Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Alun Michael (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 December 2005. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Internet (Rogue Dialling).


Internet (Rogue Dialling)

My hon. Friend raised some important issues in the debate, which, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, I have been addressing, as has the regulator, Ofcom—which, of course, is accountable to the House rather than to Ministers—ICSTIS and others involved, as well as the companies. I felt that this was such an important issue on which to provide enlightenment that I wrote to all Members of the House on 7 November on several of the telecoms issues that were raising concerns, to explain the actions that were being taken by all involved. As far as the issues raised by my hon. Friend are concerned, some of them are for commercial organisations to deal with, whereas others are issues that we have already addressed, either directly or through the regulatory bodies, as he was kind enough to acknowledge at the start of his remarks. He was offered an opportunity to clarify his specific concerns, which he has every right not to do, but it is important in responding to the debate to set the proper context. Let us be clear: when such an event occurs, the blame lies on the author of the scam or crime. Measures that have been put in place, such as withholding money for 30 days to allow recompense or fines to bite, are an important means of protection for the future and of making sure that those who contemplate such activity cannot get away with it. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, service providers have also been victims. Generosity in dealing with victims is desirable when the service provider is a large company, as he indicated, but it is not enforceable—we cannot require that of a company that is itself a victim, when the problem has arisen because of the ability to use computer equipment that is no part of the provision of BT or any other service provider. We must be even-handed. Our duty is to make sure that there is effective and fair regulation, and I am pleased by the steps taken to address that. ICSTIS is consulting on changing the way in which its code deals with refunds. Early next year, it should be possible to get refunds from those telecoms companies that terminate premium rate services, which is an important part of the issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that this is a complicated area of commercial activity in which the fast-changing nature of information and communication technologies, and the pace of convergence between technologies, offer a number of challenges. It should also be acknowledged, however, that it is a success story, in terms of both the services now available and the way in which industry is co-operating with Government to deal with the cowboys. In the case of a number of scams, we have effectively created an antisocial behaviour order for the bad guys without tying the good guys up in red tape. To those who think that internet activity and premium-rate services are wholly bad, I say, ““Look at the facts and study the reality.”” Just banning it all, as a colleague said to me last week, would be so disproportionate as to give the Luddites a good name. I know that that is not what my hon. Friend has asked for.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c1683-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Crime Costs British Telecom Fraud ICT Internet Telecommunications Telephones Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk