COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 20 October 1998)

§ Lord Simon of Highbury
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77 and speak to Amendments Nos. 78 to 80. It would be convenient also to consider Amendments Nos. 90 and 109.
1388 These are technical amendments to Schedule 10 with a related repeal in Schedule 14 modifying the textual amendments that Schedule 10 makes to the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)

§ Lord Kingsland
My Lords, the Minister said that Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 were technical amendments, and so, in a sense, they are. There is one matter there, however, which may or may not be a cause of concern, depending upon how the noble Lord answers my question.
The noble Lord will recall that in the Committee and Report stages of this Bill a great deal of energy and effort was devoted to the question of the bridge between the Bill and the regulatory regime, in particular in relation to telecommunications. On one construction of the amendments in another place it seems to me that it could be argued that the bridge had been reintroduced, this time not with the Bill itself but with the 1973 Act.
It is important to be clear about this. If the amendments are simply saying that the subject matter of the purposes of the regulatory regime can be dealt with in both jurisdictions, that seems to be quite acceptable; but what would not be acceptable, and indeed not consistent with what the noble Lord decided in relation to the Bill, would be for the regulatory purposes of the regulatory regime to be reintroduced into the competition regime. I would be very grateful it' the noble Lord would clarify that point.

§ Lord Simon of Highbury
My Lords, I understand that concerns have been raised that the wording that Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 add to the new subsection (3C), which the Bill already inserts in the Telecommunications Act, might in some way be interpreted as altering and extending the ability of the Director-General of Telecommunications to have regard to the subject matter of his statutory duties when exercising concurrent functions under the Fair Trading Act. I do not accept that this is the effect of the provision as drafted. Deliberately, there is nothing in the wording which imposes any duty in respect of or suggests that particular regard should he had to these general matters. Either would be a clear departure from the present position.
I am happy, however, to put on record that it is not the intention to alter the present ability of the Secretary of State or the Director-General of Telecommunications to have regard to the subject matter of the Telecommunications Act duties when, for example, the Director is exercising concurrent functions under the Fair Trading Act, and in particular not to alter that ability in a way which overrides or downplays any other relevant duty. It is the intention to make sure that both may continue to have regard to such subject matter, if it is relevant in the fulfilment of the function.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)