|
Column Number: 371
Standing Committee E
Thursday 9 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
2.32 pm
The Chairman: I am taking the place of Mr. Jimmy Hood, who is indisposed. I remind Committee members that that, in accordance with the programme resolution, all the questions necessary to the disposal of relevant proceedings ending at clause 192 and questions on all outstanding amendments will be put at 5 o'clock this afternoon. Clause 154
Grant of recognised spectrum access
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): I beg to move amendment No. 318, in
clause 154, page 139, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) OFCOM shall not issue any regulations under subsection (1) until they have consulted all interested parties, and considered any representations received, on whether the application of such regulations to any particular circumstances of use is appropriate and proportionate, having regard to all the circumstances.'.
I begin by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, even though you are a replacement for a replacement. The ability of the Chair to draft in fresh horses is rather attractive, and we on the Opposition Benches envy that.
This morning, we rehearsed some of the arguments about recognised spectrum access in respect of the amendments to clause 151, but clause 154 is the main clause that introduces the principle of recognised spectrum access. The next group of amendments goes to the heart of that issue. The amendment is a taster of what is to come—its scope is much narrower than the group that follows it.
In his response this morning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Minister defended the Government's insistence on proceeding with RSA, and laid great stress on the fact that the implementation of that concept would proceed only subject to close consultation with the industry. The hon. Gentleman said that both the Government and Ofcom intend to undertake further consultations beyond those that have already taken place to ensure that RSA would apply only in circumstances in which spectrum management was needed. On the question of the fees to be paid, he said that those would be no higher than were necessary for spectrum management purposes. We welcome that commitment, but the Bill as it stands does not require there to be consultation. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to look sympathetically on an amendment that would simply introduce into the Bill a requirement in respect of which the Minister has, in many ways, already given a commitment. It adds a general consultative requirement to the legislation.
We continue to be apprehensive about the concept of RSA. We will discuss that subject shortly, but
Column Number: 372
before we do so, it would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about the consultation that he has promised, and considered whether he is willing to accept the amendment.
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, bid you a very warm welcome to the Chair of our Committee, Mr. O'Brien. You are not a replacement horse, as the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) suggested, you are a welcome incumbent of the Chair during our deliberations this afternoon.
I have no difficulty with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It is desirable that Ofcom should consult before making regulations, take account of the views expressed, and ensure that the regulations that are introduced are appropriate and proportionate. As he said, I made some points along those lines during this morning's sitting.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the principles that the amendment supports are already firmly embedded in the Bill. Clause 154(9) refers to ''Section 388'', and clause 388 includes a requirement to consult and take account of the representations received. The principles that he supports are therefore included in the Bill, including ensuring that the application of the proposed regulations is appropriate and proportionate—the Committee has debated the general duty in clause 3(3)(b) that expressly requires Ofcom to have particular regard to those qualities. Clause 6 imposes a duty on Ofcom to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Mr. Whittingdale: The Minister refers to clause 388, but it deals with the regulations and orders made by Ofcom, whereas we are currently dealing with what he says will be a voluntary arrangement. I am therefore unsure whether clause 388 provides the requirement that he suggests it does.
Mr. Timms: I think that it would, and that is why clause 154(9) refers to ''Section 388''. It will be necessary to make regulations to put the arrangement in place and to make it work, even though RSA will be voluntary, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. We will return to that point this afternoon, but the safeguards that clause 388 provides will apply. In the light of that assurance, I hope that that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Whittingdale: The argument, ''Oh well, it is covered elsewhere in the Bill,'' is not wholly convincing if the Minister is not able to provide any good reason why it should not also be covered at this point in the Bill. As there is an element of doubt about this in some minds—if not in the Minister's—there are people who would like that commitment to be strengthened by the inclusion of the amendment. I will not press it to a Division at this stage, as we will have a more fundamental disagreement about the next group of amendments, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that his words are put into practice when the Government proceed on this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 373
Mr. Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 320, in
clause 154, page 139, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 321, in
clause 154, page 139, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
No. 337, in
schedule 5, page 355, leave out line 36.
Mr. Whittingdale: We now get back into the meat of the debate, which is about the principle of the introduction of recognised spectrum access. The amendments would remove some of the worst elements of the Government's proposals. I assume that you will adopt the practice of the two other Chairmen, Mr. O'Brien, which is that, when we have a substantial debate on a group of amendments to a clause, it becomes, in effect, the clause stand part debate. With your permission, I will to speak about the overall effect of clause 154 and the introduction of RSA.
It is probably worth reminding the Committee of some of the ground that we covered this morning. We should consider the reasons the Government have given for proceeding as they propose to do—an argument that the Minister repeated this morning. Like so much else in this part of the Bill, the measure originates from the review conducted by Professor Martin Cave, who rightly points out that, at present, transmissions to satellites from installations within the United Kingdom are licensed, but there is no requirement for the licensing of transmissions back down from the satellite.
In justification of the principle that he recommends, Professor Cave says that
''the users of the spectrum could face some uncertainty that their services would be protected from interference if they shared bands with other (usually terrestrially-based) services'',
and suggests that
''Spectrum access licences could be introduced as a way of providing such certainty.''
He says that that
''would have the advantage of defining the interference protection afforded to satellite and terrestrial systems operating in the same or neighbouring bands. It would also provide greater clarity to operators of satellite systems''.
Professor Cave claims that he is suggesting the RSA concept for the benefit of the satellite operators and that they would see some advantage to be gained from obtaining RSA. That is not the view of the satellite operators. It becomes clear in the report that there is another motive—not dishonourable in any way—for such proposals. Professor Cave makes the matter plain when he says:
''There may also be scope to use spectrum pricing to ensure that satellite operators face the opportunity cost of the UK spectrum which they occupy.''
There is a suspicion that the system is more about raising revenue than assisting satellite operators.
As was said this morning, the proposals have encountered strong resistance and opposition from those currently operating in the satellite market. All the European and United States of America satellite
Column Number: 374
industry associations are opposed to the proposals. The industry has repeatedly made clear its strong opposition at each stage of the consultative process. The Minister said this morning that the satellite industry had expressed concerns, but that is putting it very mildly.
Mr. Timms: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He made a strong point this morning about the effectiveness of market mechanisms in helping spectrum allocation decisions to be made. Does he accept that the principle that he enunciated must apply also to that part of the spectrum used by satellite broadcasters?
Mr. Whittingdale: It is different when dealing with a section of the spectrum that it is not within the power of the British Government to licence, whether or not they wish to do so. The Minister said that the arrangement would be voluntary, but it is not only Britain that receives such satellite broadcasts. We are debating broadcasts from satellites that cover a large area of Europe. For Ofcom to take it upon itself to say that we will somehow give recognition at a price does not offer a concrete advantage to the satellite operator. It is not possible to make the comparison with other areas of the spectrum in which, quite plainly, it is wholly within the power of Ofcom—and rightly so—to allocate bands for particular purposes. A market-based solution is much more appropriate for dealing with that.
|
