Communication Breakdown at the Communications Regulator?

Background

Readers out there who have been paying attention will know that Ofcomwatch have been asking Ofcom to publish the responses it receives to its consultations when they are received. Initially, we wrote to the regulator last November to suggest that doing this would make it easier for individuals and organisations with limited resources to respond to and comment on consultations.

Then, on August 11th 2004, we reported that the Consumer Panel had also been nudging Ofcom on this issue and that the regulator having taken notice was about to change tack and start publishing responses to consultations upon receipt. This decision seemed to be reiterated in the Consumer Panel half yearly report published on August 16th, which stated,

“We have also taken issue with Ofcom over its handling of responses to consultations. Its policy was to wait and publish all responses that were not ‘in confidence’ on its website at the close of a consultation period. We argued that responses should be published upon receipt. Ofcom has agreed that this will enhance the quality of consultation, helping individuals and organisations with limited resources to respond in a more informed way. In future it will publish responses as they are received.”

So everything is looking A-okay on this front then? Well, I recently met with Matt Peacock, Ofcom’s Director of Communications who said that the matter had yet to be discussed by the Board, and that it would be unlikely – for the reasons already outlined to us – that the consultation process would change even if it was discussed.

These reasons include; tit-for-tat responses, increased levels of last minute delivery, and the in-house resource demands associated with getting information uploaded individually upon receipt. All valid arguments in principle – but they are also ones that we feel undermine accountability and transparency in practice.

Matt Peacock also said, in his experience, responses to consultations were at present generally received at the last minute therefore changing the process really wouldn’t help out those wanting to comment on another submission. I don’t think there is any need to doubt that this is the case but this shouldn’t be the key reason for not taking another look at the process.

It’s worth pointing out for the record that Matt Peacock and the external communications team are very committed to finding ways for the widest section of interested parties get the chance to feed-in their comments and opinion to Ofcom. Indeed, Matt Peacock has always been generous with his time with us at Ofcomwatch.

Has A Change Already Occured?

It is difficult to know whether this issue has now been discussed and agreed to by the Board in the interim time since my meeting with Matt Peacock earlier this month. However, I doubt the Board meets in August, and if it did we would be unlikely to get any minutes of the meeting for a good two months – based on past performance. Even then, looking over the the meeting notes released to date there would be little substantive information about any discussion on the issue. On this point it’s worth remembering that the FCC’s Commissioners meet in public and broadcast their meetings on the web.

My gut feeling here is that the posting on receipt issue hasn’t been fully resolved as the Consumer Panel have suggested. It looks like a communication breakdown may have occurred on this front. If a decision has been made there is no record of when, a date for commencement or even a press notice. You would have thought Ofcom would want to promote its new commitment to inclusivity and transparency. Would someone please e-mail me to correct me if the process has changed without anyone mentioning it officially – blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk

Time For A New Approach?

Meanwhile, I have been doing some thinking on the issue – on the presumption that it hasn’t been resolved as yet. On the face of it, it appears that the stalemate on this issue stems from Ofcom’s experience of submissions being received at the last minute – therefore there appears, at least internally at Ofcom, little point in changing the process. This sort of thinking obviously fails the accountability and transparency test but it successfully ticks the ‘it don’t seem broke, so why fix it?’ box.

In reality there need only be a small change to the consultation rules to make the process much more transparent, allowing individuals and small organisations with minimal resources to scruntinise the submissions of well-funded and well-resourced players.

How? By Ofcom forcing those companies central to a consultation (they are normally the industry leaders so the criteria could be based on a measure such as revenue, market cap, audience share, etc) to submit their responses two weeks in advance of the closure of the consultation. This forces well-resourced players to deliver a response in advance of the deadline – letting us have a good look at what they have to say about the proposals.

Naturally, these submissions are likely to be the ones that would generate most interest and additional comment from citizen-consumers since they are the key statements on an regulatory issue from the market leaders.

Comments – blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk