UK Parliament / Open data

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

Debates on delegated legislation on Wednesday, 22 March 2006, in the House of Lords, led by Lord McKenzie of Luton. The answering member was Lord De Mauley.
Draft SI on Communications Act 2003 (maximum penalty for persistent misuse of network or service). Lords debate on motion to consider. Agreed to on question. Grand Committee off the floor of the House (Moses room)
Type
Parliamentary proceeding
Reference
680 c151-8GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Related items
Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2006
Monday, 6 March 2006
Statutory instruments
House of Lords
House of Commons
Statutory Instruments Joint Select Committee. Twenty-First Report, together with memoranda
Wednesday, 15 March 2006
Parliamentary committees
House of Lords
House of Commons
Proceeding contributions
Lord Clement-Jones | 680 c154-5GC (Link to this contribution) I thank the Minister for his succinct introduction of the order. He has quite a pot-pourri of orders...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c157GC (Link to this contribution) Indeed, that is entirely appropriate. But Ofcom is active in this area and, although fines have not ...

Show all contributions (13)
Lord Clement-Jones | 680 c156GC (Link to this contribution) What is, effectively, the UK end? If a call is made from abroad, how does one attach oneself in juri...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c155-6GC (Link to this contribution) I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall try to answer the que...
Lord De Mauley | 680 c153-4GC (Link to this contribution) I thank the Minister for explaining the order and apologise for not being present throughout his spe...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c151GC (Link to this contribution) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Communicati...
Lord De Mauley | 680 c157GC (Link to this contribution) I am certainly not saying that we particularly object to an increase in the fine; rather, I am sayin...
Lord Clement-Jones | 680 c157GC (Link to this contribution) The question is whether that kind of call to helplines is covered in Ofcom’s statement of policy and...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c156-7GC (Link to this contribution) The call centre overseas is presumably going to be contracted to somebody in the UK for the provisio...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c157GC (Link to this contribution) The fundamental point is that originally the £5,000 fine was set when it was not thought that the ph...
Lord De Mauley | 680 c157GC (Link to this contribution) I understand that BT receives more than 100,000 calls a month from people who are distressed at rece...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c157-8GC (Link to this contribution) If the calls were generated by the same kind of processes that developed the silent calls, clearly t...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c151-3GC (Link to this contribution) The order, under the Communications Act 2003, makes the following provisions. It raises from £5,000 ...
Subjects
Consumers
Enforcement
Fixed penalties
Fines
Increases
Foreign companies
Protection
Misuse
Marketing
Ofcom
Telecommunications
Telephone services
Telephones
Unsolicited goods and services
Legislation
Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2006
Link
View this Parliamentary proceeding on www.publications.parliament.uk
Back to top