Proceeding contribution from Baroness Rawlings (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
My Lords, Ofcom is a highly respected organisation that, since its creation by the Office of Communications Act 2002, has successfully regulated one of the most dynamic and diverse sectors. The media and communications market has developed significantly since Ofcom was created and it is only appropriate that eight years later we take the opportunity to make some small changes to how it operates. Amendment 82 would prevent changes to Ofcom’s funding arrangements. We believe that in the current environment it is only right that Ofcom should have the ability to charge for certain services to alleviate the effect of cuts. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom is not currently permitted to charge operators for this work and, at present, meets the £400,000 per annum cost of the work out of a grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Most other countries currently charge for this work, so we would be bringing Ofcom into line with international practice by allowing it to charge for this service. Amendment 96 would mean that we could not change the way in which Ofcom carries out its functions. In the Communications Act 2003, the structure of Ofcom’s committees was set out in a disproportionately prescriptive and detailed manner. It makes sense to allow Ofcom the flexibility to streamline the structure to meet the requirement and to reflect the diverse needs of the people involved as it best sees fit. This should not compromise its independence. The ability to reshape the structure of the various advisory committees, panels and boards should also lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and could save Ofcom around £100,000 a year. Following the Government’s decision to table an amendment to remove Clause 11 and Schedule 7 from the Bill, Ofcom will not appear as previously tabled, so Amendment 158 has been withdrawn. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 96.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1509-10
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Crime Assets Costs Arbitration ACAS Cultural heritage Church Commissioners British Film Institute Equality Industrial relations Flood control Licensing Exports Film Ofgem Equality and Human Rights Commission Land drainage Joint Nature Conservation Committee Discrimination Gambling Commission Drinking water Drinking Water Inspectorate Membership Public appointments Public bodies Public expenditure Property Nature conservation Mergers Non-departmental public bodies Light dues Lighthouses Ofcom National park authorities Public finance Young offenders Regulation Victims Wales Shipping Research Youth justice Victims' Commissioner Broads Authority Central Arbitration Committee Certification Officer Commissioners of Irish Lights Office of Rail Regulation National Lottery Commission Northern Lighthouse Board Youth Justice Board UK Film Council Trinity House Victims Advisory Panel Natural England Marine Management Organisation Internal drainage boards Sunset clauses Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:35:07 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721791
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721791
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721791