Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

Committee stage
Monday 29th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is lovely to be reminded of previous remarks but, of course, that was then and this is now. We were talking about the standard for Ofcom then; today, we are talking about the CMA standard. The noble Lord would need to produce evidence that that standard did not in fact have a really poor outcome as a result of the power of big tech not being as limited as it could have been. He talked about us needing to recognise the power of big tech, but that is exactly what adopting the JR standard—the Wednesbury “unreasonable” standard that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about last week, and which all of us are content to stick with—would do.

Of course, what we are trying to do, if possible—if the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are accepted—is to revert back to a JR standard for penalties. I believe that consistency across the board is rather more important than trying to revert to a form of appeals standard that obtains in a different part of the regulatory forest. However, as the noble Lord said, the danger of executive overreach is much more easily cured by increased parliamentary scrutiny than by trying to, in a sense, muddy the waters of the test for appeals.

What the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about incentives was entirely right. Litigation has clearly been used and is being used by big tech for strategic business purposes. We are trying to make sure that this does not drag on for ever and that appealing against the penalties does not open up the whole caboodle as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Black, and others who talked about the change of standard for penalties infecting other aspects of a CMA decision, made very strong points.

Ultimately, the Minister has a large number of questions from noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, asked what would be relevant for an appeal on penalties. What is the motivation for the Government in putting forward this new standard for penalties? What is so special about it and what evidence did they use to come to that view? Is not the danger of using a merits appeal basis that the decisions on which the penalty was based will be unpicked? The practicalities were also raised by a number of noble Lords.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I intervene on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There is a difference. The noble Lord was absolutely right to raise his concerns about Ofcom moving from a merits-based to JR-based appeal, in 2017. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, knows very well, Ofcom often makes decisions on extremely complicated pricing mechanisms. The telecoms companies had a point in saying that a merits-based appeal for Ofcom decisions is worth while, because going through the calculations again could sometimes be worth £50 million, £100 million or £200 million.

Ofcom was right in finally moving to JR for those cases when it took quite important strategic decisions about the marketplace—for example, forcing Sky Sports to offer its content wholesale to competitors. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had a point then and he has one today.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

It is very nice and helpful to be reminded of things that I had forgotten entirely. We need to make sure that we are consistent across the board. A full merits-based standard is not, for example, used to appeal against fines issued by Ofcom under the Online Safety Act. These Benches have serious concerns regarding the insertion of two different appeal standards in the Bill, as it may decrease the deterrent effect and risk lengthier appeals, as we have heard.

If we are not successful in persuading the Government to change back to JR for penalty appeals, and a merits appeal is to be included, a number of amendments—the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my amendment—are of great relevance to make sure that we do not see that drift that the noble Lord, Lord Black, talked about. A failure to do so could run the same risks as an entirely novel appeals standard. On that basis, we very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my own Amendment 68, which would ensure that there is no further extension of the merits appeal standards into any other part of the Bill. It is intended to have the same impact and draw a clear line in the sand beyond which no court can go.

I am sorry that we do not have the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, here to reveal perhaps another letter from a Minister. We had an interesting discussion last Wednesday, when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, quoted the letter, sent to Damian Collins and Sir Robert Buckland, about the nature of the intention behind including “proportionate”. It said:

“In practice this means that firms will be able to challenge whether the DMU could have achieved its purpose for intervention through less onerous requirements”.


In a sense, that is a massive invitation to litigation, compared to ordinary JR. If that move is an invitation to litigation, think how much further along the road we are travelling if we go for a merits test for the fine and the penalties. I hope the Minister will therefore reverse course back to the pre-Report situation in the Commons; that would give a great deal of satisfaction around this Committee.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

Committee stage
Monday 22nd January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I am interested in my noble friend’s point about the idea that allowing challenger firms to put in evidence to the CMA would overwhelm it with too much information that it could not cope with. Two points spring to mind. First, when you bring a case against an SMS the workload is unbelievable anyway—it is enormous—and these cases go on for years, so it strikes me that additional information from challenger firms would not unduly add to the CMA’s burden. Secondly, if my noble friend will forgive me, it seems a relatively casual phrase. I do not know whether there has been any analysis of the kind of information the CMA would expect to receive, but surely information that it received from challenger firms would simply allow it to present a much more robust case, rather than it being overwhelmed by paperwork.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, so that the Minister does not have to stand up a second time, I will just add the other side of the coin to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The Minister seems very concerned about the workload within an SMS, but they are an SMS for a reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but that is very general. We have heard around the Room that people are really concerned. As we go forward, so many areas of intellectual property—the ingestion of copyright material, the issues with synthesisation of performances—are being affected by artificial intelligence. The kind of language the Minister is using sounds far too generic. It needs to be much more focused if we are to be convinced that the CMA really has a role in all of this. He is the Minister for both AI and IP, so he is right at the apex of this issue; maybe he is right on the point of the whole thing. He has the ability in his ministerial role to start trying to resolve some of these issues. We have the IPO coming up with a code of conduct—

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

We have a vote soon.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

This is a long intervention, I agree. I would just ask the Minister to focus on the fact that this is not just any old fairness of terms but something that should be explicitly stated in the Bill.

Arts Council England: Regional Distribution of Funding

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McNally on obtaining this debate—I am just sorry that he is not here to participate—and my noble friend Lord Storey on his brilliant introduction to it. Debates on culture and levelling up are obviously like buses: you wait for ages and then two come along in quick succession. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to treat this like the Report stage of a Bill, when he attempts to give a better answer to questions than he gave during the previous debate.

As my noble friend Lord Storey said, today’s debate is an opportunity to celebrate and highlight the role of culture and the arts in levelling up in the regions. We have heard some great examples of the positive role of cultural levelling up in the regions. He talked about the role of the arts in regeneration in Liverpool and about the Prescot theatre of the north. He talked about culture and the arts as a powerful engine of economic growth, with benefits beyond the economy in health and education. He also talked about the experience of being the European Capital of Culture.

It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza. He illustrated some great examples in Bradford, Blackburn, Rotherham, and Tyne and Wear, and the success of the City of Culture programme in Hull and Coventry. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who no doubt we all should listen to on Friday evenings, talked about Gateshead, Margate and Folkestone. The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, talked about Buxton Opera House.

So there were some wonderful examples there, but it is not all roses, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, even in the regions—I will come to London shortly—and not just because we are in a post-Covid situation. There are problems with touring post Brexit, and inflation was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. A number of factors are contributing, but Arts Council decisions have impacted on the regions as well. Liverpool has lost its main access to opera because the Welsh National Opera has had its funding for work across the border cut. It also performs in Bristol, Birmingham, Southampton and Oxford, but it has suffered a 35% cut. How is that levelling up? Glyndebourne, which has had a fantastic touring programme in our towns and cities for 50 years, has had a 50% cut in its funding too.

Manchester should have its own opera company, of course. I was very interested in the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “slap in the face for Opera North”. Abolishing the grant to the Britten Sinfonia removes support for the only serious orchestra serving eastern England, and Plymouth Music Zone has lost its entire funding. I do not believe that is a good catalogue that will encourage levelling up.

In particular, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, levelling up should not be at the expense of a vibrant London creative community and our brilliant London theatres and opera houses. My noble friend started by making that absolutely clear. The phrase used, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. That is the wrong way to go. There is nothing to be gained by cutting the funding for creativity in London.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also described the role of our London institutions as centres of excellence. Many of the big London-based arts organisations take their productions and exhibitions on tour throughout the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friend Lord Storey acknowledged. The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, seemed extraordinarily conflicted in what she had to say, but I think she would agree with Caroline Norbury, CEO of Creative UK, that

“levelling up cannot mean levelling down, and a rapid reduction in support for world-class cultural organisations in London is short-sighted.”

That diminishes us all, including our international reputation for creativity.

We come on to what has actually happened with the funding. Two London theatres mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Hampstead Theatre and the Donmar—both such extraordinary centres of new writing for decades—have lost their entire grant. The Gate, just recently moved to Camden, has had its entire grant removed too. I noted the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, but as a result of these developments, Roxana Silbert has quit as the Hampstead Theatre’s artistic director.

If anything, the ENO has been treated worse, with the total loss of its £12.6 million core annual funding. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Vaizey—by the way, I absolutely endorse his praise for Harry Brunjes, who has done an incredible job for the ENO—and Lord Freyberg, my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, focused a great deal on the entire situation as far as the ENO is concerned.

Last week, the Minister acknowledged that London plays a special role and gave a number of inspiring examples. As he said:

“Those institutions perform a levelling-up function in providing a national stage on which people can perform.”—[Official Report, 8/12/22; col. 306.]


He then paid fulsome tribute to the ENO during the debate. That is very little consolation, given the gun that has now been put to the ENO’s head by the Arts Council. It is as if opera itself was being singled out for ill treatment, and this is where I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Surely the massive efforts the ENO has made over the years to bring opera and performance to diverse audiences—11% of ENO’s audience is ethnically diverse—should have been recognised. It has the most diverse full-time chorus in the country and provides free tickets for under-21s. I could go on about its extraordinary education programme, which was praised by Darren Henley himself. At the same time, ENO’s productions are world beating, as anyone who has seen its version of Philip Glass’s “Akhnaten” will attest to.

As it happens, the Major Government bought the Coliseum for ENO. It now makes no sense at all to undermine that investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, indicated, is this an opera thing? Berlin, Paris and Vienna have three opera houses. Is it beyond our wit to fund two? Three of the five largest reductions in funding were imposed on opera companies. Cutting public support makes opera more elitist, not less.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, also paid tribute—he is very good at paying tribute to people, by the way—to Darren Henley, and I—

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and ask him specifically why he has not replied to my text message inviting him to appear as my guest this Friday on my Times Radio show.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is because I have not received it, but I look forward to reading my text.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, paid tribute to Darren Henley, as do I, but he did not say that he now pays tribute; he paid tribute to Darren Henley in the past. This has been a bungled funding round with what I fear will be very adverse consequences for the UK’s creative community. I liked the phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: forced through at speed.

Last week, the Minister talked about cherishing the arm’s-length relationship, but there is very little evidence of that. Arts Council England is clearly having to work to the Government’s strategy and timing, as Darren Henley said in his evidence to the Communications and Digital Committee, and as was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg:

“We were asked by the Government to move some money out of London”—


it sounds almost illicit, does it not?—

“£16 million in year 1 and £24 million by the end of year 3.”

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I will take advantage of the flexibility in the Chamber to say that, notwithstanding the intervention of a cup of tea, my amendment will be moved on Report.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, following that very provocative statement from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I will not go into great detail about Amendments 17A and 17B because they have not been moved, although by a side wind the noble Lord mentioned MDUs and various other aspects. All I can say is that if they are moved on Report they will be very firmly opposed from these Benches. There are many reasons for that, which I will not go into, but we look forward to the debate on Report. In the meantime, we will keep our powder dry.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made an extremely good case for her Amendment 18, as has my noble friend. I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a great fan of poles, but we will just have to live with that. Amendments such as this would ensure that an explicit right exists to access the pole itself or place apparatus on it. That amendment is supported by all operators. It is good that we have one amendment that is almost unanimously supported by the operators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I want to mainly talk about Amendment 19 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Before doing so, I say that I have some considerable sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because one of the themes we are very much going to come to with the coming amendments is this steady shift in the bargaining power away from site providers towards the operators over a period of years, which started in 2017 and culminates in the current Bill. We had a number of debates on unresponsive occupiers when we last debated this on the then Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill. As the noble Earl said, it is ironic that the cornerstone case has decided what it has, yet here we are changing the legislation away from that decision. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that have been put to him.

On these Benches, we support Amendment 19. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it would mandate operators with agreements under the code that are not subsisting agreements—namely, agreements that came into force before the code was agreed—to give advanced notice to sites that provide and deliver emergency services, such as hospitals, fire stations and ambulance stations. It is clearly important for providers of emergency services to be given advance notice of when work is going to be undertaken, so that they can take appropriate action to ensure that they are not affected.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned the Minister’s response in the Commons; she prayed in aid the rights under paragraph 17 of the ECC,

“which authorise only activity that will have no more than a minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the apparatus”.

However, this takes no account of the fact that, while the works may involve minimal adverse impact, it may actually involve disconnection at the time of installation. The Minister said that she was,

“not aware of any instances in which an operator has relied on its paragraph 17 rights to carry out upgrading and sharing activities that have gone beyond the scope of what that paragraph allows”.—[Official Report, Commons, Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill Committee, 22/3/22; col. 120.]

However, that is not the right question. The right question is: what kind of resilience and risk planning do the emergency services have in those circumstances? If they do not know that there is a risk of disconnection, how can they plan for it? This seems an extremely sensible amendment which will allow the emergency services to have notice and to be able to plan for circumstances when they may be disconnected.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate on these proposals, which are potentially linked and will develop into a theme which perhaps redresses the balance.

When commenting on the amendment to notify emergency services, it must be acknowledged—by those of us who regard our telecom infrastructure providers as providing an extremely important service to the country, doing difficult, tedious and time-consuming work with private investment—that they do not always get it right. I again remember—this will become a theme of my speeches—that, in my time as Minister, one would have local authorities refusing to give permission to broadband providers to put in place infrastructure because of the mess they had left behind from their previous work. The most notorious and, I thought, slightly irritating resistance came from Kensington and Chelsea Council, which did not like the design of the green cabinets—perhaps it wanted them designed by David Linley or someone like that. Both the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and this emergency services amendment highlight the fact that, too often, when infrastructure providers are allowed in to upgrade their apparatus, they do not take account of the knock-on effects of their work, either by not taking into account building safety regulations or by not notifying the occupiers that there might be disruption. The amendment is well placed to raise these points and for this House to remind infrastructure providers that they must continue to improve on this.

What I find interesting, from the perspective of landowners, is the balance between wanting, obviously, a reasonable rent for the disruption and visual intrusion that telecoms equipment can bring when it is placed on one’s land—certainly one’s property rights should be sacrosanct and no one should be allowed simply to arrive without notice and put infrastructure where they please—and the point about bringing huge benefit to a local community where one’s land is situated, and indeed to one’s own operations when infrastructure provides the connectivity. I can never get my head around that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we support the amendments introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with his expertise both as a valuer and surveyor and as a site provider. I well understand why he has taken the trouble to take us through the amendments in the way he has, because they lie absolutely at the core of the Bill, of the relationship between site providers and operators over a long period, and of Protect and Connect’s campaign. It is quite reasonable to unpack the valuation system that has been in place and explain in some detail his proposals by way of the amendments for a new valuation system, or at least an alternative way to deal with the current one.

I start by quoting the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers:

“The tragedy of the 2017 Code is that, far from encouraging collaboration over sites assisting roll-out, some leading operators have made heavy handed, confrontational and attritional use of the powers and privileges they were given by it, very largely to reduce the cost of renewing existing agreements rather than winning new ones or make themselves attractive as tenants. The irony is that, as reported to November’s RICS Telecoms Conference, even if rents may now be much reduced, the overall cost of securing a site has doubled and timescales lengthened.”


That seems very paradoxical. This refers to the fact that, as the noble Earl said, under changes made to the code in 2017, a no-scheme or no-network valuation methodology for valuing land was introduced. As he also explained, this allowed site providers to recover only the raw value of their land, rather than receiving a market price. It did this by inserting a new line into the code that, when setting the value of a site, prevents courts from taking into account a site’s potential use for the provision or use of an electronic communications network.

At the same time, as the noble Earl has also explained, another change was made to the code’s valuation provisions to ensure that site owners cannot charge ransom rents. Any valuation must assume that there is another site available to operators so there is no monopoly in land provision around any site. As he also mentioned, this was recommended to the Government by the Law Commission. Operators have been able to use these changes to drive down the rents that they pay to site providers, often to peppercorn rents. In 2017, the Government said that they expected that rent reductions should be no more than an absolute maximum of 40%, and that has been cited at Second Reading and on many other occasions. However, we know from data cited by the operators that reductions have at best averaged at 63%, a huge sum for many of the people who rent their land to be used for telecoms infrastructure, and in many cases, as we have also heard, reductions have been much higher—in the region of 90%.

The Minister will be aware of the Protect & Connect campaign, and many Members around the House will have had communication with it. It cites the Fox Lane Sports & Social Club, which had a mast on its land for 12 years owned first by Orange and now by EE. The club was getting £7,800 a year but it has now been told that it will get only £794 a year from 2023. Billericay Rugby Football Club had a mast for over 20 years and allowed Vodafone—now Cornerstone—to attach infrastructure to the mast. It paid the volunteer-run club £8,500 a year. However, with the changes to the code, EE says that it will cut the rent by more than 90% to £750 a year. There are many such case histories worth looking into. The evidence is there.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

Surely the noble Lord agrees that a mast on a community sports building, although it provides a generous rent, should not be regarded as some kind of lottery win. I return to my point that the benefit of that mast—the connectivity it gives to not only the sports club but the community around it—is to be considered, as well as the vast rent that was charged until the code revision.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot believe that the noble Lord believes that it is reasonable to reduce the rent by 90%. There may be community benefits. However, I will come on to whether the consumer has had the benefit of these reductions, which is a very important point, and to the point about aggregators versus mast operators, which seems to be the battle of the behemoths. That is not a very happy situation but, in a sense, one caused by the changes that have been made to the ECC.

Protect and Connect estimates that providers have lost more than £200 million a year in income, including £60.5 million of lost local authority income, £44 million of lost agricultural rural site-owner income and, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, says, the Government’s legislation expands the no-scheme valuation regime into approximately 15,000 agreements governed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. This would allow operators to ignore contractual agreements entered into in good faith, leading to more incomes being dramatically reduced.

I come on to the question of consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, talked about the aggregators but my noble friend Lord Fox and I have brought up throughout the passage of the Bill the question of what is in the interests of the consumer. The benefit appears not to be coming down to the consumer. In fact, a great deal of money is being made in other parts of the forest. The Times yesterday reported that Digital 9 Infrastructure has bought 48% of Arqiva Group Ltd from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, using £300 million in cash and a loan note. Clearly there is money to be made, but is any benefit flowing through to the consumer? If the site providers are being heavily reduced in income, that is clearly not going through to the consumer.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that research and development partnerships, such as those that are widely formed between companies and universities to create intellectual property and therefore qualifying assets, are not required to provide notification of the creation of these partnerships. If these partnerships lead to the creation of a qualifying asset, the trigger event should be determined to be the point of creation of the qualifying asset. It would minimise the notification burden on business and industry, and avoid discouraging these important relationships. This is the theme of many of my amendments.

To give your Lordships some background, UK companies are major funders of research and development at British universities across the world. They enter into hundreds, if not thousands, of research agreements every year. Those agreements can be a simple, straightforward funding of a PhD student or major multilateral projects valued at many millions of pounds. Business enterprise R&D represents something like two-thirds of the total, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. The biggest sectors for business enterprise R&D overlap significantly with the 17 sectors identified in the Bill. For example, computer programming is almost £2 billion, aerospace is almost £2 billion and software development is £1.5 billion.

This business investment, allied with our world-class universities, means that the UK is obviously at the forefront of many of these technologies, from quantum technology to artificial intelligence. The purpose of the research is, of course, to create new technology and new intellectual property that can be used by those British companies to grow British businesses, but at the beginning of any partnership the creation of intellectual property is simply an aspiration. It is certainly not guaranteed.

These projects risk being caught by the same minimal risk issue flagged in other debates on the Bill where companies seek pre-emptively to notify where there is a risk of a trigger event because there is a lack of clarity on this issue. All the amendment seeks to do is to postpone the need to consider notification until such time as the research has been successful, in effect by creating a qualifying asset.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have put my name to all three amendments in this group. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I think that we have to find a way to deal with research and development partnerships in higher education. These are various alternative ways to do that, but whichever one is chosen we must find a constructive way. Having a debate and discussion at this stage is really important.

Although the Bill does not directly reference universities and a great deal depends on the Secretary of State and his statement saying how he will define and use the powers, given the width of the sectors it is clear that there is an intention to catch those partnerships entered into by universities. The Bill’s scope is so wide that it means universities could have to refer a significant proportion of their routine business collaborations for screening.

A key concern is that it is unclear which types of asset transaction should be referred for screening. The proposed definition of assets that should be referred to BEIS is very broad and could cover a significant proportion of what universities might consider run-of-the-mill engagement with businesses, including contract research, consultancy work and collaborative R&D. Elements of the Bill, while introducing measures to protect national security, could have unintended consequences for future investment in UK R&D and could cause BEIS to be overloaded with referrals from the university sector.

Up to 95% of Russell group research contracts grant external partners some form of intellectual property and could therefore be captured by the voluntary regime, given the current broad definition of assets. With uncertainty over definitions, universities will be forced to adopt a cautious approach and therefore will expect to refer a significant proportion of the partnerships that I have mentioned: their contract research, consultancy, and collaborative research projects, including those conducted with British businesses. This will add to lead-in times and create red tape for universities and businesses. That surely cannot be for the benefit of R&D in our universities.

As chair of the governing body of a research-intensive university, I can testify to the fact that protecting sensitive research from hostile foreign actors is now a priority for universities. Universities dedicate significant resource to complying with export control legislation and are now working to implement recommendations arising from last year’s guidance from Universities UK, Managing Risks in Internationalisation. As a result, enhanced due diligence processes have run in parallel to concerted efforts to secure R&D investment from domestic and international businesses. This includes due diligence on risk assessment, international research partnerships, policies and contractual agreements to protect intellectual property and dual-use technologies and export control legislation.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I was not a Member of this House when the Bill was debated at Second Reading or on Report. Therefore, I begin by saying how much I welcome it. In my experience as the Minister responsible for rural broadband rollout between 2010 and 2016, I soon came to realise that planning is the biggest obstacle that prevents the rapid deployment of the broadband that this country desperately needs. The planning system is hopelessly complex and time-consuming, and imposes enormous costs on operators. Anything that can make their lives easier has to be welcomed. Multi-dwelling units contain dozens of potential recipients of ultrafast broadband. If we can make it easier and simpler for operators to deploy their technology, that is to be welcomed.

I was also delighted that the Government yesterday published a consultation on reforming the Electronic Communications Code. Again, I was the Minister who had a first stab at that, which was obviously not good enough, and that is why we need a second bite at the cherry. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the foreword to that consultation document contains some heartening statistics on the deployment of gigabit broadband. From memory—I read it only this morning, but I am getting older—some 30% of homes can now potentially receive gigabit broadband. It is good to see the Government pressing ahead on another front.

I should say on operators entering multi-dwelling units that one of the Government’s commitments during the passage of the Bill was to publish a consultation on the code of practice and then a code following Royal Assent. Given that the Bill imposes obligations on landlords and effectively interferes with their property rights, it is vital that landlords are reassured that the operators will adhere to the highest possible standards. The code of practice is also important for some of the smaller operators. There is some nervousness among them. If landlords are worried about operators’ standards when deploying the technology, they will simply take refuge by dealing only with the biggest operators and not allow insurgents, as it were, or start-ups to fibre-up their buildings. I hope that when she responds the Minister can give some reassurance that the code of practice consultation will be issued imminently.

I should also point out that the Bill does not yet cover the issue of shared freeholds, and I hope that the consultation on the Electronic Communications Code, which I am not covers this issue, could be used as a vehicle for looking at how operators can enter buildings where there is a shared freehold—the typical building being a Victorian house that has been split into flats. Some 5 million premises fall within that category and there needs to be some way forward to allow operators to access shared freehold premises.

I am not sure whether the amendment is necessary in practice, but I understand the Government’s motivation to reassure Members of both Houses that the Bill will not inadvertently create monopolies in multi-dwelling units. I should also ask the Minister to respond, either now or in writing, to the concern of some operators about the Government and Ofcom’s ongoing intentions to impose wholesale access on operators. It is one thing to say that an operator should not do anything, intentionally or inadvertently, to prevent a competitor supplying technology to multi-dwelling units, but it is quite another to impose on a company the obligation to allow others to use the infrastructure it has invested in and paid for. What is the direction of travel of the Government and Ofcom, because I know that they have previously thought about imposing wholesale obligations on operators in multi-dwelling units?

However, as I say, I welcome the amendment. My understanding is that any attempt to physically impede competitors from entering a multi-dwelling unit would fall foul of the ATI regulations and, indeed, the EU’s Electronic Communications Code, so I am not entirely certain that the amendment is necessary. However, in the sense of providing statutory reassurance that a much- needed piece of legislation will open up access to ultrafast broadband to many millions of people living in multi-dwelling units the amendment has to be welcomed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and to welcome him to the select band of broadband and telecoms legislation aficionados in this House. As my noble friend Lord Fox said, on Report we welcomed the principle of the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in respect of Part 4A code rights. Likewise, we welcome the Government’s Amendment 2 today.

Strangely enough, however, I do not think that the Government’s amendment is as good as the original, in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was trying to achieve. It substitutes an arguably unclear negative injunction for a positive duty, where it is clear what is intended. On these Benches, however, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we understand the intention behind the amendment, but how it is interpreted when put into practice will be the test. As he also said, we have throughout been encouraged to hear of the development of open radio access networks and strongly support them.

As the noble Baroness mentioned in her letter to us, in the period between Report and today, we have seen the publication of the Government’s 5G diversification strategy. I see that now NEC acting as the systems integrator will be building a testbed for O-RAN funded by the DDCMS, the new O-RAN project. Will the Minister say when this will be up and running and is this the promised Smart RAN interoperability centre—SONIC—or a precursor to it?

What is the current status of the telecoms diversification task force and the National Telecoms Lab, and what is the status of international collaborations? When developed, these open RAN standards will provide operators with the flexibility to use different vendors and obviate the need to take out existing networks on a change of operator. By the same token, for the consumer it would mean likewise that they are not captive to any particular operator with their equipment. That is a development that we wholly welcome.