Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)

I do not want to prolong the Committee's debate, but it would be remiss not at least to pause for a moment's reflection before agreeing to the schedule, given that it provides substantial opportunities and powers for code operators and people in the telecommunications industry to compulsorily purchase and enter land. Over the years, each of us in our constituency surgeries have had cause to wonder how quickly and speedily some powers have been passed by Parliament without it reflecting even for a moment on the effect that they would have on individuals.

I want to make two or three brief points to give the Minister the opportunity to say a word about the provisions. Can he explain the frequency of compulsory purchase powers that are used under the present arrangements? How does what is proposed under the Bill compare with what happens now? I listened with great interest to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and I wish to make a not dissimilar point about conduits digging up roads, the sharing of facilities and so on, which are all encapsulated in the schedule.

Paragraph 2 of schedule 4 sets out four criteria that the Secretary of State must bear in mind when authorising a power for an operator to compulsorily purchase land. Even the most cursory reading of the criteria shows the extent of the conflicts contained within such well-meaning proposals. One the one hand, the Secretary of State is to have regard to

''the duties imposed on OFCOM''

which, as we debated earlier, are to ensure a highly competitive communications industry. On the other hand, she must also protect the environment and a

''need to ensure that highways are not damaged or obstructed''.

There is a fair degree of traffic obstruction, particularly in London, on a daily basis. We heartily concur with

''the need to encourage the sharing of the use of electronic communications apparatus''.

Can the Minister explain what thought has been given to how we will achieve consistency in the decisions that are made in such matters, given that so many of them are bound to be taken to try to strike a balance between what are clearly conflicting proposals?

If I have not looked in the right place, I am happy to stand corrected, but one matter slightly surprised me. The notes on clauses are helpful and, on pages 168 to 174, explain why and in what sense the various proposals under the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I was surprised that no mention was made of the compulsory purchase powers. I would have thought that there would have been some explanation about why that was okay, especially given that so much of

the Bill was drafted to meet the requirements of European Union directives. Why is there no reference to the rights and interests of people whose land is compulsorily purchased? The Minister may want to come back to me on that point.

I have said sufficient to establish that the powers are wide ranging. It would have been remiss of the Committee not to have at least paused for a moment's reflection on them. I can see from the Minister's smile that he is grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in response.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

As the hon. Member for Ryedale acknowledged, the powers under schedule 4 are provided to code operators under the terms of the 1984 Act. He asked specifically how often those powers have been used. In fact, they have never been used in the 19 years since then. There is an understandable view, however, that they are necessary as a back-stop and underline the powers of operators to reach agreement with landowners on a commercial basis. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the schedule set out how the powers operate within England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The rationale for including such powers under the 1984 Act is to cover an operator who is under an obligation to provide a service. For example, 3G mobile licences oblige operators to cover 80 per cent. of the population by 2007. When such an obligation is imposed on an operator, we need to make sure that the operator has the means to meet it. In the example that I cited, a mobile operator may need to place a mast within a particular location and, without at least the possibility of calling on a power of the sort set out under schedule 4, may not be able to gain agreement from the landowner. It is on that basis that I suggest to the Committee that we need the powers set out in the schedule.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about human rights. I put it to him that there is a balance between the rights of individual landowners and of wider society. The way in which we framed the Bill gets that balance just about right.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.