Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2006

I thank the Minister for his succinct introduction of the order. He has quite a pot-pourri of orders to do today. Briskness is always welcome. It is important to link the order with the statement of policy from Ofcom, which has come into effect, as the Minister said. The interpretation provided by the policy statement is extremely important. First, the Minister made the point that this is a relatively new issue from over the past few years, with the use of predictive or powered diallers or automatic calling by call centres operated by marketing companies. The silent calls that arise as a result, which are effectively abandoned calls, because there is no telephone message for the consumer on the end of the line, are a relatively new thing. The very fact that the market research was carried out by the Direct Marketing Association—the DMA—speaks volumes, because that is the very organisation that represents some of the marketing organisations involved in all this. The consultation carried out by the DTI and Ofcom was a model in that respect. The policy statement was consulted on at the same time as the draft order, so it was clear that the two fitted together and that one would be interpreted in accordance with the other. The key worry aroused by an order of this kind is what is meant by ““persistent”” and ““misuse””. Without a very clear set of guidelines, how a massively increased fine is to be levied will cause some anxiety. That is not the case, and the consultation has been fairly exhaustive. However, it is not completely transparent. For instance, it is not clear how the policy statement by Ofcom differs from previous policy statements. One very significant point that the Minister made was that a short message will be allowed so that abandoned calls do not cause the anxiety they used to cause. Silence at the end of a line can be frightening for vulnerable people who do not know that a marketing company is using an automatic dialling system. That is the key thing we are trying to protect people from. I am pleased that Ofcom and the Government have taken the advice of those in the industry and are allowing that kind of call, which is allowed in the US. At the same time, they have lowered the percentage of abandoned calls permitted. It would be useful to have a read-across to know where the key changes are. We need to be satisfied that this is not a disproportionate measure. A rise from £5,000 to £50,000 is a very large increase. It is not entirely clear to me—and I have read quite a lot of the papers involved—what the scale of the problem is. One hears that a consumer could on average receive six such calls a month. That is a very high number, and if those silent calls—or abandoned calls, as we will need to call them—are so prevalent, a much higher fine needs to be imposed. But why is it £50,000 as opposed to £25,000? The DMA has been very responsible in amending its code of practice when it sees problems. That is to its credit, but I do not know whether compliance with its code of practice is being tracked and whether there are figures that can tell us if overseas call centres in particular are complying with the UK DMA code of practice. These things go hand in hand: the code of practice is important, as is Ofcom’s policy statement, and the liability will be set by the order. That brings me to overseas call centres, a key vulnerability. How far does our jurisdiction extend? What powers do Ofcom and the Government have over them? The majority of marketing calls are from overseas call centres. We must have a way of regulating them. Will the Minister clarify whether these policies and powers apply to overseas call centres? Finally, I refer to the issue raised by the Telephone Helplines Association—I was very interested in seeing this from the other end. Malicious people can phone helplines and cause problems. Has that been addressed? I declare an interest as a trustee of CancerBACUP. I do not have a particular brief from the Telephone Helplines Association; it may have been satisfied that these powers are not appropriate to deal with that kind of problem. I would not be surprised, because fining somebody £50,000 for making malicious calls to a helpline is a different kettle of fish. It would be useful to know whether that has been addressed as part of revisiting these powers.