting clear responsibilities in all matters relevant to the regulation of the communications industries, and that this review should have due regard to the suggestions made by BT, CCA and the Hansard Society."
Energy Regulation (March 1997)
"11 We recommend that the Government introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to create a system whereby information relating to natural monopolies is assumed to be non-confidential unless it can be shown to be otherwise and that the Government gives both energy regulators the authority to publish information relating to natural monopolies as they see fit, unless the company concerned can prove that publication would be commercially damaging.
23 We recommend that both regulators undertake detailed monitoring of the effects of liberalisation on vulnerable consumers and publish their findings, and take swift remedial action where necessary. We further recommend that they continue to seek ways in which the interests of such consumers can be best protected and implement such provisions where it is consistent with their other duties.
24 We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to impose duties on the Directors General of Electricity Supply and Gas Supply to take into account in the exercise of their primary duties the needs of those who are on low incomes.
26 ... We further recommend that regulators should include among their consultants experts from bodies with knowledge of environmental, social and consumer protection issues.
30 We recommend that all regulators publish forward plans.
31 We recommend that in any restructuring of the regulatory system after 1998, the Government consider also how to establish the most effective means for handling consumer complaints, taking account of the changing nature of the competitive markets for energy.
32 We recommend that the Government, after consultation with the Directors General, the companies concerned and the consumer organisations, produce a three-year plan for the resourcing of these bodies."
| Publication | Relevant to: | Format (price charged where stated) |
||
| Paper | Internet | |||
| Oftel Statement - Consultation procedures and transparency (1995) |
All parties | Yes | No | |
| Doing Business with Oftel (1995) | Suppliers and large users of telecoms services |
£10 | No | |
| Working for customers (1996) | Telecoms consumers | Yes | Yes | |
| Oftel Consultative
Document - Meeting Consumer Needs: The Role of Consumer Representation (1996) |
Consumers and others | Yes | Yes | |
| A Guide to the Office of Telecommunications (1995) |
All parties | Yes | Yes | |
| Towards better telecoms for customers: A review of progress in the UK (June 1997) |
All parties | Yes | Yes | |
| Oftel's 1997/98
annual Management Plan (June 1997) |
All parties | Yes | Yes | |
| Competition Bulletin | Suppliers and users of telecoms services |
Yes | Yes | |
| Market Information | All parties | on subs- cription* |
No | |
| Oftel's Diary | All parties | No | Yes | |
For paper copies contact Oftel, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JJ (tel: 0171 634 8765, fax: 0171 634 8946).
Consumer complaints and queries to Oftel on 0345 145000 or in writing to Consumer Representation Section at Oftel's main address (as above).
*This publication is available on annual subscription (four quarterly updates plus one annual summary) for £36 pa (contact COI on 0171 261 8527 for more details). Quarterly Updates cost £10 from Oftel.
C.1 The statutory framework established in 1984 has only been subject to relatively minor modification (by the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 inter alia, the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Advanced Television Services Regulations 1996).
C.2 While the regulatory framework set out in the Telecommunications Act prescribes broad duties for the Director General, the Director General has discretion as to the manner in which he performs these in exercising his functions, independent of day to day political considerations.
C.3 In practice this works through Oftel reviewing policy, consulting on options and then consulting licensees - and others likely to be affected - on licence modifications, or by Oftel responding to concerns raised by the industry or by customers, whether by investigating competition cases, exercising functions under licences, publishing information, or by taking steps in response to customer complaints to secure the provision by telecommunications companies of good customer service.
C.4 Statutory duties of the Director General and the Secretary of State are listed below in Tables C1, C2 and C3.
C.5 The current framework gives the Director General a broad measure of discretionary power, although this is constrained by a number of checks and balances:
TABLE C1 Joint statutory duties of Secretary of State and Director General
| The Act imposes on the Director General and the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the primary
duty to exercise their functions in the manner they
consider best calculated to: • secure the provision throughout the United Kingdom of telecommunication services which satisfy all reasonable demands; • secure the financial viability of providers of telecommunication services; and, subject to the above: • promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users of telecommunication services; • maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities connected with telecommunications; • promote efficiency and economy on the part of such persons; • promote research; • encourage major users of telecoms services abroad to establish places of business in the UK; • promote the provision of international transit services; • enable persons providing telecoms services in the UK to compete effectively abroad; • enable persons producing telecoms apparatus in the UK to compete effectively in and outside the UK. |
TABLE C2 Statutory functions of Director General
| The Act confers a number of interlinking functions on
the Director General. These include: • advice to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on proposals to grant telecommunications licences; • the modification of telecommunications licences; • the enforcement of licence conditions and investigation of complaints; • the exercise of functions under general competition legislation; • consumer protection functions; • reviewing the carrying on of telecommunications activities; • providing information, including the maintenance of registers; • approving telecommunications contractors, apparatus and meters; and • exercising concurrently with the Director General of Fair Trading his functions in so far as they relate to the telecommunications industry. |
TABLE C3 Statutory Functions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
| The Secretary of State is responsible for setting the
overall policy for the telecommunications industry and
for telecommunications related legislation. Under
the Act the Secretary of State is responsible for
appointing the Director General, may direct the Director
General to have regard to certain considerations in
exercising his functions, give general directions
indicating the order of priorities and may veto on
specified grounds the Director General's proposals to
make or refer to the MMC licence modifications. The
Secretary of State is also responsible for: • granting licences to telecommunications operators; • revoking licences under the terms of the licence; • designating telecommunications systems to which section 8 of 1984 Act applies as public telecommunications systems; • applying the `Telecommunications Code' to particular licensees; • recognising representative bodies for licence purposes; • making orders imposing requirements as to marketing and advertising of telecommunications apparatus; • approving regulations made by the Director General relating to standards of performance in individual cases and making regulations relating to billing disputes; • exercising functions relating to the compulsory acquisition of, or entry on, land by public telecommunications operators. |
The following responded to the Oftel Consultative Document Meeting Consumer Needs in Telecoms: The role of consumer representation:
Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Disabled and
Elderly People
Business Advisory Committee on Telecommunications
English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications
Northern Ireland Committee on Telecommunications
Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications
Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications
Confederation of British Industry
Federation of Small Businesses
Federation of the Electronics Industry
Scottish Enterprise
Seltek Limited
Telecommunications Managers Association
Telecommunications Users Association
Consumers Association
Electricity Consumers' Committees
General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
Independent Committee of Standards of Telephone Information
Services (ICSTIS)
International Consumer Policy Bureau
National Consumer Council
Post Office Users National Council
Post Office Users Council for Wales
Scottish Consumer Council
Action for Dysphasic Adults
Age Concern Sheffield
Cost 219 UK Group
Royal National Institute for the Blind
Royal National Institute for Deaf People
Telecommunications Action Group
Whitby & District Disablement Action Group
Amber Valley Borough Council
Ards Borough Council
Babergh District Council
Ballymena Borough Council
Ballymoney Borough Council
London Borough of Barnet
Belfast City Council
Bromsgrove District Council
Calstock Parish Council
Castle Morpeth Borough Council
Ceredigion County Council
Corby Borough Council
Cornwall County Council
Down District Council
Forest of Dean District Council
Glasgow City Council
Gloucester City
Hatfield Town Council
Hereford & Worcester County Council
High Peak Borough Council
London Borough of Hillingdon
Isle of Anglesey County Council
Kettering Borough Council
Lancashire County Council
Lisburn Borough Council
Milton Keynes Borough Council
Newcastle Under Lyme
Newquay Town Council
Northampton Borough Council
Omagh District Council
Pembrokeshire County Council
Richmondshire District Council
Rushmoor Borough Council
Shropshire County Council
South Northamptonshire Council
South Shropshire District Council
Stockport Borough Council
Tamworth Borough
Walsall Borough Council
Warwick District Council
Waverley Borough Council
Wellingborough Borough Council
West Sussex County Council
Whitby Town Council
Wirral Borough
York City Council
Hugh Bayley
Nicholas Bonsor
Ian Bruce
John Butterfill
Jamie Cann
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Denzil Davies
John Greenway
Nigel Griffiths
John Gummer
John Hannam
David Harris
Andrew Hunt
Michael Jack
Bernard Jenkin
David Knox
Diana Maddock
John Marek
David Marshall
Michael Mates
George Robertson
Angela Rumbold
John Sykes
Mathew Taylor
Paul Tyler
Gerald Vaughan
Harold Walker
Ann Winterton
(Including joint TACs and Post Office Advisory Committees)
Aberdeen & District
Argyll & Bute
Arfon Dwyfor Mon
Aylesbury
Banbury
Basildon
Basingstoke
Bath
Birmingham
Blandford
Bourne and South Kesteven
Bridgwater
Bristol
Calderdale
Central & South Dorset
Chippenham & District
Colchester (including Clacton, Harwich & Manningtree)
Coventry/Warwickshire
Croydon & Sutton
Derby and Derbyshire
Doncaster & District
Dungannon & District
Durham & Wearside
East Suffolk & Ipswich District
Exeter
Fife
Folkestone, Hythe and South East Kent
Forest of Dean
Frome and Warminster
Harlow
Hastings & Rother District
Isle of Wight
King's Lynn
East Lancashire
Leicestershire
Llanelli/Dinefwr
Malvern
Manchester
Medway and Maidstone
Merseyside
Midlands Regional
Newbury
Newcastle/Tyneside
Newquay
Newton Stewart
North & West Cumbria
North East Surrey
North Lancashire
Norwich & District
Nottinghamshire
Peterborough & Huntingdon
Plymouth
Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch
Purbeck & East Dorset
Salisbury
Sheffield
Shetland
Shropshire
Skegness
South Holland
South West Regional
Southampton
Swansea
Taunton Deane
Tendering
Thanet
Torbay & District
Truro
Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge
Western Isles
Weston-Super-Mere
Winchester
Wolverhampton
Worcester
York & District
Yorkshire Coastal Area
Antelope Consulting - Claire Milne
David Michel
Mike McGregor
BT
Cellnet
East Coast Cable
Ionica
Mercury Communications
Scottish Telecom
Telewest Telecommunications
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES = 189
E.1 Oftel carried out an office wide survey of its key external client groups in the Autumn of 1996. The survey took the form of a posted questionnaire with clients being given four weeks to respond. The client groups covered in the survey are shown below.
TABLE E1 Clients approached
| Client Group | Sent | Returned |
| Consumers (CRS Clients) | 100 | 21 (21%) |
| Consumer/User Bodies & ACTs | 14 | 10 (71%) |
| Media | 7 | 5 (71%) |
| BT | 49 | 19 (39%) |
| OLOs Group | 54 | 25 (46%) |
| Kingston | 6 | 4 (67%) |
| Mercury | 13 | 4 (31%) |
| Service Providers | 32 | 7 (22%) |
| Tech. Bodies & Equip. Suppliers | 32 | 20 (63%) |
| International Bodies | 25 | 4 (16%) |
| DTI & Other Government Departments | 26 | 6 (23%) |
| TOTAL | 358 | 125 (35%) |
E.2 An overall analysis of all respondents follows and picks out the highlights and low spots and identifies areas in which Oftel might need to improve its performance.
The majority of respondents who have ongoing dealings with Oftel consider their relationship with us to be either excellent or good. Only 4% considered it to be poor or bad.
A high level of satisfaction ws expressed with the time it takes to find the appropriate person to contact within Oftel.
The majority of respondents registered satisfaction with the outcome of their approach to Oftel and with our overall handling of their contact. Although around 20% of respondents were unhappy with the outcome, under 15% were dissatisfied with our handling of the matter.
High levels of satisfaction were expressed with Oftel staff's courtesy, helpfulness, speed of understanding and level of interest shown when dealing with external clients.
The majority of those wishing to have input into Oftel's policy making felt that they had adequate opportunity to do so - but there was still a sizable minority who did not see an adequate opportunity.
Nearly a quarter of those who responded expressed some dissatisfaction with the speed of our responses and a similar level were concerned that we did not keep them informed of progress. In addition, around 16% were dissatisfied with the quality of response that they received from Oftel.
The actions in the main text of the consultation document put forward proposals to address these issues.
The consultation code of practice from the NCC's document - Government Consultations: Not Just a Paper Exercise - state that:
Consulting consumers on policy: a code of practice
This Code applies to all formal consultation documents issued by central government:
1 The government should consult consumers at an early stage in the decision-making process before subsequent full and formal consultation.
2 All consultation documents should be written in plain English, and be concise and clearly laid out. They should contain the following:
• the problem;
• the purpose of the consultation;
• what decisions, if any, have already been taken;
• whom is likely to be affected, and how (including the impact of the proposal on consumers);
• various options, backed up by arguments for and against them, and allowing for other options to be put forward;
• various sources of opinion and information, and factual statements;
• timescales for responses, and projected timescales for the rest of the decision-making and implementation processes;
• the name, address and telephone number of a person with whom consultees can discuss the policy issues and of an administrative officer who can deal with routine enquiries;
• a list of the people who are being consulted;
• a statement that responses will normally be made public.
3 Consultation documents should be issued to give enough time for bodies to consult their members. For most consultations three months should be the norm and two months the absolute minimum. Where less than three months is allowed, the document should state:
• that consultees may be granted a short extension, particularly if this enables a key meeting to take place.
4 Where respondents request confidentiality for their comments, the government will require them to make publicly available a summary of their response, which should include a specific reason why the full response must remain confidential.
5 The government will provide promptly details on the outcome of the consultation to all those who have commented. The details should include a summary of the views and information collected and the proposals or action arising. Any changes which have been made to the proposal following the consultation exercise should be highlighted and the reasons for them given. Where the paper contained options or open-ended questions, the reasons for favouring particular options should be stated. Where respondents seek to discover why their proposals have been rejected, they should have a right to a full explanation.
Moira Black - Chairman of English Advisory Committee on Telecommunications (ENACT), former partner at Price Waterhouse
John Hughes - Former chair of the National Consumer Council Economic Policy Committee
Stephen Locke - Partner at Anderson Consulting, former Director of Research and Policy at the Consumers' Association
Richard Thomas - Director of Public Policy at Clifford Chance, former Director of Consumer Affairs at the Office of Fair Trading
Courtenay Thompson - Chairman of NIACT, former member of the Northern Ireland General Consumer Council
The Consumer Panel was originally established to advise the Director General on Oftel's Price Control Review and represent the interests of residential consumers. It now has a broader reference and advises the Director General on Universal Service, including: the appropriate level of Universal Service provision from 1997; the associated funding and delivery arrangements; the process by which delivery should be monitored; the criteria and processes by which the level of Universal Service should be reviewed over time; and on whether a separate Universal Service Advisory Group should be formed.
Jeremy Lever QC - Chairman
Mark Armstrong - Professor of Economic Policy, Southampton University
Martin Howe - Former Director of Competition Policy at the Office of Fair Trading
Hans Liesner - Former Deputy Chairman, Monopolies and Mergers Commission
Teresa Smallbone - Consultant to National Consumer Council
Geoffrey Whittington - Professor of Financial Accounting, Cambridge University
(Further members may be appointed in the future)
The function of the Advisory Body shall be to advise the Director through written reports on the application of the Fair Trading Condition. This may be in relation to a particular practice of any licensee or on the effect on competition of any particular type of behaviour of one or more licensees. The Advisory Body shall also advise the Director on generic issues and on cases being investigated under other licence conditions where the Director so requests.
Professor John O'Reilly - Chair of Telecommunications, University College, London
Dr Ian Leslie - Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University
Professor Abe Mamdani - Nortel/RAE Chair on Communication Strategy and Services, Imperial College
Professor David Hutchinson - Computing Department, University of Lancaster