Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

6. To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church will publish a statement on its position on amendments tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill relating to the decriminalisation of abortion before Report stage of that Bill.

[Andrew Selous]

The Church of England believes that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop, while recognising that there can be strictly limited conditions under which abortion may be morally preferable to any available alternative. The Church also believes that every possible support, especially by Church members, should be given to those who are pregnant and in difficult circumstances. The Church would support new clauses 15 and 34 and believes that, while women should not face criminalisation, anyone coercing a woman to have an abortion, or providing one beyond the legal limit, or supplying an abortion kit for a late-term use should be prosecuted.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I welcome the support for new clauses 15 and 34. I think the Second Church Estates Commissioner has given implicit opposition to the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but I am gobsmacked not to have had a clear statement on the criminality of terminating a pregnancy up to the moment of birth by whomsoever. Is the intention to drive us into the arms of Rome? Is he as gobsmacked as I am?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interest in these serious issues, which, given their importance, I am sure the House will want to treat sensitively. I will convey his comments to the leadership of the Church, but just to repeat: the Church is supporting the two-week reduction in the age of viability from 24 to 22 weeks, based on the latest available evidence that foetuses do survive from 22 weeks onwards. It is also supporting protection for Down’s syndrome children to make the case that abortion beyond the legal limit should not be acceptable for such children. The Church supports the continued prosecution of medical practitioners who assist with abortions beyond the legal limit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

4. Whether the Church provides training for clergy on supporting asylum seekers wishing to convert to Christianity.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

6. What guidance the Church issues for clergy on supporting asylum seekers wishing to convert to Christianity.

[Andrew Selous]

Both archbishops have offered to meet the Home Secretary, and the Church has provided advice and guidance for clergy to consider when dealing with requests for baptism from asylum seekers. The guidance refers to the need for discernment and recognises that there may be mixed motives on the part of asylum seekers requesting baptism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I hear very clearly what my hon. Friend says. I know that he, like me, takes seriously the reputation of the Church of England. He cares a great deal about it, and I am grateful to him for that. I repeat the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone): priests are required to use discernment, to recognise that there might be mixed motives, and always to put forward truthful representations of character.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I heard the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) as well. When there is plenty wrong and plenty to complain about, it is not always the case that we should blame the established Church, is it?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Any institution run by humans will never be perfect, but he is right that the Church of England was unfairly accused of being involved in some cases, when it had no involvement at all.

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that simple point. It is one that I am sure will be considered once this case has passed.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Were a media outlet in an authoritarian state, or indeed any other state, to be threatened with foreign ownership, would the Minister responsible be as scrupulous in her answers as my hon. Friend has so properly been with us today?

[Julia Lopez]

Perhaps not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

10. What support the Church is providing to the Anglican Hospital in Gaza.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The House may not be aware that the Anglican Church is one of the largest providers of healthcare and education globally. The al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza is an example of this. Before Christmas, the hospital was severely damaged again and a tank demolished its front wall. Most of the hospital staff were taken away by the Israeli Defence Force and the Church of England has asked the Government here to inquire about their wellbeing and whereabouts and to request that they be released.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Intimidation by hard-line settlers has prompted the Patriarch to say that clergy are fighting for their lives, and that the Armenian quarter faces a violent demise. Is a Christian presence in Jerusalem still viable?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue before the House. He is right: a century ago, a quarter of Jerusalem was Christian; now, just 1% of the population is, and in the Armenian quarter of the old city, the Christian presence has come under intensified threat from intimidation and aggressive property acquisition by settlers. The Church of England is very concerned that the rule of law should prevail in Israel and the status quo be maintained. It is unconscionable that Christians should be driven from the holy land.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

1. What steps the Church of England is taking to encourage church choirs to engage with local schools.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church of England has enthusiastically supported the Government’s Sing Up programme, encouraging local music hubs to partner with churches, and enabling the use of skills and knowledge that schools would otherwise have to buy in. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, as a strong supporter of singing in church, will very much approve.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

When will they be singing up in the New Forest?

[Andrew Selous]

I am very pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that the new co-director of music at St Mary’s church in Fordingbridge, Hazel Ricketts, is running a singing club, working with 53 children in local schools every week. Her expertise in church music will enable that work to expand next term to include all four local schools, both primary and secondary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to go to enjoy this wonderful singing for himself.

Gambling Act Review White Paper

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the hon. Member for his points. It has been an honour to speak with the Ritchies, who have articulated their case so well. I know that they and others would like us to go further, as I am sure the gambling companies would like us to go less far. The White Paper seeks a balance between allowing people who are not suffering harm to go about their lives, and protecting those who unfortunately are harmed. It is already the position that advertisements should not target children. We have seen the measures taken by the Premier League. The Government were very firm and made their position very clear to the Premier League regarding the action that it ought to consider taking. As I mentioned, we will look carefully at any further research that comes out, and take action if necessary.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to review the dated and rather severe regulatory regime under which the postcode lottery and hospice lotteries have to operate?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that society lotteries bring in valuable revenues that are enjoyed by communities. One of the changes that we are making relates to raising the age to ensure that we protect young people, but I am always happy to continue looking at the work that such lotteries are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

6. Whether the commissioners have made an estimate of the proportion of the Church’s assets that may have a link to a historic involvement with slavery.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church Commissioners have not tried to draw a direct line from historical investments to current assets, given the myriad inflows and outflows over 300 years. Our forensic accountants estimate that investments linked to the slaving activities of the South Sea Company were equivalent to several hundred million pounds in today’s money. That is deeply shameful to acknowledge, and while no amount of money will ever be enough to repair the horrors of the past, the Church Commissioners have decided to invest £100 million over the next nine years in a better future for all, particularly in those communities affected by historical slavery.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Can my hon. Friend assure me that the not disproportionate £100 million will be spent to reduce the shocking persistence of slavery in the present?

[Andrew Selous]

The £100-million fund will enable impact investment grant funding and research in response to the findings in the Church Commissioners’ report. An oversight group will be established to help the Church Commissioners shape and deliver that response. Today the Church Commissioners, as award-winning ethical investors, punch well above their weight in combating modern slavery and human rights violations all around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

After the next election, a Conservative Government will continue to get on with the job, as we have always been doing. The Government recognise the importance of acting decisively, but also of getting this policy right; we have been considering it and consulting very carefully. Of course, in the meantime, those in football can take forward some of the reforms themselves, including financial redistribution, which we continue to urge them to do. The report will be imminent.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to support the film and television industry.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)]

As set out in our broadcasting White Paper earlier this year and when I visited Pinewood and Shepperton studios last week, the Government are taking action to support British broadcasters and our world-leading film and television industries. That includes ensuring that public service content is easy to find on a wide range of TV platforms; delivering our £21 million UK global screen fund; and continuing to support our screen sector tax reliefs, which provide nearly £1 billion of support to more than 1,000 projects.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Given the sheer spunk of the contribution that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) has made to television, it would be churlish not to restore the Whip, wouldn’t it?

[Michelle Donelan]

As my right hon. Friend knows, that is not a decision for me, but we can always depend on the right hon. Member for West Suffolk to attack a challenge with gusto, and I was not surprised at all to see him taking on all sorts of animal parts during the show. It has become a little bit of a thing for my predecessors to join that show, but I hope I can provide reassurance that I have no intention of ever doing so.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I think that is probably for other legislation, but if the hon. Member would like to discuss further with me, perhaps in relation to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I would be very happy to do so.

Turning back to Lords amendment 16, I have to emphasise that it is not a blanket national security exemption. It is a very specific power that will be deployed only rarely, on a case-by-case basis and only when all other routes to a mutually consensual solution have been exhausted.

Finally, turning to the last amendment in the group, I hope the House will disagree with Lords amendment 17. The amendment adds a new clause to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the effect of the electronic communications code and of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is the Minister’s belief that the Bill will be a remedy for the problems in the market. She will acknowledge that, while there are only a few of us in the House who do so, there is a rather larger number out there who believe that it will make a bad situation significantly worse. The Lords amendment at least gives the opportunity of finding out who is right about this—whether it is her belief that the situation will be better or mine that it will be worse. It will put some proof into the pudding. Why must she resist it?

[Julia Lopez]

I shall set out my reasons for resisting now, but I am afraid I am not of the same opinion as my right hon. Friend on this issue. I have looked at it at length: I have looked at casework and the numbers of renewals, and I believe a review would simply cause a great deal of delay, which would further stymie roll-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Witnesses at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee have offered me, a history graduate and not the most technical of parliamentarians, a window into the world and advantages of connected tech. It is sometimes referred to as the “internet of things”: a world of possibilities and advantages for companies and consumers. The possibilities are wide-reaching and seemingly never-ending, but it is a brave new world that is already introducing us in Parliament, as well as those in the police service, healthcare and many workplaces, to new and unforeseen issues around our security.

The Bill does much good work in improving the culture of security from the inception of the product right from the design stage. Improved security will be integral, and as customers we will have the benefit of security information provided at the point of sale. All of that, surely, is advantageous. We on these crowded SNP Benches behind me recognise the value of the Bill. It is, however, well past time for speedier legislative progress. The world of connected tech is already well developed and established in healthcare, courier services and a multiplicity of industries around the world. We should have had legislation in place long before now.

As long ago as 2016 we saw a weaponised interconnection of connected tech devices used in a botnet to take down online titans such as Netflix, Amazon and others—2016. Countless Tory Prime Ministers and Chancellors have come and gone and, in one case, almost come again since then. Yet the Bill only hurtles into view as 2022 winds to a close. In that time, we have seen attacks on connected tech devices rising by hundreds of per cent. year on year.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hate to interrupt this poetry, and it is indeed poetry, but what has it got to do with the amendments before us tonight?

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of his constituent. I would be grateful if he took it up with my officials, as I am keen to look into it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, individuals have raised cases with me. It is fair to say that the number of cases has declined substantially as the Bill has progressed through the House, so I am content that the position is getting much better, but if there are outstanding cases of situations that any MP feels is unfair, I will be grateful if they are brought to my attention.

To return to the case I was making for new clause 1, as with an initial agreement, if a consensual agreement cannot be reached about the additional right needed, operators will be able to ask the court to impose an additional agreement conferring the additional right. Of course, in those circumstances an operator would still have to satisfy the court that its application meets the requirements of part 4 of the code, including the public interest test.

Let me give an example of how the Government intend this to work. An operator may have an existing agreement which contains a code right to install a 3 metre high mast. Subsequently, the operator realises that it needs to install a 5-metre high mast on the same piece of land. That could enable the operator to install 5G technology or to improve or expand its network. The original agreement allowing the 3-metre mast will continue to run for its remaining term, and the operator will ask the site provider to enter into a second agreement, which contains a code right allowing it to install the 5-metre high mast.

Advances in technology occur at pace, whereas a code agreement can last for a number of years. If an operator has to wait until the term of its code agreement is about to expire before being able to obtain additional code rights, it will be unable to install the latest technology on its apparatus, meaning our constituents will be deprived of faster, more reliable services such as 5G and, in time, 6G. We think that the new clause is also vital to give UK businesses access to the technology they need, enabling our economy to thrive. I hope Members will therefore agree that it must be made.

Turning to new clause 2, we want to ensure that disputes relating to the electronic communications code can be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. Currently, paragraph 95 of the code allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that confer jurisdiction on either the first-tier tribunal or upper tribunal in relation to England, but only the upper tribunal in relation to Wales. The current regulations made under paragraph 95 state that all code disputes must commence in the upper tribunal, although in England, appropriate cases may then be handed down to the first-tier tribunal. The first-tier tribunal has greater administrative resources and more judges than the upper tribunal, meaning that code disputes can be processed and heard more quickly.

Moving forward, the Government are therefore considering a greater role for the first-tier tribunal in hearing code disputes, including making further regulations using the power in paragraph 95 of the code where appropriate. The new clause provides the necessary powers so that we can do just that. In future, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations conferring jurisdiction on both the upper tribunal and the first-tier tribunal in Wales.

The final set of Government amendments is amendments 4 to 7. They have been tabled to make a minor clarification to the text of clause 68 to avoid any unintended interpretation of the legislation. Clause 68 currently makes it clear that an operator can, at any time, give notice in writing to a person from whom they are seeking code rights, stating that the operator wishes to engage in alternative dispute resolution, often known as ADR. However, nowhere is it set out that such a notice can be sent from that person to the operator. The amendments clarify that when an operator seeks code rights from a person, either the operator or that person may give notice to the other expressing a wish to engage in ADR at any time.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I certainly welcome the movement that the Minister has made. I went to table exactly those amendments and was pleased to find that she had beaten me to it. Can I tempt her to go further with respect to my amendment and amendment 4 and require the operator, which has such disproportionate power against the landowner, to engage as a requirement in the alternative dispute procedure from the outset?

[Julia Lopez]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot tempt me, and I will say why shortly.

I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for bringing forward amendments 14 to 17 to clauses 59 and 60. They would expand retrospective rights to upgrade and share apparatus in buildings owned by private landlords, such as blocks of flats, also known as multiple dwelling units or MDUs. I begin by saying that I have considered this issue carefully. I have been lobbied extremely heavily on it by one operator in particular, and I have tested the proposition with my officials, legal advisers and other operators.

I would not like to pre-empt what the hon. Lady might say as to why she tabled the amendments and their perceived need. However, I reassure her, and any others considering supporting them, that as a fellow London MP with many MDUs in my seat I am concerned about the dangers of a digital divide emerging, and I am doing what I can to avoid that circumstance. If I thought that the amendments genuinely helped on that front, I would do all I could to incorporate them, but there is a glaring lack of consensus among the telecoms industry about their need. Indeed, only one operator has contacted me in support of them, while four separate operators and representative bodies have strongly opposed the amendments, arguing that they are anti-competitive. I will talk a little more about that in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

The Law Commission voiced clear concerns at the time, arguing that it would lead to a fall in rent for landowners, and therefore a slowdown in the number of agreements being reached. As we heard in oral evidence, some landowners have seen their rents dwindle by as much as 90% in some cases, and as a consequence livelihoods have been turned upside down. These are welcome amendments, as they would mean that small tenant farmers, sports clubs and community organisations get a fairer deal for the land they are renting out.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

May I take it therefore that, if Madam Deputy Speaker is minded to allow separate decisions on my amendments, the hon. Gentleman will support them?

[Chris Elmore]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we supported this in Committee. Sadly, the Members on his own side did not. I would be very glad if he pushed the amendments, through your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if he did so, I am sure we would all row in behind him. What the Minister and the Government Whips do could be a different conversation altogether, but I do not think that worries him anymore.

I now turn to Government amendments 4 to 7 and the right hon. Gentleman’s own amendments 10 and 11. We welcome amendments 4 to 7 to ensure that a person with whom an operator is seeking a code agreement may at any time give the operator notice that they wish to engage in alternative dispute resolution in relation to a prospective site-sharing agreement. While the pace of new agreements between landowners and operators has slowed down in recent years, small landowners have been unable to afford the cost of going to a tribunal to try to defend their property rights. When the Bill moves to the other place, we hope that a debate can continue on the possibility of making ADR mandatory, as suggested by amendments 10 and 11, for telecoms operators before threatening to take landowners to court for an agreement to be imposed.

As I have said from the start and certainly many times in Committee, we are not against this Bill, which is a welcome step in the right direction. However, there are certain areas that need to be tightened and improved, and I hope their lordships will have a full debate and bring forward much-needed amendments to ensure that we deliver the very best broadband roll-out right across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

My amendments 9 to 11 are designed to address what was made clear in the House on Second Reading, which is that there are examples of egregious bullying by the operators and that there is a complete disproportion of power between those operators and the landowners. The Minister has spoken of her demand for more collaborative working and collaborative negotiation, but we are asking for the process of alternative dispute resolution to be a requirement from the outset precisely because the operators know that they have the power to overawe and frighten landowners with the threat of legal action.

The purpose of my amendments 11 and 12, which was spelt out very well by the Minister, is to return to the status quo ante 2017. Until 2017, compensation was based on market value, and in 2017 the new code changed it to land value, notwithstanding the explicit advice of the Law Commission not to do so. As was entirely predictable and as was predicted, the market dried up as a consequence and there were far fewer agreements. One of the purposes of this Bill is of course to address that problem of the reduction in agreements. Therefore, the obvious remedy is to restore the position as it was and return to market value, but far from doing that—far from seizing this opportunity to remedy the situation—the Government are compounding their error by wanting to make agreements previously made under the old regime renewable under land value, actually making the problem significantly worse as a consequence.

I do not know why the Government appear to have adopted the anarchist principle that property is theft. On the contrary, these measures, by denying landowners proper compensation on the basis of market value—compensation arrived at by a free and open market—and coercing them accordingly to give up their property rights, strike me as theft. These provisions in the Bill are in effect a conspiracy to promote theft: it is stealing. I just cannot understand how a Conservative Government have brought themselves to bring this measure before the House, changing the law retrospectively and so damaging property rights. I just assume that Ministers simply have not realised the enormity of the change they are making. Accordingly, I believe these amendments are vitally necessary for the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in this debate, to the Opposition for their support for the Bill, and to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) in particular for the very collaborative approach he has taken throughout and his acknowledgement of the improvements we have made. I shall test officials on the further points he makes. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for highlighting the product security parts of the Bill. Some of the detail he seeks will be in secondary legislation. Goods sold in online marketplaces, for instance, are not out of scope, because manufacturers, importers and distributors are covered. I would be happy to come back to him on some of the other points he raised.

On criticism of our roll-out, we are making substantial progress on our gigabit roll-out. We are now up to 68% coverage, up from 9% in 2019. I am open to any proposal to make roll-out go even faster. I have set out why competition is so important to that dynamic and why I think the amendments on MDUs are not the right way to go and could even slow the roll-out. I note the comments on BT Openreach. Other providers tell me that they have great teams negotiating wayleaves, that this is a straightforward process and that extra help on MDUs of the kind envisaged is simply not needed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for using KCOM as a great example of that, and for highlighting not only some of the good work that Openreach does, but the interesting example of his town deal, which I shall take away with me.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made a typically fruity and passionate speech. We believe our legislation incentivises greater collaboration. I set out in detail earlier why that is the case. We believe that rents were too high. As the need for digital infrastructure increases, we think rents need to become more akin to those for utilities. I should never wish to be accused of seeing property as theft. Indeed, I confess to taking umbrage at my right hon. Friend’s assertion on Second Reading. That is why I have tested his proposition—

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I withdraw.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I am glad that I have convinced him of the case. [Laughter.] As I say, I tested his proposition to death and concluded that there may be a case of creative hyperbole. I am glad he has also acknowledged that.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal in relation to code proceedings in Wales

In paragraph 95(1) of the electronic communications code (power to confer jurisdiction on other tribunals)—

(a) in paragraph (a), at the end insert “or the Upper Tribunal”;

(b) in paragraph (aa), for the words from “, but only” to the end substitute “or the Upper Tribunal”;

(c) omit paragraph (b).”—(Julia Lopez.)

This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations providing for a function conferred by the code on the court to be exercisable in relation to Wales by the First-tier Tribunal.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 57

Meaning of “occupier” in relation to land occupied by an operator

Amendment made: 1, page 40, line 11, leave out Clause 57.—(Julia Lopez.)

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Clause 58

Rights under the electronic communications code to share apparatus

Amendments made: 2, page 41, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—

‘(4) In paragraph 9 (conferral of code rights), after sub-paragraph (2) (as inserted by section (Persons able to confer code rights on operators in exclusive occupation)) insert—”

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Amendment 3, page 41, line 26, leave out “But”—(Julia Lopez.)

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Clause 59

Upgrading and sharing of apparatus: subsisting agreements

Amendment proposed: 14, page 42, line 11, after “agreement”, insert

“other than with a private landlord”.—(Chris Elmore.)

This amendment, together with amendments 15, 16 and 17, would apply a different regime under the Electronic Communications Code to private landlords, giving automatic upgrade rights for operators to properties owned by private landlords subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.

Question put, That the amendment be made.