|
Mr. Allan: I hesitate to detain the Minister further but he said that he does not think that there will be any difference between this provision and that relating to spectrum licensing. There is an essential difference owing to the initial voluntary nature of the arrangements. For example, in the real world, the satellite broadcasters might choose not to take up a specific area spectrum but they could be informed at some point that a person has come along with a proposal to put in a local network meaning that 3,000 subscribers in area X would suffer damage to their services. That person might pay £20,000 to do that but say to the broadcasters, ''If you offer us £25,000, we won't do it.'' That is different from a stable situation in which everyone has a licence. The market is quite different if people do not have licences but somebody could come along and suddenly create a requirement for a licence.
Mr. Timms: I accept that there are differences. My point is that we should, as far as possible, treat all groups of spectrum users equitably. Several arguments
Column Number: 389
advanced by Opposition Members suggested that satellite broadcasters, for example, should be treated on an entirely different basis from other spectrum users, but that is not right.
In order to achieve effectively optimum use of the radio spectrum and to give RSA holders additional security of spectrum access and quality, RSA will have to include technical details about frequency, power levels, coverage, strength and type of signal for such reasons as to give operators assurances that they need about the levels of signals that might be expected to impinge on their services from transmissions on adjacent frequency bands. They will require the information in order to plan their coverage with the assurance that they will be able to provide the quality of reception that their customers demand because, without that, RSA holders would be in the dark about the technical quality that they could expect and might be subject to an unexpected shock such as that described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. That would make RSA less effective as a spectrum management tool.
We want Ofcom to give operators greater certainty and the clause permits it to do that with the requisite amount of technical detail. In the interests of ensuring optimal use of the radio spectrum, Ofcom might also find it necessary to impose conditions on the strength and type of signal, the sharing of frequencies and the content of transmissions. Those factors might need to be regulated in order to manage the radio spectrum effectively and to ensure optimal use. The provisions mirror parallel provisions for wireless telegraphy licences.
Ofcom will determine how the powers need to be used. It would be premature to speculate about the detailed technical and regulatory content of RSA at this early stage of developing detailed proposals—a good deal more discussion is needed. However, restrictions, terms and conditions may well be necessary and, in view of the range of services that may be covered, the uncertainty about market conditions and technical developments, it is prudent to give Ofcom wide flexibility.
4 pm
The exercise of the powers will be subject to the general duty on proportionate and appropriate regulation and to the clause 6 duty to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens. It will also be necessary for Ofcom to consult about regulations governing the procedure for granting RSA, as we discussed earlier. I hope that, in the light of my explanation, Opposition Members will withdraw their amendments. I also hope that they will recognise the substantial benefits that will come with the introduction of RSA and the fact that the absence of such an arrangement would create a serious hole in the framework under the Bill. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that recognised spectrum access should be a feature of future spectrum management in the United Kingdom.
Column Number: 390
Mr. Whittingdale: The Minister began his response by repeating that it would be a voluntary arrangement, which satellite operators are free to enter into or not to enter into. He said that he would not be concerned if no one entered into it. However, as he went on, the arrangement sounded less voluntary and the consequences of not entering into it seemed to increase. We will not agree. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is not willing even to consider the safeguards suggested in the amendments and, given that there is considerable disagreement, we will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.
Division No. 9]
AYES
Allan, Mr. Richard
Fabricant, Michael
Harvey, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Whittingdale, Mr. John
NOES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Howells, Dr. Kim
Irranca-Davies, Huw
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Miller, Mr. Andrew
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Picking, Anne
Timms, Mr. Stephen
White, Brian
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 7.
Division No. 10]
AYES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Howells, Dr. Kim
Irranca-Davies, Huw
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Miller, Mr. Andrew
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Picking, Anne
Timms, Mr. Stephen
White, Brian
NOES
Allan, Mr. Richard
Fabricant, Michael
Harvey, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Procedure for grants of recognised
spectrum access
Mr. Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 338, in
schedule 5, page 356, line 18, at end insert 'but such a revocation or modification may only be made—
(a) with the consent of that person, or
(b) where that person has contravened a condition or restriction of the grant and OFCOM consider that the revocation or the proposed modification is proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances of that contravention.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 339, in
Column Number: 391
schedule 5, page 356, leave out lines 22 to 40 and insert 'give notice of the proposal to the holder of the grant, and that notice shall state the reasons for the proposal.
(2) The holder of a grant who receives a notice under paragraph (1) shall be entitled to make representations to OFCOM within such period, not being less than one month after the day the notice was given to the holder, and OFCOM may, if they think fit, extend that period on one or more occasions.
(3) OFCOM may specify a shorter period than one month in the notice given under sub-paragraph (1) if—'.
Amendment No. 340, in
schedule 5, page 356, line 42, leave out 'or an urgent case'.
Amendment No. 341, in
schedule 5, page 357, line 2, leave out from 'appropriate' to end of line 3.
Amendment No. 342, in
schedule 5, page 357, line 4, leave out subparagraph (7).
Amendment No. 343, in
schedule 5, page 357, line 28, at end insert 'or such shorter period as may be agreed with the person to whom the notification was given'.
Amendment No. 344, in
schedule 5, page 357, line 30, leave out from 'proposal' to 'and' in line 31.
Amendment No. 345, in
schedule 5, page 357, line 41, leave out from 'modification' to 'compliance' in line 42 and insert 'in order to secure'.
Mr. Whittingdale: The amendments relate to schedule 5. Once recognised spectrum access is granted, by virtue of schedule 5(5), Ofcom
''may revoke . . . a grant of recognised spectrum access, or''
modify
''the restrictions or conditions to which . . . a grant is subject''.
However, there appears to be no constraint on the grounds on which Ofcom may modify or revoke a grant. For Ofcom to have such unfettered power to amend or remove an RSA during the period for which it has been granted must be contrary to the legitimate rights of the RSA holder. Therefore, we believe that paragraph 5 should be amended to limit Ofcom's power to modify or revoke RSA. That is the purpose of the amendments.
Mr. Timms: The communications sector is subject to rapid and unpredictable change and we need to give Ofcom sufficient powers to modify or revoke RSA when necessary and after due process. That power must be balanced against the rights of RSA holders. The schedule as drafted strikes the right balance.
Amendment No. 338 proposes that Ofcom should be able to revoke or modify RSA only with the holder's consent unless conditions are breached. That could create difficulties for Ofcom in circumstances such as the need for spectrum re-farming, or if problems of harmful interference arise due to some unforeseen problem—which may happen despite the best efforts of the spectrum manager. Such circumstances may not be frequent, but it is important that Ofcom has the power to act appropriately should the need arise. The amendment would tie Ofcom's hands unacceptably.
Modification or revocation of RSA will be subject to the full appeals procedure established under clauses
Column Number: 392
187 to 191, including appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal on merits. We will discuss those clauses shortly, but they will give a good deal of assurance that a fair balance is being struck.
Amendments Nos. 339 to 342 propose relaxing the period of notice for varying or revoking RSA. Again, the schedule as drafted strikes a fair and reasonable balance. Occasionally, Ofcom will have to act speedily. The period allowed in the schedule is the same as that allowed for licences. It follows the requirements of the new directives and there is no reason for doing things differently in the case of RSA.
Amendment No. 343 inserts a provision to permit holders to agree a shorter period of notice, but there is nothing in the present drafting to stop that being agreed so the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 344 proposes that Ofcom's proposals to revoke or modify RSAs should not then be modified. However, that would make the procedure much less flexible, especially if a late accommodation could be reached with the applicants, so the amendment is unhelpful.
Amendment No. 345 suggests amending the wording on how revocations or modification made to secure compliance with international obligations can override other provisions. The original wording gives Ofcom a margin of appreciation in judging what is necessary or expedient. However, it is subject to the right of appeal that I mentioned, so I see no need to amend the wording.
The amendments do not help the Committee and it would be better to leave things as they are.
|
