Clause 102 - Application of the electronic communications
Communications Bill
5:30 pm
Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
This is an important clause and I want clarification from the Minister on a couple of points. The clause refers to the electronic communications code. That sounds innocuous, like the green cross code or the highway code, but the electronic communications code is much more exciting that that to many members of the general public because it is the thing that means that roads are dug up outside houses, or telephone masts are put in back gardens. People care passionately about that so it is worth airing some of the issues.
I understand that the clause and subsequent clauses change the way in which we confer powers on telecoms companies enabling them to have preferential access to land and allowing them to disrupt highways and make compulsory purchases of land in order to ensure that we have a proper telecommunications infrastructure. It is always difficult to strike a balance: we need a telecoms infrastructure, but people experience disruption when building occurs near them.
I understand that the clause changes the way in which the powers are conferred. Licences for providers of telecommunications services will no longer exist and powers will be conferred on specific projects such as putting in place a network or a system of conduits. The change is fundamental, and I want clarification from the Minister on key points.
To what extent does the Minister envisage the change leading to local and specific powers, rather than more general ones, being conferred? At present, a national mobile telecoms operator in the UK has powers under the telecommunications code, in effect, throughout the whole of the country. Do we expect people to come forward with localised plans, such as a proposed mobile phone network for Sheffield. Will Ofcom give powers under the new electronic communications code for a mobile network for Sheffield? Alternatively, would the powers cover Yorkshire, or England, or the United Kingdom?
The conduit systems introduced under the clause are new. Offering licences to people to dig up the roads of Sheffield once—to use that example again—in order to put in place telecoms conduits, rather than having many operators digging up roads separately, is a great idea, but only if subsequent applicants can be required to use the conduits. We will achieve nothing if specific powers are given to somebody to put a system of conduits in place but Ofcom, after giving the power once, does not have the power to refuse to allow other telecommunications companies to dig up roads and not use conduits. It must be able to say, ''No, we have given someone else specific advantages under the electronic communications code to put in place a system of conduits. You should use that system rather than start all over again.''
Mast sharing, which has been mentioned before, is also introduced under the clause. When we start a telecommunications infrastructure, there tends to be too little of it everywhere, so it makes sense to have a code that says that we want people to be able to roll out infrastructure. However, a point is reached at which infrastructure is in place and the public expect licensing authorities to tell companies to use existing infrastructure rather than put new infrastructure in place.
A decision to give someone specific, preferential powers over any other applicant in the planning system, which is what the code confers, would be justified in the public's eyes only where there is an overriding need to roll out infrastructure. Where the public see existing infrastructure, they will rightly question whether a new applicant should be given the exceptional powers to introduce infrastructure where, to their mind, it is already in place.