Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

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

I do not have any comments on the clauses stand part, because I am not quite sure exactly what is motivating them, but I shall be interested to hear what the proposers have to say. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to the amendments in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I thank him for his support. We are having a short debate on why Clauses 66 and 72 should stand part of this Bill. I will briefly take each in turn.

As the noble Lord set out in moving Amendment 19 from the other Benches, the problem we are dealing with is getting on to land where people have possibly not had notification that their land is going to be entered. It also raises the possible cost of applying to the court in such circumstances, which begs the question: if, eventually, those who own the land are made aware, would the alternative dispute resolution procedure apply? I am not sure which of my noble friends is replying, but if my noble friend Lord Sharpe could kindly take that and give me a response, I would be most grateful.

The powers that we are allowing to the department and the Government in Clauses 66 and 72 are very wide ranging. Will Parliament have the right to scrutinise these regulations and at what stage? Do the Government intend that the regulations will be widely consulted on? At what stage would we have the right to scrutinise regulations under both clauses, as the devil will be in their detail?

Regarding Clause 66, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for sharing the briefing we received from the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which has been extremely helpful in helping us prepare for today’s debate. In relation to Clause 66 and the issue of unresponsive occupiers, it sets out:

“Understanding the point of this Clause, it should require the operator to have taken particular efforts to establish direct contact with the proposed grantor rather than allow this to be a convenient route to impose on off-lying land by the use of a succession of notices.”


It hopes that discretion is provided to the court by new paragraph 27ZE of the code inserted by Clause 66. That would allow it to regulate the use of this power appropriately and recognise what might be particular personal circumstances. It refers in particular to the 2020 case of EE v Cooper and notes that the tribunal felt that it had to deny an operator’s application for “interim rights” when it pleaded an unresponsive occupier, as it considered that the operator needed to show that

“far more had been done to contact the occupier than has been done in this case, where there has not even been an attempt to knock on the respondents’ door”.

It appreciates the compensation provisions set out in new paragraph 27ZG of the code.

In sum, I felt that it was necessary to ask why it is right that Clauses 66 and 72 should form part of the Bill primarily because we are granting the Government extensive powers that are not set out in the Bill, so we should reserve the right to consider them when they are set out in regulations. I would like confirmation that that is the case. Even more substantially and significantly, I am concerned about the lengths that an operator will be forced to go to before it is deemed to call an occupier an “unresponsive occupier”. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the two proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I have added my name, that Clauses 66 and 72 do not stand part of the Bill. As I noted at Second Reading, I am a landlord to a telecommunications mast, granted by my father under the 1954 Act. The renewal of this has been complicated considerably by the 2017 reforms and the huge uncertainty that has followed.

Just last week, the Supreme Court ruled on a group of three cases involving the last set of amendments to the Electronic Communications Code. The lead case was Cornerstone Telecommunications v Compton Beauchamp. The court ruled that, among other things, a landlord under a “subsisting agreement” is entitled to insist on renewal under the 1954 Act and the operator cannot insist on a code renewal by application to the Upper Tribunal. It seems ironic timing that, just as the highest court in the land has finally got to grips with those 2017 amendments and provided a little clarity, we are seeking to make yet further changes and further confuse the issue.

Since Second Reading, I have been in contact with a number of groups representing site owners, and all have reported incidents of unprecedented dispute and considerably challenging renewals. As I said at Second Reading, this cannot have been the intention of the 2017 amendments and should not be the result of this legislation either, which is why I put my name to the proposals that Clauses 66 and 72 do not stand part.

I think that we all agreed at Second Reading that we wish Project Gigabit to succeed, and my intention is to ensure that landlords and site owners are encouraged to grant leases to telecoms masts and other infrastructure. The recent soundings of the market suggest that this is not currently the case and that the granting of new leases has slowed considerably since the 2017 amendments and the decrease in rents and increase in disputes that have resulted.

On these clauses, the draconian access provisions for unresponsive occupiers and the rights of network providers in relation to infrastructure are simply too broad and uncertain and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, stated, they will serve only to discourage the granting of leases for further network infrastructure. I do not think that that is in anyone’s interest.

Specifically on Clause 72, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the regulations. I note that new subsection (7) says:

“Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult … OFCOM”


and

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

In responding, can the Minister clarify who that would be, because surely representatives of the site providers should be consulted? We should get an opportunity to understand exactly what these regulations will entail; otherwise, we seem to be providing Ofcom carte blanche to do whatever it likes. As we have seen, whatever it likes has not resulted in a satisfactory outcome for connectivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I think both the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and I asked whom, following court rulings in this regard, but also in terms of regulations, do the Government or the department intend to consult? Will they ensure that the occupiers are on that list? It is not clear from the drafting of the Bill that they will be included.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

If my noble friend will permit, I will come to the points she raises on consultation shortly.

Clause 72 will allow the Secretary of State to amend the Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016. Sharing infrastructure in the concentration of gigabit-capable networks can greatly reduce the cost and increase the pace of deploying networks, and can reduce the need to dig up streets, preventing unnecessary disruption to the local population and reducing carbon emissions. The 2016 regulations enable sharing of information about access to physical infrastructure across the utility, transport and communications sectors. They also include the right to access that infrastructure on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions. The Government published our response to the call for evidence on a review of these regulations last year. We set out that there may be some areas where they could be made easier to use and to understand.

In addition, we said we would legislate to allow future changes to the regulations via secondary legislation rather than relying on primary legislation. That legislation would be subject to further consultation with Ofcom and other appropriate parties. To expand on that a little, Clause 72 makes clear that

“the Secretary of State must consult … OFCOM; … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

before making such regulations. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances where the landowner would not be one of the other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate—obviously, if I have that wrong I will write to noble Lords. In addition, any regulations made using this power will still be scrutinised as part of the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 72 therefore grants to the Secretary of State a narrow power to make provision, through regulations, conferring rights on network providers in relation to infrastructure for the purpose of developing communications networks. These provisions include the power to amend, revoke or replace the 2016 regulations.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Vaizey raised some useful points about operator behaviour, which I think we may discuss in more detail in later amendments in group 6 on the Ofcom code of practice. I will leave it till then to address those, if that is acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, Amendments 20, 22 and 23 would reverse the imposition of a “no scheme” valuation regime while retaining the Law Commission’s recommendation to stop ransom rents. Infinitely reasonably, the noble Earl has put forward an alternative in the form of Amendments 24 to 27, which are predicated on the “no scheme” valuation regime effectively remaining in place. We agree that this is not the best solution, but as he said, the changes serve to illustrate that a Government who really wanted to strike a balance between different interests could find a way of doing so. As he said, we need stability and certainty, and they are not there at present. It is certainly not facilitating speedy rollout, whatever the operators might say. I hope the Government will very carefully consider these very reasonable amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his Amendments 20 and 22 to 27. I am delighted to support them. I hope the Government will look favourably on them for the reasons he gave so eloquently.

I will briefly address the reasons why I have asked whether Clauses 61 and 62 should stand part of the Bill. In my view, it would be better if they were not part of it. As has been said, we seek a balance with the Bill, but, as I see it, the balance is shifting further away from the occupiers in favour of the operators. I have no particular interest in this other than as a consumer, although for a period I was the co-owner with my brother of two fields in the Pennines on which a mast was placed, so I presume I would have been in receipt of a modest fee for that infrastructure to be in place. Sadly, my brother bought me out and I no longer can claim that benefit or disbenefit.

My concerns are reflected in the amendments so ably spoken to by the noble Earl. The Bill proposes to change the way that land is valued so that it can be applied retrospectively to the renewal of some sites that were in existence prior to 2017. Secondly, the Bill includes provisions for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which I support, although, as I stated earlier, operators should not feel the need to engage with this mechanism if their resources marginalise the opportunity for a fair and equitable resolution for many landowners who simply do not have the confidence or means to contest them.

I will make a general point not dissimilar to that made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on the previous group. All of us who live predominantly in the countryside are providing a service for the rest of the community, especially those who live in country districts, by hosting on the land infrastructure owned by the occupier. That has to be recognised, and that is why I have great difficulty, considering the way the code has been applied since 2017 and under the terms of the Act, with the fact that the code will be applied more strictly.

I want to add a comment that my noble friend Lord Parkinson is familiar with, because I wrote to him about it. I am most grateful to him for his reply. Why can civilian use not be made of the emergency services network? He is aware that a number of masts have been placed and erected across North Yorkshire, particularly in the hills and the moors, where we have a very poor mobile phone frequency and very poor connectivity with broadband and wi-fi. If there is any possibility of us piggybacking on the emergency services masts for civilian use, that would be to the huge benefit of the wider community.

I go back to the time in 1997 when I was first elected to the other place as the Member for the Vale of York. We had a situation where the emergency services and the police could not be reached, which is why the emergency masts were put in place at some considerable expense to the taxpayer. I am sure there can be no security aspects that could not be dealt with to allow us to use them. I appreciate that that is a separate point.

I entirely agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when at Second Reading he set out, as did I, that we are moving to the situation which existed before 2017, with a regrettable consequence of potentially fewer landowners and occupiers permitting the infrastructure to be placed, or to continue to be placed, on their land.

I have given notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 61 stands part of the Bill, which gives operators the ability to calculate rent based on land value rather than market value when renewing tenancies to host digital infrastructure on private land. I think that is fairly self-explanatory. I have given notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 62 stand part of the Bill, as it gives operators the ability to calculate rent based on land value rather than market value when renewing tenancies to host digital infrastructure on private land in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted the useful briefing we have had from the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, or CAAV. It states quite specifically that its understanding in relation to the renewal of business tenancies conferring code rights in Clauses 61 and 62 was that:

“The changes here were not understood to be part of the consultation”,


which we have heard about.

“The Government was understood to have made it clear in the 2021 consultation that it did not intend to revisit the valuation framework. Indeed, the government’s response to the consultation stated: … ‘the government does not intend to revisit the statutory valuation framework. This issue was therefore not within the scope of the consultation.’”


If that is indeed the case, I regret that we have perhaps not heard all that we should have heard from occupiers and landowners in regard to these provisions.

In relation to Clause 61, the CAAV concludes that

“Lord Lytton’s proposed amendments to both clauses would also in principle retain the market value basis for these first renewals but disregard the operator’s qualified Code powers to upgrade and share apparatus. If these clauses are retained, we support these amendments.”


I share the reasoning behind that, which is why I support those amendments. With those few remarks, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend makes of my proposals to delete Clauses 60 and 61.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading and in the first day of Committee. Like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, we all want Project Gigabit to succeed. I support my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in their proposals to delete Clauses 61 and 62. If they do not find favour, I would support cross-party Amendments 20 and 22.

I must first declare an interest as an NFU member and the landlord of two telecom masts. One rent review has already taken place. The original offer was a 95% rent reduction. I could probably have got rid of the mast, but as it borders the M3 I did not think that it was in the public interest. Having negotiated for 21 months, I got the reduction down to only 73%, but my legal fees in doing that exceeded my first year’s new rent, and it was quite stressful.

That is quite unimportant compared with the huge loss of income to community projects, clubs, churches, social clubs, hill farmers and others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the organisation Protect and Connect, set up last year to give a voice to property owners in rural and urban communities who rent their land for mobile phone masts, has highlighted this real problem for these categories of landlords.

It is not just individual landowners who are affected. I quote a March 2022 cutting from the Daily Express, “Mobile masts firms branded ‘Goliath bullies’”:

“Thousands of churches, charities, hospitals and sports clubs face reductions in mast rents—and a social club popular with pensioners has had rent slashed from £3,500 to around £550 a year, an 85 per cent cut.”


The Daily Mail online said:

“Hundreds of sports clubs, farmers, charities, churches … and community groups with mobile phone masts on their property … have seen a drop in rents of … 90 per cent”.


In January 2022, the Sun said that thousands of churches, charities and social clubs face a cut of up to 90%. The headline in the Edinburgh Evening News was: “Edinburgh pastor fears for church’s future after ‘bullyish’ EE slashes mast rent by 96 per cent”. In Property Week it was: “Telecoms Bill set to enforce huge rent cuts for landlords”.

For these reasons, I believe that the amendments I have mentioned give a fairer outcome to the balance between landlords and tenants. As noble Lords have already heard, it is not only me who believes this. The respected Centre for Business & Economic Research has calculated that the 2017 reforms have not delivered a faster 5G rollout. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stated, providers have lost £200 million of income, including £60 million of lost local authority income and £44.2 million of lost agricultural or rural site income.

The Government’s proposed reforms would cause rents to fall by a further 41% from their post-2017 levels. On a 10-year basis, this is equivalent to a cut in local authority funding of £645 million and a cut to sports centres, social hubs and hospitality of £158 million. The CEBR says that site rental was not unfair before 2017 and that mobile operators have not used savings to invest in communications networks; nor do rent costs impact their profitability materially.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, emphasised at Second Reading that a “broad array of stakeholders” oppose this legislation,

“from the NFU and CLA, to the CAAV, the BPF and the Law Society … By these provisions, the Government will be intervening in long-standing existing leases, freely negotiated between willing participants, to dramatically decrease rental values, often years after the fact.”—[Official Report, 6/6/22; cols. 1053-54.]

It is another blow to farmers’ diversified income and, in my experience, will further delay mast development. I will not want to go through 21 months of tortuous negotiation again for a new mast, particularly having just heard about the access issues in Clause 66. That is why I support a fairer method of rent calculation, as proposed in the amendments.

I am disappointed that a Conservative Government reject an amendment on market value and wish to proceed with extending the unfair 2017 Act to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the stand part notice in my name, on which I am delighted to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, opposing that Clause 63 should stand part of the Bill.

The new sections inserted by Clauses 63 and 64 make provision for all code agreements, when renewed by court order, including those made prior to 2017, to be made on land valuation terms consistent with the 2017 code. The new sections will apply to England and Wales or to Northern Ireland only. These measures, I understand, were a response to the consequence of the 2017 ECC reforms on the treatment of certain expired code agreements that are up for renewal, as had been set out in the previous consultation.

Again, Clauses 61 to 63 expand the agreements covered by the Digital Economy Act 2017 to extend to areas previously exempted from the renewal procedures of the 2017 Act, specifically those covered by Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The clauses also insert the valuation provisions of the code directly into the older legislation so that consideration of compensation for site owners under these agreements is calculated in a similar way to that under the code, as we have heard, leading to lower rents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I read my brief very carefully, and I said “any transitional provisions in respect of the Bill”—I did not say that there will be transitional provisions—after listening to the various concerns I just outlined.

I now turn to Amendment 34 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. This is an amendment to the 1954 Act which seeks to prevent interim rent being backdated where an agreement is renewed under that statute. As we have discussed when talking about Clauses 61 and 62, it is the Government’s intention that the various statutory mechanisms for the renewal of agreements to which the code applies is as consistent as possible, and this amendment would increase inconsistency.

First, the amendment would create inconsistency within the 1954 Act itself. The ability to seek backdated payments of interim rent would be prevented only where the site provider had given notice to the operator under Section 25 of the Act. Where an operator had served notice under Section 26 of the Act, the ability to seek backdated rental payments would remain. Secondly, it would create inconsistency between the 1954 Act and the code. Clause 67 will allow payment of a modified rate of consideration to be backdated to the date of the application, whereas I understand that the noble Lords’ intention is to prevent rent from being payable at the backdated interim rent rate. It is difficult to justify such inconsistency.

Finally, the ability to seek an interim rent which is backdated is not a new concept. The parties would have been aware of this when entering into those agreements to which the 1954 Act applies. There is always a risk that the market will have adversely changed between the date on which the agreement was entered into and the time when the agreement is ready for renewal, and that the interim rent will be less than the amount currently paid. I appreciate that this may be exacerbated by the imposition of the code valuation framework on these agreements, but the Government will look at this impact when drafting any transitional provisions.

Absolutely finally, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about picking and choosing, was covered by my noble friend Lord Parkinson on the first day of Committee in relation to Amendment 17, but if there are any outstanding questions on that, we would be very happy to discuss them separately. In answer to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about general valuations, my noble friend will deal with that in the next group. Under the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for the debate we have had, and I hope that my noble friend will look warmly on the amendments that were so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have to say that it was rather amusing, being a lawyer, to hear that this would be a good opportunity for lawyers. I would not have thought that would be something the noble Lord would pass down. I look forward to continuing the debate.

Clause 63 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I should just say that it is not my role to make friends among my colleagues in the legal profession; it is to try to get the right result out of the Bill.

I have just one observation on the previous group. It is interesting to note that the Government have some wonderful ways of resisting amendments. They say that it would be inconsistent with the Bill, but they are perfectly capable of passing amendments of their own which are not fully consistent, because that is what exceptions are—they are there because there would otherwise be an injustice.

The site providers are making and have made a very strong case that they need better protection against abuse by operators. Throughout this Bill, we are of course very mindful of the balance between site providers and operators. The Government believe that the provisions of the Bill are putting this in order, but many of us believe that they are putting it in disorder as a result. The Protect and Connect campaign has come up a number of times already during the course of debates on the Bill. It surveyed 116 site owners that host mobile telecoms masts and found that 23% have suffered damage to their property; 35% have had their sites upgraded without permission; 46% have found telecoms companies on their land without warning; and 50% have been threatened with legal action. That does not sound like very good behaviour on the part of the operators. In this context, Clause 68, on the alternative dispute resolution, is of great importance. It sets out the process by which an operator can request rights to land from an occupier, which will now include information about alternative dispute resolution.

The clause however requires operators only to “consider” the use of ADR for resolving disputes with site owners where “reasonably practicable”. It also permits courts to take an operator’s “unreasonable” refusal to consider ADR into consideration when deciding on remedies during a dispute. The ADR process that the Government are providing is therefore non-binding. Telecoms companies need only show that they have considered it in order to avoid costs.

To address this point, the Government should make ADR compulsory for any dispute and issue guidance about reasonable terms. Properly enforced, it would reduce the operators’ reliance on litigation through the courts and encourage better behaviour by both parties. It is important that there is greater onus on the operators to make use of this process, because the terms of the code are so heavily weighted in their favour and their ability to use the courts in general is far greater, befitting their corporate size compared to the average site owner. Given the potential benefits for both parties and the wider public interest, it is difficult to see the case for this process remaining purely advisory.

As regards Ofcom’s guidance, Ofcom has long provided guidance on the ECC, but to date it has not provided any real support for site owners experiencing problems. Amendment 39 is intended to force operators to give greater weight to Ofcom’s code of practice, which it is currently obliged to prepare under paragraph 103(1) of the ECC. Tribunals would be obliged to take into account an operator’s compliance, or lack thereof, when making costs awards. The purpose of this is to render Ofcom’s code of practice meaningful, rather than just optional guidance that is all too easily disregarded.

Amendments 40, 41 and 42 aim to address the issue of non-compliance with Ofcom’s code of practice. It is right that operators are held to standards in how they treat site providers, including measures such as the provision of information or the conduct of negotiations. However, there is a significant body of evidence that, despite the code of practice, site providers are not being treated fairly or with respect by the operators from whom they rent their land. The solution to the problem of non-compliance with the code of practice is to strengthen these measures, yet Ofcom has failed to invest adequately in this area and the Government have spent too long asking the industry to solve its own problems through stakeholder workshops, rather than showing direct leadership. These amendments will collectively place obligations on both operators and site providers. The intention here is not to place an asymmetrical set of requirements on either party in these negotiations or to these agreements.

Amendment 40 would create an obligation to follow the code of practice. It would create a maximum financial penalty for non-compliance of £1 million and require Ofcom to have regard to prior history of non-compliance when assessing the size of any penalty imposed. This amendment would provide a strong incentive for adherence to the code of practice. Moreover, it would require a previous history of poor behaviour to be taken into account. This means that operators or site providers would not be able to disregard the code of practice just because they think they can pay the fine, and poor behaviour would have increasingly impactful consequences. Amendment 42 requires that Ofcom include in its code of practice guidelines on when operators must pay compensation to those affected by a failure by the operator to adhere to the code of practice.

If the Government are serious about promoting consensus-based agreements and getting this market working again, having clear and enforceable guidance on the standards expected by the parties is essential. This is what these amendments try to achieve. I very much hope that the Minister will take all the amendments and their intention on board.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 36, 37, 38 and 39, and the proposal that Clauses 68 and 69 do not stand part of the Bill. I am delighted to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Devon.

I am slightly stung by something my noble friend the Minister said earlier: that perhaps we are all paying too much heed to lobbyists. I think my noble friend knows me well enough now to know that I am of particular independence of mind. However, when an allegation is made by those seeking to brief us on the Bill that the Bill has swung too heavily against the interests of the landowners—of which I am not one; I have no particular interest in this other than as a consumer, as I said—and too heavily in favour of the operators and networks, that is something that I think he would expect us to explore. It is something we are encouraged to do when we are introduced. The Reading Clerk reads out that we are given a seat, place and voice in the councils, assemblies and Parliaments to enable us so to do. I take those responsibilities very seriously indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am very happy to consult my colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to provide the letter the noble Lord requires. I invite him now to withdraw his probing amendment, and other noble Lords not to move theirs.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Did I hear my noble friend correctly regarding the Country Land and Business Association? If so, I can put his mind at rest. It is most definitely in favour of the alternative dispute resolution being made mandatory. He should be aware of a briefing that was sent to us at a much earlier stage. This dates back to January, so I hope it is not still the case:

“Throughout the Government’s consultation on the Bill, the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has repeatedly refused to meet with our organisations”,


including the CLA and others,

“to hear the views of our members. The Bill was subsequently published without any economic impact assessment.”

I am slightly concerned that my noble friend appears to be unaware of something as fundamental as the difference between a mandatory and a voluntary ADR, and I wanted to correct him on that.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend, but the CLA’s response to the consultation opposed compulsory ADR. I would be very happy to speak to her and triple check that with officials afterwards, but we clearly have different understandings of its position. I would be happy to speak to her afterwards to make sure that we can clarify that.