Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Livermore and Baroness Barran

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling Amendment 1, which would have a very similar practical effect to Labour’s Amendment 2. My noble friend Lord Stevenson and I also tabled Amendment 3, which would enable operators themselves to initiate their Part 4A process. While we feel very strongly about this, it is one of the many issues that could be addressed as part of the review envisaged by Amendment 7, so I will not detain the House by repeating past arguments.

Returning to Amendments 1 and 2, this is an area that has been probed extensively during the Bill’s Commons stages and in Committee here, and where fundamental differences remain. Despite what I feel are very clear arguments in favour of amendments giving certainty to those who rent, the Government have resisted changing the Bill at all stages. When responding to a similar group of amendments in Committee, the Minister said:

“Our concern is that the amendments as tabled would have a significant effect on the Bill. They would significantly expand the scope of who is able to make a service request”.—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1031.]


That is, after all, what we are trying to achieve, and I therefore find it puzzling that we find ourselves in this position.

The Minister went on to suggest that broadening the Bill’s scope could, for example, enable a tenant renting from an individual who is illegally subletting a property to request a broadband connection. While we do not condone such practices, there are, in my view, several issues with this argument. First, I do not believe that the number of such cases would be particularly high, whereas the number of renters who would benefit from the right to request a service is likely to be significant. The risk is very definitely outweighed by the reward. Secondly, the existence of such issues should not preclude people who are renting a property in good faith from being able to access quality telecommunications services. If there are issues with particular landlords, that is for local authorities to resolve. If the problem is bigger than that, Whitehall has responsibilities too. Thirdly, if the department felt that there were legitimate deficiencies in the drafting of earlier amendments, it would have been possible for the Government to table their own text for consideration today. No amendment was offered because renters do not seem to figure in the department’s so-called balanced and proportionate approach.

I do not think any of those arguments from the Government are particularly convincing, and the strength of the Government’s opposition to straightforward, well-intentioned amendments casts doubt on Ministers’ insistence that they will take any and all available opportunities to widen access to high-quality broadband and mobile connections. I hope the Minister feels able to accept either Amendment 1 or 2 today. She could do so and, if necessary, table tidying-up amendments at Third Reading. If that is not the case, I urge your Lordships to back the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 1 and 2. I thank noble Lords for again bringing forward these amendments, one of which is identical to an amendment tabled in Committee. I note that amendments to this effect were also tabled in Committee and on Report in the other place. At the fourth go around, I will do my best to clarify our arguments more effectively.

As I said earlier, I believe that the intention in tabling this amendment is to ensure that this Bill benefits those who rent their homes. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted from my letter on this, and I agree entirely. However, as I stated in Committee and then in the correspondence with which I followed up, the Bill already has within its scope many of those who rent by virtue of the term “lessee in occupation”. The Bill makes it clear, in paragraph 27B(1)(a) of the code it inserts, that

“premises within the scope of this Part are occupied under a lease”.

A tenancy agreement, which also provides for exclusive possession, is a form of lease. Any tenant with exclusive possession is therefore in scope of this Bill, and no further provision needs to be made in this Bill for such a person.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and my noble friend Lord Naseby both questioned the Government’s commitment to expanding access to broadband, and my noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted multiple examples of complexities in tenancies, but this Bill is about simplicity. There is one principle on which the ability to use a Part 4A order stands or falls: exclusive possession.

Conversely, a tenant who holds a licence—a lodger, for example—is not within the scope of the Bill, because a licence does not give exclusive possession. To be clear: that does not preclude them from contacting their licensor to request a service. I do not think it is possible to be much clearer than this. I realise that the noble Lords may be seeking to ensure that there is no ambiguity and that the legislation provides judges with all the information they might need to enable a swift and easy decision; I understand that motivation. However, I believe we need to trust the specialist judges in the First-tier Tribunal in England and Wales and those sitting in equivalent courts elsewhere in Scotland and Northern Ireland, who deal regularly with such matters.

To be as clear as possible, I will cover some of the points that I alluded to in my letter and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised. For the avoidance of doubt, not all tenancies need to be in writing or formed by deed, and the case law is relatively settled in relation to this. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, in its judgment in Street v Mountford in 1985, found that an agreement is a lease if it provides for the following four things: first, exclusive possession; secondly, of a defined premises; thirdly, for a fixed or periodic term; and fourthly, at a rent. This is a matter of substance rather than form; it does not become a lease simply if the parties describe it as a lease. In a later case, the Court of Appeal held in Ashburn Anstalt v Walter John Arnold and WJ Arnold & Company Limited in 1989 that there is no requirement that a lease reserve a rent. As I said earlier, the distinguishing feature of a lease is that the tenant has exclusive possession of a property.

Pegging the Bill to the concept of a lessee in occupation therefore ensures that the Bill includes tenants who rent under assured shorthold tenancy or assured tenancy agreements—which, as many noble Lords will be aware, are the most common forms of tenancy agreements. It also includes tenants at will and renewable tenancies, in so far as the tenancies that are renewable had provided for exclusive possession in the first place.

To be clear: we believe Amendment 2 would expand the scope—that is clearly its intention. It would be extended to include those who occupy a property without exclusive possession and therefore under a licence, which would include lodgers, people staying in holiday cottages and those staying in hostels. That is to say, the amendment would provide someone who may be a temporary guest in someone else’s home with powers over that property. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is neither fair nor appropriate. The “lessee in occupation” allows this Bill to fit within the Electronic Communications Code while also describing that limited but nevertheless still important role for the person living in the property.

Amendment 2 would considerably increase the ambit of the Bill and make it very different from the model consulted on. This is something one should be mindful of when dealing with matters that consider property rights. It should also be noted that, for the reasons I have previously set out, Amendment 1 is not necessary because if the target premises are already “occupied under a lease”, it follows that the person so occupying will have exclusive possession. That is because the existence of exclusive possession is one of the key elements of a tenancy agreement constituting a lease rather than a licence. In a letter dated 9 June 2020, we sought to explain this to all noble Lords who had expressed an interest in this Bill in Committee. To be clear once again: the Government’s intention in bringing forward this legislation is that those who occupy a flat or apartment under a tenancy agreement are in scope of this policy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about the criteria for including things such as business parks. I think I said at an earlier stage of our debates that we would wait for evidence that there is a genuine demand and need to do that. The spirit of this Bill remains: we want to expand access to broadband while maintaining the balance in the relationship between landowner, operator and tenant.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether this would create further delay from the landlord. The whole point of this Bill is to try to make sure that people living in blocks of flats can access broadband in the timeliest way possible. I hope noble Lords are now assured by the fact that the Bill as drafted already works in respect of tenants and understand the reason behind “lessee in occupation” and why it may be a mistake to seek to extend the scope in the manner proposed.

I now move on to Amendment 3, which would allow telecommunications operators to apply to the courts for a Part 4A order without requiring a lessee in occupation in the property to request the provision of a service from an operator. It would therefore allow the operators themselves to determine whether the connection of the property to their network is in the public interest, in order to commence the Part 4A process. I note again that this amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee and similar in concept to others tabled throughout this Bill’s passage in both this House and another place.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which is to remove what noble Lords see as an unnecessary step in the process, and I am well aware that this is a point on which telecoms operators have been particularly active. However, I cannot support the amendment.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Livermore and Baroness Barran

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, we support this attempt to probe the Government on the practical implications of the compensation provisions laid out in new paragraph 27H. Not qualifying the types of losses or damages that are subject to compensation seems a curious choice when amendments to simplify processes are frequently resisted on the basis that, while often cumbersome, legislation needs to set clear parameters for the processes it establishes. This is not a concern that has been raised directly with us, but it seems a recipe for potential bad blood between lessees and operators. While there will inevitably be some scrapes along the way, we need to ensure as harmonious a relationship as possible.

I hope the Minister will be able to point to provisions elsewhere in the parent Act, or to established precedents, to assure us and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this has been fully considered and is not likely to become an issue once the new measures are operational.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment. As your Lordships have heard, this amendment seeks to test our thinking on the types of damage for which compensation will be paid and for which operators will be held liable and—as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned— to establish whether this could lead to any delays in implementation on the part of operators.

This amendment would mean that the courts would be able to award compensation only in situations in which a landowner is able to demonstrate a direct loss. I understand that the amendment aims to limit the scope, and in turn the extent, of compensation that may be paid by an operator in respect of loss or damage sustained by them. I understand that intention and the concerns that underlie it. However, I do not think that those concerns are founded in this case, and I will try to set out the reasons for that.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Livermore and Baroness Barran

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore]

My Lords, Amendments 9 and 14 were tabled in the House of Commons, leading to a commitment that we will shortly consider a further Bill on telecommunications infrastructure security. Given the urgency with which the department claimed to be dealing with this matter, the retabling of these amendments provides us with an opportunity to see what, if any, progress has been made.

Let me be clear that the Labour Party supports the swift but safe rollout of 5G technology. Fully embracing this technology could fundamentally change how we live and work, creating countless opportunities for new forms of communication, entertainment, and so on.

Operators are very keen to get on with the job of rolling out 5G. As we have heard on a number of occasions, the previous lack of clarity over the role of high-risk vendors led to different companies taking different approaches. Some decided to press ahead, gambling on their mix of equipment, whereas others awaited more detailed guidance. The result is that, much like fixed broadband, we are not where any economy of our size should be. This has been compounded by the extraordinary conspiracy theories over the safety of 5G, which saw hardware targeted in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. I know the Minister strongly criticised these myths at Second Reading and I hope she will do so again today.

As I mentioned previously, we have been promised an additional Bill to deal with the issue of security and high-risk vendors. We welcome this announcement but would like more detail on the timescales involved and the proposed scope of the legislation. As my Commons colleagues pointed out during their consideration of this Bill, concerns around Huawei have arisen because the Government have failed to nurture this sector here in the UK. Our lack of expertise and capacity in this country has left operators reliant on know-how and technology from overseas, including from high-risk vendors.

We have been told that there is a plan in place to reduce the market share enjoyed by these vendors. However, this will not happen overnight, and it certainly cannot happen without a proper, robust strategy, coupled with meaningful investment. I hope, therefore, that the upcoming Bill will not be about only security, as vital as that is. It needs to give us opportunities to debate the bigger picture. If, when the Bill is published, the direction of travel is still not entirely clear, we will need to use that process to shed more light on how the Government intend to get to their end destination.

We want to work with the Government to make 5G happen both quickly and safely, and to improve other forms of digital connectivity. We want to work with operators to ensure users right across the UK can enjoy the very best services. I hope that these amendments, coupled with the others we are discussing this afternoon, can be the start of a productive dialogue about how we make that happen.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate on this amendment and thank all noble Lords for their extraordinarily high-quality contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for her speech introducing the amendment.

As my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes explained, this is a matter of huge importance, in relation to both the security and resilience of our telecoms networks and the important and troubling human rights issues that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, covered in relation to the Uighurs. I fear that my comments now will not do justice to this issue, but I would like to put on record my recognition of his work in this area.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, just raised, I can reiterate that the Government continue to condemn those spreading myths about the links between 5G and Covid-19. There is no basis for those assertions.

Turning to the substance of this amendment, it is clearly an issue that the Government consider to be of paramount importance, as this House knows. The Government conducted a comprehensive review into the telecoms supply chain to ensure the security of our networks. The review set out that we will introduce one of the toughest regimes for telecoms security in the world, and I reiterate that high-risk vendors never have been and never will be in the most sensitive parts of our networks.

As my noble friend Lady Morgan said, this decision was taken with enormous care, given its importance. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said recently in the other place in relation to a similar amendment to the Bill, the Government will introduce legislation to establish this new regulatory framework as soon as possible.

This legislation will establish stronger national security powers to allow the Government to impose stringent controls on the presence of high-risk vendor equipment in the UK’s 5G and full-fibre networks. It will be a crucial step forward in implementing the conclusions of the Government’s review into the telecoms supply chain, which was underpinned by careful security analysis by our world-leading cybersecurity experts. It will implement a new and robust security framework that ensures the UK’s telecoms critical national infrastructure remains secure now and in the future, which I know is what is behind the amendment of the noble Baroness. Officials are working to develop that legislation as quickly as possible.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for agreeing with the Government that that piece of legislation will be the right opportunity to debate telecom security and high-risk vendors in detail. I hope that this gives your Lordships some reassurance that the Government remain absolutely committed to working with Parliament to ensure the security of our networks.

I understand that the intention of Amendment 9 is to impose a timetable for an effective ban on the use of equipment from high-risk vendors. However, our reflection is that, in practice, this amendment would not necessarily result in the removal of high-risk vendors from the network. Rather than incentivising operators to remove high-risk vendor equipment from their networks, operators could simply not make use of the powers in this Bill, thereby creating a barrier to many families living in blocks of flats who cannot access the benefits unlocked by new broadband services while having no practical impact on the presence of high-risk vendors in the UK’s telecom networks. That is clearly not something, listening to your Lordships today, that this House would like to see happen.

This Bill, in terms of its practical operation, is about access for fixed-line providers and not 5G services. Therefore, the impact of this amendment would not only be more limited in its practical implications than I believe the noble Baroness intends but could slow down the rollout of full-fibre networks and prevent the UK economy seeing the benefits that nationwide access to faster broadband networks could bring.

Amendment 14 is aimed at obliging telecoms operators who exercise Part 4A code rights to set out publicly plans to remove high-risk vendors from their networks to the satisfaction of a regulator. The Government have consistently made it clear that the security of our telecoms infrastructure is paramount. I know that the House shares this view. The amendment touches on details which will need clarification when we come to the telecoms security Bill, such as details around the information that plans should contain any sanctions and what would constitute satisfaction to a designated regulator. That is work to be done in the telecoms security Bill.

We have made evidence-based decisions in relation to high-risk vendors based on the world-class expertise of the National Cyber Security Centre. It has always been the Government’s position that operators should pay due regard to the NCSC’s advice on reducing their Huawei equipment to the recommended level as quickly as practicable. However, the Bill is neither the right place to put an obligation on operators to set out detailed plans, nor to designate an appropriate regulator to assess those plans. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to implementing a framework for telecoms security that is right for the UK’s specific security needs and takes into account the advice we have received from our cybersecurity experts.

This is an important debate which needs full consideration by Members in both Houses and the forthcoming legislation to implement the new telecoms security framework is the right vehicle to do that. The Government are committed to ensuring full consideration by Members in both Houses. On a personal note, I find it a real privilege to take part in a Committee with Members who have such expertise in the technology, security and human rights aspects. I know that my colleagues in the department will be keen to work with noble Lords as we progress with the security Bill and our ambitions to achieve faster broadband rollout. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling and introducing this amendment. It is relatively straightforward, but it could have far-reaching consequences for operators.

As the noble Lord outlined, the Bill currently defines “connected land” as being in common ownership with the target premises. Operators who have contacted us have expressed concern that this will limit their ability to roll out new technology, particularly in rural areas, where infrastructure may have to cross multiple fields to reach the desired building. They believe that removing the common ownership provision will also help accelerate their deployment of high-speed services to small businesses and other commercial properties.

Given our previous debates on the economic benefits of improving connection speeds, we should ensure that this Bill facilitates such work. There was clearly a rationale for including this provision in the Bill, so I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position and its practical impact on the provision of new connections. Should she accept that the requirement may have unintended consequences on the ability of operators to roll out new infrastructure, I hope that officials can look again at the detail and engage with the sector to address its concerns.

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for a positive and ambitious response—I think those were his words. I hope to give him a positive response, but I fear that it will be a practical one.

This amendment seeks to understand our thinking on the key concepts of connected land and common ownership, and the impact of this link on the speed and ease of the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband. As the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, outlined, the concepts of connected land and common ownership form a vital underpinning of the Bill.

It may be helpful to noble Lords if I give a slightly more technical explanation of the concept of connected land. In technical terms, let us consider land in respect of which an operator wishes to have code rights, which we will call Land A. In order for Land A to be “connected land”, it must satisfy both limbs of the definition set out in paragraph 27B(3) of the code. It is not enough that it is used for access to, or otherwise in connection with, the target premises—limb (b). Land A must also be in common ownership with the target premises—limb (a).

The concept of common ownership as drafted in the Bill therefore stands and falls with the need for Land A to be held or used for access to, or otherwise in connection with, the target premises, as contained in limb (b).The definition of “common ownership”—as set out in paragraph 27I(2) of the code, towards the end of Clause 1—will catch two pieces of land which have the same freeholder, or which are held under a lease of any sort by the same person. It will also catch two pieces of land where the same person owns an interest in each but at a different level; for example, where a person owns the freehold of one but is the lessee of the other. I am happy to give practical examples of that point if that would be useful to your Lordships.

The connection set out in paragraph 27B(3) of the code is a conjunctive test, so both limbs (a) and (b) are needed for the concept of “connected land” to work. Without that, the essence of the concept of connected land is removed, and it is completely integral. The amendment would remove the requirement for the land to be in common ownership, thus allowing operators to use this policy on any land that exists between their exchange and the target premises. In practice—this is the key reason why the Government do not support the amendment—it would give operators code rights to access land where a landlord was not responsive. A landlord who has no connection to the properties where the operator is going to make their installation could be opened up to potential Part 4A orders, which we believe is disproportionate.

There are other, technical points which could affect the powers in the Bill with the amendment as currently drafted. Paragraphs 27I(2) and (3) seek to define “common ownership” and “relevant interest”. This was designed to ensure that the Bill worked within the different ideas of land ownership in Scotland. The amendment would render those paragraphs ineffective and affect the efficacy of the Bill, particularly in Scotland.

While I recognise that operators are encountering significant problems gaining access rights in situations other than multiple dwelling buildings, this Bill is not the right vehicle for a change as profound as this. My officials have engaged with them, and representatives of landowners, on these points and we are considering what, if any, action could be taken to support delivery if evidence emerges that further interventions are necessary. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.