113. DTI helpfully set out its timetable for the forthcoming Electronic Commerce Bill in the Competitiveness White Paper Implementation Plan.[376] That timetable is for the Bill to be presented before Parliament in May 1999, to receive Royal Assent by April 2000 and for the first statutory instruments arising from the Bill to be laid in November 2000. We hope that this is not the last occasion on which the Government sets out in advance its timetable for the passage of legislation. It is intended that the Bill will pass the Commons this session and be introduced into the Lords next session. The Bill will thus be one of the first to roll-over from one session to the next, following the recent recommendation of the Modernisation Committee on the passage of uncontentious legislation.[377] Although the forthcoming Electronic Commerce Bill is not likely to be a source of party political controversy it is a vital measure for UK competitiveness and law enforcement. It requires full and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.

114. Although we intend this Report to assist Members of Parliament debate the Bill, it would be helpful for Parliament to have access to the responses to DTI's recent consultation exercise. DTI published a summary of its March 1997 consultation exercise in April 1998.[378] Although Mr. Pride of DTI described it as a "fairly full analysis" it amounted to less than three pages of text and compares poorly with the analysis of a recent electronic commerce consultation document issued by the Canadian Government and the progress report issued by HM Treasury on responses to the draft Financial and Services Markets Bill.[379] We recommend that DTI publish a full analysis of responses received to its recent consultation document, including a list of those who responded to the document, at the same time as the Electronic Commerce Bill is published.

115. The Minister told us that the Bill would be "a framework" and that consultation on further aspects of electronic commerce policy would continue after the Bill was published.[380] Changes to the definition of words such as "document" and "signature" in law are likely to be made by statutory instrument and it is likely that the licensing criteria for TSPs will be put into place in the same way.[381] A number of respondents to DTI supported this approach because it would be more flexible than primary legislation, but advocated that statutory instruments should be ratified by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.[382] We have been critical in the past of Government's reliance on regulations which escape effective parliamentary scrutiny.[383] We recommend that draft regulations arising from the Electronic Commerce Bill be given full public scrutiny before they become law.

377   Modernisation Committee, Third Report, 1997/98, Carry-over of Public Bills, HC543 Back

378   See paragraph 28 Back

379   Q525; see footnote 53; Financial Services and Markets Bill: Progress Report, HM Treasury, March 1999 Back

380   Q543 Back

381   Consultation 99, paragraphs 18, 34; and see paragraphs 53-4, 58, 73 Back

382   Responses to Government from the Real Time Club paragraph 2, British Chambers of Commerce p1, EURIM paragraph 2.7, Zeneca p2, British Telecommunications paragraph 1 Back

383   Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998/99, Draft Limited Liability Partnership Bill, HC59, paragraphs 77-82 Back