Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Committee stage
Monday 15th April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—I think. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her amendment and for raising what is an important issue. Amendment 137 seeks to permit the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to share unredacted data with one another when making a charging decision. Perhaps to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, we agree: we must reduce the burden of redaction on the police. As my noble friend noted, this is very substantial and costly.

We welcome the intent of the amendment. However, as my noble friend has noted, we do not believe that, as drafted, it would achieve the stated aim. To fully remove it would require the amendment of more than just the Data Protection Act.

However, the Government are committed to reducing the burden on the police, but it is important that we get it right and that the solution is comprehensive. We consider that the objective which my noble friend is seeking would be better achieved through other means, including improved technology and new, simplified guidance to prevent overredaction, as all speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted.

The Home Office provided £960,000 of funding for text and audio-visual multimedia redaction in the 2023-24 financial year. Thanks to that funding, police forces have been able to procure automated text redaction tools, the trials of which have demonstrated that they could save up 80% of the time spent by the police on this redaction. Furthermore, in the latest Budget, the Chancellor announced an additional £230 million of funding for technology to boost police productivity. This will be used to develop, test and roll out automated audio-visual redaction tools, saving thousands more hours of police time. I would say to my noble friend that, as the technology improves, we hope that the need for it to be supervised by individuals will diminish.

I can also tell your Lordships’ House that officials from the Home Office have consulted with the Information Commissioner’s Office and have agreed that a significant proportion of the burden caused by existing pre-charge redaction processes could be reduced safely and lawfully within the current data protection framework in a way that will maintain standards and protections for individuals. We are, therefore, actively working to tackle this issue in the most appropriate way by exploring how we can significantly reduce the redaction burden at the pre-charge stage through process change within the existing legislative framework. This will involve creating simplified guidance and, obviously, the use of better technology.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Is the Minister almost agreeing with some of my analysis in that case?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I think I was agreeing with my noble friend’s analysis.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

It does not sound like that to me.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. We acknowledge this particular problem and we are working to fix it. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I shall start with justification and the public interest, which is obviously at the core of this. Parliament included the immigration exemption as part of the Data Protection Act 2018, as has been noted, for the legitimate purpose of effective immigration control. The Court of Appeal declared in its judgment,

“that there can be no dispute that the Immigration Exemption has a legitimate aim and indeed seeks to advance important public interests.”

We agree with the court: the immigration exemption is vital to prevent the release of information which would otherwise prejudice effective immigration control. I particularly welcome its endorsement by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

I want to be clear with noble Lords what those important public interests are. Through targeted use of the immigration exemption, we are able to maintain our capability at the border to prevent criminals and those who seek to cause us harm threatening our country as well as to support other agencies and international partners. We are able to frustrate and prevent sham marriages and protect the integrity of ongoing immigration removal and enforcement action and forgery investigations. The immigration exemption is also used to protect people being forced into a marriage and to prevent individuals absconding when there is a planned immigration visit. The central aims are to protect our citizens, ensure the integrity of the border and prevent abuses of the immigration system.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the balancing test. I will come on to the use of the exemption in practice, but it is always clear that the balancing test has to be carried out, and will now be explicitly in the Act. In practice, I can reassure noble Lords that the exemption is employed at around 70% of subject access requests relating to immigration and the Border Force. The amount of data that is restricted by the use of the exemption is, in the vast majority of cases, very little. It is not simply the case that where one piece of information is found to be prejudicial to immigration control, the Home Office does not respond to a request. The piece of information may be redacted as a result, but otherwise a full response will be given. It must be both necessary and proportionate to use the exemption, and this must be balanced against the risk to an individual’s rights. These existing standards will now be set out explicitly in the legislation.

I acknowledge that there was a difference of opinion in the House over whether the previous regulations amending the immigration exemption in 2022 met the requirements of Article 23 of the UK GDPR. The courts have agreed with the Government on a wide range of issues in the hearing. They declared that in two areas in particular the amended exemption did not, and the Government respect that ruling. We are confident that these regulations meet the requirements of the judgment in full, and we are supported by the ICO in that opinion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether we consulted the claimants. They were consulted as part of the development of the provisions, and they suggested some additions to the provisions. We accepted suggestions to provide detail on applicable storage periods in the Explanatory Memorandum. We did not accept a suggestion to alter the existing model of ICO oversight of the exemption. The existing model of ICO oversight of the Home Office is robust, and data subjects are able to challenge use of the exemption. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledging the ICO’s part in this.

We also rejected the suggestion to specify in the legislation the wording that must be provided to data subjects when informing them that the provisions of the exemption have been applied. The provisions of the exemption are already accessible to data subjects and adding that detail to primary legislation would be unhelpful.

As regards how the ICO assesses the Government’s use of the immigration exemption, it already assesses the Home Office as part of its statutory role as regulator. Those assessments are published as data protection audit reports, setting out the findings and any recommendations. Should a data subject disagree with the decision to apply the immigration exemption in their case, the usual redress mechanisms to contact the ICO are available.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the application of these rules to children. The immigration exemption applies to all immigration data, but there are special considerations in relation to minors, which are set out in the ICO’s guidance.

The subject of an impact assessment also came up, which relates to oversight and transparency more generally. It is important that these regulations retain the presumption that a data subject should be informed that the immigration exemption has been used—for example, to redact information provided to them in response to a subject access request. That allows the data subject to challenge that decision, should they believe that the application of the exemption is not justified. The ICO has appropriate powers to investigate whether the immigration exemption has been applied appropriately in a specific case. This is in addition to its overall assessment of the Home Office’s data protection practices, which include the use of the immigration exemption more broadly.

An impact assessment was carried out as part of the inclusion of the provision for the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018. A further supplementary impact assessment was conducted as part of the amendment to the exemption by the SI in 2022. This is noted in the Explanatory Memorandum. Given that there is no substantive change to the safeguards and scope of the exemption, we have not completed a new IA for this instrument.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry; the Minister seems to be moving on from the impact issue. Clearly there was a period when the old regulation, which is now being superseded, was in operation and individuals were impacted. In a sense, an inappropriate exemption was used. What data does the Minister have about those individuals and the impact on them? What redress do they have? The Minister skated over the ICO’s redress mechanism. Is there no direct mechanism to the Home Office?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I did not skate over it at all; I referred to it explicitly and am happy to do so again, if it would help. I do not know if there is any specific redress to the Home Office. I would imagine not, given that it is explicit that data subjects should go via the ICO. If I am wrong on that, I will clarify.

I have no particular data on the subjects who may have been covered by this before the court’s decision, so I will have to find out, come back and write to the noble Lord if there is anything useful to add.

The Home Office already has relevant guidance and training in place for those exercising the immigration exemption provisions, but we are undertaking a review of those materials to ensure that they align with these regulations. That will be completed in time for the 11 March deadline to amend the current exemption. The instrument is making existing safeguards explicit in the legislation, which are already captured in the existing training and guidance, so we do not expect substantive changes to be needed.

The costs of the court case are not yet settled, but I am happy to commit to write once they have been.

There are a couple more bits to say. How often is the exemption used? The honest answer is not very often. I think I referred to this earlier, so it is probably redundant to say it again but, for the record, in the year ending October 2023, the immigration exemption was applied in around 70% of subject access requests received in relation to immigration citizenship and the Border Force. Of those, the vast majority had only a small amount of data redacted under the use of the exemption. So I suppose the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that it will have a very minimal impact on people, but I commit to clarify that.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the relationship between the DPA and retained EU law. The official answer is that the focus of this SI is the immigration exemption and that discussions of the rules and the implications for the DPA 2018 are probably best debated as part of the DPDI Bill, which will, I believe, come to the House on 20 March. The unofficial answer is that I cannot comment on the noble Lord’s disposition because I did not really understand it and I do not have much knowledge of this subject. However, I note that we have left the EU: the people voted. Our rules can now be amended to our own circumstances, and of course, that applies across the entire legal suite. It was a pretty clear vote by the people of this country; I know that that does not suit the Liberal Democrats.

In closing, I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the points that were made and that noble Lords understand the necessity—

Computer Systems: Independent Testing

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reform the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to enable legitimate independent testing of computer systems.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support people undertaking legitimate cybersecurity work to do so without fear of criminalisation. We are actively considering options to strengthen the legislative framework as part of the review of the Computer Misuse Act, which is ongoing. This work is complex and needs a lot of thought, not least to ensure that we do not inadvertently create a loophole that can be exploited by cybercriminals or hostile state actors.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the need to be able to carry out independent research into computer systems has been put into the spotlight by the Horizon scandal. We last discussed this issue at Oral Questions last July. Since then, the Government have had the conclusions of a stakeholder working group for several months but have done absolutely nothing to include a public interest defence in the Criminal Justice Bill that is now in the Commons. I described the Government’s progress last year as “glacial”. Was I being unkind to glaciers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Regrettably, the noble Lord is wrong. We set up a multistakeholder group of systems owners, law enforcement, cybersecurity companies and prosecutors—a systems access group—to specifically consider the proposal of statutory defences. Six meetings were held between May 2023 and October 2023. Unfortunately, there is a lack of consensus among those participants and the cybersecurity industry, and with law enforcement and prosecutors, on whether there is a need for statutory defences and on what is considered to be legitimate activity. That lack of consensus proves the point that careful thought is needed in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we are always interested in learning from the approaches taken by other countries and jurisdictions. We speak with our international counterparts, including all our major allies, to understand how they approach the issue of whether there should be defences to these types of offences. But the majority of our like-minded partners do not have statutory defences and are instead in favour of prosecutorial guidance. For example, the US Department of Justice introduced guidance for prosecutors on when to prosecute instances of potential breaches of its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Criminal Justice Bill is a good opportunity for the Government to bring forward a public interest amendment, perhaps with the bells and whistles that the Minister is talking about, or is he firmly of the view that this will occur only in the future?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure where the bells and whistles come from. As I said, we are just considering all the potential implications. However, part of the Criminal Justice Bill introduces a new power for law enforcement and other investigative agencies to suspend IP addresses and domain names where they are being used to facilitate serious crime. So the answer is partially yes, but the other situation that the noble Lord described is very complicated.

National Crime Agency: Fraud and Economic Crime

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the City of London Police partially fulfils that function. It prioritised investigators to the City of London as part of its recent increase in the numbers of police. Angela McLaren, the commissioner there, has a strong background in economic crime and its investigation, and the City of London Police runs an economic crime academy. The noble Lord makes an interesting point about having just one agency, but that agency is the National Economic Crime Centre, which co-ordinates all the various activities across the various police forces, including regional organised crime units.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, given that the UK cyber industry plays a critical role in supporting law enforcement to tackle cyber-enabled fraud, when will the Government reform the Computer Misuse Act so that the cyber industry does not face legal jeopardy for protecting our citizens and businesses online? Is it not high time that the Home Office came to a conclusion on its review?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot speculate on that Act but the anti-fraud champion, Anthony Browne MP, has been having some close engagement with industry. An online sector charter—which I appreciate is not entirely the same thing but is certainly related—is due to be published in the autumn, so we should watch and wait for that.

Cybersecurity

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations on cybersecurity made by Sir Patrick Vallance in his report Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: Digital Technologies, published in March.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in the Government’s response to the review, we set out that the Home Office is taking forward work to consider the merits and risks of the proposals made. We have created a group that includes law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the cybersecurity industry and system owners to consider these issues and reach a consensus on the best way forward.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Patrick made a very clear recommendation to amend the Computer Misuse Act to include a statutory public interest defence for cybersecurity researchers and professionals carrying out threat intelligence research. This has been extremely long awaited. We finally had a review, which started in 2021 and reported this year; we had a consultation, which concluded in April; and now we have the steps that the Minister talked about. What conclusion can we expect at the end of the day? Progress on this has been totally glacial given the importance to innovation and growth of this change to legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that there is an enormous necessity to get this right, but that is part of the problem of why things are perhaps not happening as fast as the noble Lord would like—progress is far from glacial. These issues are incredibly complicated because, as the noble Lord noted, the proposals would potentially allow a defence for the unauthorised access by a person to another’s property, and in this case their computer systems and data, without their knowledge and consent. We therefore need to define what constitutes legitimate cybersecurity activity, where a defence might be applicable and under what circumstances, and how such unauthorised access can be kept to a minimum. We also need to consider who should be allowed to undertake such activity, what professional standards they will need to comply with, and what reporting or oversight will be needed. In short, these are complex matters, and it is entirely right to try to seek a consensus among the agencies I mentioned earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Viscount makes a good point. I am obviously unable to comment on the scheduling of parliamentary business but, when the group that I referred to in my initial Answer has finished its consultations and considerations and come to a consensus, we will of course report back to Parliament. I imagine that will include a debate.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, does not everything that has been said on this Question today demonstrate the importance of fresh intelligence work and, therefore, the importance of changing the Computer Misuse Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. I am just saying that we need to get it right and do it properly.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thought I was very clear on the precise specified persons tier here. A UK university would need to be acting at the direction of a specified foreign power or a specified foreign power-controlled entity before registration requirements could apply. I think that covers the set of circumstances just outlined by the noble Viscount.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The Minister spoke about universities. Did he mean the academics—any academic within the universities?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes.

Amendment 103 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to remove the exemption from the registration requirement in FIRS for lawyers providing legal activities. While I welcome the challenge, removing this exemption would risk undermining long-standing protections the UK has afforded to the provision of confidential legal advice and the equitable administration of justice. The exemption is available only to lawyers carrying out legal activity and so would not apply to other individuals carrying out legal activity.

I also reiterate what was said in Committee in the other place: that this exemption does not completely exempt legal professionals from engaging with the scheme. It does not cover all the activities that could be undertaken by a legal professional as part of an arrangement with a foreign principal. Activities that are not strictly legal activities, such as lobbying, for example, may still need to be registered. So, for example, if a lawyer were to enter into an arrangement with a foreign power to lobby a UK government Minister or parliamentarian on the UK’s foreign policy towards that foreign power, that would be registrable. The fact that the individual is a lawyer is not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from registration.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I heard what the Minister said about lobbying and the additional aspect of lobbying by law firms, but why is any exemption needed beyond what is contained in Clause 74, which covers legal professional privilege effectively—legal proceedings and so on—so that no confidential information needs to be divulged? Why is it not necessary that a law firm is acting for a foreign power or an entity controlled by a foreign power? Why should that be exempt?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think I explained this in reasonable detail. It goes back to the sort of work the lawyers carry out. As I say, it is the long-standing protections that the UK has afforded—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

All the Minister is saying, in a highly circular way, is that it is in here because it has always been in here in some other forms of legislation. I do not think that is much of an answer.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

In that case, I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. I apologise for having spoken at such length.

Public Spaces Protection Orders

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to reports that (1) at least 48 councils employ private companies to issue penalties for public spaces protection orders, and (2) many councils pay those companies per fine issued which incentivises companies to issue more penalties than may be necessary, what plans they have to introduce statutory guidance prohibiting this practice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, it is for local authorities to determine how to operate the powers granted to them in legislation. Contracting enforcement to third parties is a common arrangement and it is for the local authority to ensure it is just. Contractors are bound by the same legal obligations and safeguards in legislation as the councils themselves.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, that is a classic dusty reply from the Home Office. What a contrast with Defra: its guidance on littering, which is a criminal offence, says that incentivising enforcement undermines

“the legitimacy of the enforcement regime”.

Wherever it has occurred, fining for profit has been associated with cases of injustice and now Defra is putting that in statutory guidance. Why is the Home Office not going to do this in its own guidance on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is worth reminding the House about public space protection orders, which are intended to deal with a particular nuisance or problem, in a specific area, that is detrimental to the local community’s quality of life by imposing conditions on the use of that area which apply to everyone. So the Home Office did publish statutory guidance to support local areas to make effective use of these powers. The guidance sets out the importance of focusing of the needs of the victim and the local community, as well as ensuring that the relevant legal tests are met. I repeat that it is for local authorities to determine how to enforce PSPOs and that can include the use of private contractors. Local authorities are obliged to follow the rules set out in the Public Contract Regulations 2015 in their appointment of such companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said earlier, the contracts that are awarded to these companies are governed by quite stringent guidance and rules. It is a matter for local authorities and the contracting companies.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, if Defra is able to do this, why can the Home Office not do it? Defra is also very close to local government and clearly regards this as the wrong thing for local councils to be doing. Why does the Home Office not regard it as the wrong thing for councils to be doing?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, the noble Lord has already asked me that and I think I have already answered. The Home Office has provided statutory guidance to support local areas to make effective use of these powers. I go back to my earlier answer: the local areas are obliged to follow the rules set out in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 before appointing such companies.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Clement-Jones

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this group, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for introducing Amendment 19, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The amendment proposes the introduction of a 21-day notice requirement for operators who want to exercise code rights where apparatus is situated on, under or over a site provided by an emergency service provider. It is of course important that emergency service providers are aware of work on their sites which may have an impact on their day-to-day activities, as all noble Lords have noted. In this context, it is crucial to look at the scope of the paragraph 17 rights. They authorise activity that will have

“no more than a minimal adverse impact”

on the appearance of the apparatus, and impose

“no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.”

Given the limited activities that paragraph 17 permits, we do not consider a notice regime necessary. To put one in place would undermine the policy intention of these rights, which is to enable limited upgrading and sharing works to be carried out quickly and efficiently. Operators may need to upgrade and share apparatus that will have a greater impact on a site provider than paragraph 17 permits. We think that they should be able to do so but, in those circumstances, they must obtain the site provider’s agreement or seek to have the required rights imposed by the tribunal.

In contrast, the paragraph 17 conditions exclude activities that would impose an additional burden on a site provider. Activities that disrupted a site provider’s day-to-day business, or created new health and safety risks, would be unlikely to satisfy this requirement. I am not aware of any instances where an operator exercising their rights under paragraph 17 has caused any issue in relation to an emergency service site. I note, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned one example and I am very happy to discuss that further; perhaps we could join the group cup of tea.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is making exactly the same case as the Commons Minister, Julia Lopez, made on this there. What about the circumstances that I mentioned, where you might be within paragraph 17, but where it may involve minimal adverse damage but nevertheless involves switching off the service for a period, however short or long that may be? Surely that is something that the emergency services involved on site should have notice of.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think that they should have notice, but the point is that the paragraph 17 conditions exclude activities that would impose an additional burden on a site provider, as I have just said, and activities that disrupted their day-to-day business or create new health and safety risks would not satisfy the requirement. I honestly think that answers the point.

I think that I have answered most of the questions; I will obviously check Hansard and, if I have not, I will come back. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is prepared to withdraw this amendment.

I move on to Clause 66, as probed by my noble friend, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, with the support of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It creates a bespoke process for the court to impose an agreement where an operator needs a person, to whom I shall refer as “the landowner”, to confer or be bound by code rights and that person fails to respond to repeated requests for such rights.

The provisions require an operator to have sent an initial request notice and two warning notices, followed by a final notice, to the landowner. There must be a period of 14 days between the giving of each notice, meaning that the landowner will have been given a minimum of 56 days in which to respond to the operator. For the landowner to fall out of scope of Part 4ZA, all that is required of them is to respond to any of the above notices in writing before the operator applies to the court. If granted, a Part 4ZA order will impose an agreement on the landowner and operator. The terms of that agreement are to be specified in regulations made following stakeholder consultation.

My noble friend asked about situations where landowners are non-responsive. If they are unwilling to engage, for example, in alternative dispute resolution processes, it will remain open to the operator to apply to a court under Part 4 of the code to seek an order to impose an agreement granting code rights. These provisions impose a six-year maximum time limit on the period for which rights conferred under a Part 4ZA order may last. I emphasise this detail because it forms an important part of the Bill’s safeguards on landowners’ property rights. This clause provides a much-needed process that will play a large part in ensuring that homes and businesses benefit from the national gigabit broadband upgrade and are not left behind. I therefore commend Clause 66.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raises some very specific and technical points, if I may say so. I am afraid I am going to have to write to him.

I turn to Amendments 28 to 33, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Fox and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. These seek to amend Clause 67, which relates to interim orders where an agreement is being renewed under part 5 of the code. Paragraph 35 of the code covers situations where an agreement to which part 5 of the code applies has expired or is about to expire, and the parties are unable to agree whether that agreement should be terminated or what the terms of any new agreement should be. In those circumstances, proceedings may be issued so that a court can decide what terms should be imposed.

Such disputes can take time to be determined. The provisions in Clause 67 which amend paragraph 35 of the code enable either party to ask for an interim order in relation to any term of the current agreement. The benefit of this is that specific issues can be dealt with at a much earlier stage of the proceedings. The clause gives the court more flexibility than currently contained in paragraph 35 of the code, enabling it to look at situations where a party needs an urgent change to any term of their agreement. An example of this is where an operator needs amended terms to allow it to upgrade an existing site, to improve capacity and coverage for consumers. It also allows an operator to ask for the financial terms of the agreement to be reviewed at this interim stage. This ensures that the code valuation framework can be applied at an early stage in the proceedings, which may speed up negotiations on other areas in dispute.

It is the financial terms that the court could impose that have prompted the proposed amendments to Clause 67. These amendments seek to restrict an operator’s ability to apply for interim financial terms to be imposed, and fetter the discretion of the court when deciding them. The Government think it right that an operator can make an application for interim financial terms to be imposed, irrespective of whether other interim terms are sought. Allowing this to happen means that an operator can benefit from the code valuation framework at an earlier stage. This should give operators more capital to invest in the expansion and upgrade of their digital networks, which is of huge benefit—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The Minister is saying that it is retrospective and therefore exactly the effects that I mentioned will take place—that a contract can effectively be torn up.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am about to get on to the various backdating aspects of this, so I hope that will answer some of these more specific questions.

I think I got to this being of huge benefit to both business and consumers. There are concerns about the backdating of the consideration which the court may impose at this interim stage, and that this may cause site providers financial hardship. Clause 67 provides that the court may backdate the interim terms only from the date of the application. It is anticipated that these applications will be dealt with quickly by the courts. The Government intend to make changes that will assist in the resourcing of code disputes, particularly in light of other changes made by the Bill. For example, the Government intend to amend regulations so that, in England and Wales, court proceedings on code disputes can be commenced in either the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber or the First-tier Tribunal. Currently, proceedings can be commenced only in the former, which has only two regular judges, while the First-tier Tribunal has over 100 who consider a range of property law disputes. This will lend much more flexibility to the Courts & Tribunals Service in its handling of code disputes.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but of course I will not be responding at the end of the group. The Minister is saying that the whole idea is to get these hearings as quick as possible, so that the site provider is prejudiced as quickly as possible, but it all depends on the availability of lawyers by the sound of it, which is a somewhat tenuous argument.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, lawyers do well whatever happens. I am coming on to expand a little more on the protections for site providers, if the noble Lord will please bear with me.

The time between the making of the application and it being determined should be relatively short. Officials will be working closely with Ministry of Justice counterparts and members of the judiciary to ensure that the right processes and so on are in place to support this. The landowner will be on notice from the date of the application that some of the amounts received from the operator may have to be repaid at a later date and will be able to plan accordingly. We hope that this will alleviate concerns.

Finally, Clause 67 gives the court discretion as to the date from which the interim order may have effect, providing that the court may provide for the order to have effect from the date of the application for the order. We do not believe there is the need to impose limits on what the court can decide, as it is already able to take into account what the effect would be on the site provider if consideration payments were backdated. Interim applications are usually heard quickly, and therefore the likelihood is that rent will be backdated only for a small amount of time.

The impact is potentially much greater in cases where the agreement is renewed under the 1954 Act, where interim rent can be backdated to the earliest date on which the tenancy could have been terminated where the landlord serves notice, and the earliest date on which the new tenancy could have begun where the tenant serves notice asking for a new tenancy. We have heard from stakeholders that, under the 1954 Act regime, some landowners have faced large claims from operators in respect of overpayment of rent where a lower rent has been backdated. We are listening to those concerns, and we will consider this carefully before the measures in the Bill are brought into force. Should we consider that something specific is required, this can be taken into account when developing any transitional provisions in respect of the Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

First, is it the case that the Bill will be changed on Report, or are we talking about a new piece of legislation? Secondly, have the Government made any estimate of the number of cases that will now be brought as a result of this change?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that the answer to both of those questions is that I do not know. It would be remiss of me to anticipate the sorts of concerns we are listening to and the subjects they may raise. I will have to write to the noble Lord on that.