Whether next year’s referendum in Scotland results in independence or enhanced devolution, it is worth considering what the future of Scotland’s communications governance should look like. Philip Schlesinger, Chair of Ofcom’s Advisory Committee for Scotland, discusses a few policy options.

In a previous blog I pointed out how the Scottish Government (SG) was pushing along the path of institutional innovation in ways that challenge UK-wide regulation.

SG had published a paper on Economic and Competition Regulation in an Independent Scotland that sought to simplify the regulatory landscape.

CHALLENGE

I noted that this initiative posed a potential challenge to Ofcom’s present overarching regulatory role. That point is reinforced by an analysis of SG’s follow-up paper, Consumer Protection and Representation in an Independent Scotland: Options, which more directly addresses several fields presently in Ofcom’s purview.

On 13 August, John Swinney, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, set out the case to an audience that included many representatives of regulatory, business and consumer bodies.

The new paper’s fundamental premise is that the UK’s existing ‘approach to consumer protection and representation is fragmented’ and that an independent Scotland ‘could develop a more integrated, simplified consumer landscape that provides a single point of access’ (p.1).

ONE STOP SHOP

Rationalisation through a ‘one-stop shop’ is the name of the game. In the new post-independence landscape, the new consumer body would probably work with two other regulators, one for economics and other for competition and markets.

The new proposals are – once again – relevant to key areas now regulated by Ofcom. For one, the new regime would concern postal delivery charges, with rural and island communities particularly in mind.

Ofcom is also currently involved in co-regulating nuisance calls. Here too, SG would wish to step in, citing the present shortcomings of Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 as a good reason (p.7).

A third proposal that has potential implications for Ofcom is SG’s proposal to create a Consumer Ombudsman for Scotland. With a wide remit to address shortcomings in service delivery, this too would doubtless relate to complaints about communications.

OPTIONS

At the moment, SG is still consulting on two possible ways forward. One is to pursue a ‘tripartite model’ covering economic regulation, competition regulation and a range of consumer roles. The other is to set up a ‘bipartite model’, consisting of a combined competition and consumer authority and a combined economic regulator.

Whichever is the chosen path, communications and post are expressly indicated as fields for economic regulation and it is also clear that they would be part of the consumer and competition landscape (pp.18-19).

We shall know the outcome of the independence referendum in September 2014. Meantime, it is worth taking note that a new institutional map is gradually being drawn for Scotland in the event of independence.

Will this proposed new cartography simply disappear even if the next step on Scotland’s road is enhanced devolution rather than a new state?

Philip Schlesinger is Chair of Ofcom’s Advisory Committee for Scotland. This post originally appeared on 21 August 2013 on the Advice To Ofcom website and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. This article gives the views of the author, and does not represent the position of the LSE Media Policy Project blog, nor of the London School of Economics.