Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind Members that we should confine ourselves to questions, not to straightforward dialogue.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q This is quite an interesting Bill. I served on the 2017 Bill Committee, and at the time I thought it was interesting that a Conservative Government wanted to severely restrict private property rights. Nevertheless, I think we were content to support the principle that the legislation might unlock a problem. But, Anna, are you saying that that is not what has happened? Is that a fair assessment of the overall criticism of the Bill by both large and small landowners who have an interest in this?

Anna Turley: Yes, I think that is the case. The fact that we are back here again shows that roll-out has not improved, nor has connectivity. We have had further subsidies through the shared rural network. More than 300 cases going through court have been bogged down, whereas prior to the 2017 legislation barely a handful of cases went to court. That has resulted in a huge amount of litigation and conflict between site owners and operators, which simply did not arise before. That is holding back our roll-out and affecting GDP. We are falling behind our international competitors. The changes in the 2017 code mean that there is now so little incentive for people to host sites on their land that we are at risk of further jeopardising our connectivity goals and achieving the outcomes that we all want.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q You presented the case that someone might own a bit of land, and they would have previously got £1,000 for the site and now they are only getting £50. I can honestly say that that was not envisaged when the Bill was discussed in Committee in 2017. The Government never suggested that; everyone knew that the legislation would suppress rents for private property owners, but no one really understood that there would be a 90% suppression. Is that genuinely typical, or are those outliers in terms of what has happened to people’s private property rights and their ability to raise rent from their property?

Anna Turley: Going back to your point about the Bill, that was not what was envisaged at the time. The impact assessment predicted a reduction of around 40%. Even Speed Up Britain has said that the average reduction is around 67%. We would dispute that, but without the evidence it has been incredibly difficult to show that. We have a huge number of cases where the operators have come in at a 90% to 95% reduction. That is par for the course.

There is an incentive for the operators to take cases to court to try to push for the biggest cuts that they can, because they can apply that across the board. The frustration is that we see them come in with large rent reductions, often bullying small landowners, families, small charities and community groups. Those people are having to accept cuts of between 90% and 95% because they simply do not have the wherewithal to go through lengthy legal processes to combat the huge strong legal arms of those organisations. They are simply having to submit to that.

To go back to your point about outliers, we have also tried to get information about the impact on local authorities, because a huge number of local authorities host these sites, as well as a number of hospitals and other public buildings. Again, we are seeing 80% to 85% cuts to local authorities. Leeds City Council, for example, has taken a reduction of 85%. That is thousands of pounds lost to local authorities. At the same time as we have heard that dairy and other farmers are being encouraged to expand and diversify their income, or local community and charity groups are being told to be entrepreneurial and to diversify their income, local authorities have had huge cuts over the past decade, as we know, and they are trying to get their income wherever they can. It seems crazy for them, essentially, to be subsidising private companies that might be making £10 billion in profit last year. That is money taken away from our local authorities, small charities and community groups, and it is not a small handful of them; this is happening across the board.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q My final question is to Dr Trotman. What is your response to the charge that you are in effect trying to thwart the Government’s levelling-up agenda in what you are doing? Are you trying to stop essential national infrastructure rolling out? The state can reasonably suppress private property rights in order to bring about such a policy aim. This is a case in which the state, reasonably, is doing just that. What is your response?

Dr Trotman: First, we have to understand what the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to begin with. If we look at the levelling-up White Paper, out of 332 pages, there are only 39 references to “rural”, so maybe the Government’s objectives do not relate to rural areas. There needs to be a levelling up not just of north and south, but of rural areas compared with urban.

We have always said—I said this earlier—that, as far as we are concerned, our overall objective is universal coverage, because we can see the benefits. The very fact that I am Zooming into this meeting at the moment illustrates the benefits of effective and affordable broadband connections. We understand what the benefits are and we want to see faster deployment, but we also want to see both parties playing fair. This is where I said that the ADR mechanism is a workable solution, if we can get it right.

We have to look at the positives of this as well. There is one big positive in terms of rural wayleaves on fixed-line infrastructure. With the NFU, we secured from Openreach and Gigaclear—the two big infrastructure providers for fixed-line connectivity—a wayleave agreement. We have had that since 1 October 2018, and it works. If we can get it right for fixed-line rural wayleaves, what I do not quite understand is why we cannot get it right for fixed-line urban wayleaves—Anna’s point about local authorities is a good one—and in the mobile sector.

The major criticism that we have of the 2017 changes and of this Bill is the fact that we are talking about mobile infrastructure. We are also talking about the tactics being employed by mobile operators, which at the beginning of 2018 were not that conducive to effective negotiation. Basically, it was, “We’ll offer you a little carrot, but if you don’t agree, we will hit you over the head with a big stick.” Hopefully, we are getting away from that, but again, it underlines the point that we have a major market imbalance, which we have to get right if we want to get to the point of universal coverage.

[The Chair]

Before I bring in Rebecca Long Bailey, Eleanor Griggs, did you wish to say something?

Eleanor Griggs: I have just a couple of points. If statutory powers are given, there needs to be some sort of accountability on the part of operators, with, essentially, sanctions if those powers are abused or not used responsibly. That sort of thing needs to be considered, because at the moment there does not seem to be any comeuppance for the poor behaviour that my members have had to endure. Are we looking at consensual agreements that are reached by negotiation, or are we looking at consensual agreements that are reached because somebody cannot afford to defend their position or get slightly more favourable terms at tribunal? It is quite cost-prohibitive, certainly for the smaller individual landowners. I do not know about the monopoly landlords that the Bill’s impact assessment talks about quite a lot, but it is quite prohibitive for our smaller members.

I would also like to make the point that the NFU has an annual digital technology survey. The most recent figures—we have not quite had the 2021 figures in yet—are the 2020 figures. Going back to 2015, 29% of our members reported that their outdoor mobile signal was reliable. By 2017, that had risen to 42%. Obviously, that is a really big increase from 29% in 2015 to 42% in 2017. By 2020, it was still at 42%, so no advances have been made from the introduction of the code, essentially; that is quite important. Various other figures mirror that—smartphones with access to 4G and things like that. It just shows a stagnation from 2017 onwards. We just need to be careful that that does not continue or, in the worst case scenario, get any worse.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debates: 2nd sitting
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Can I bring in Kevin Brennan, as we only have four minutes before this panel comes to an end?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q Professor Carr, you do not need a magic wand to get your wishes; you need an amendment. Would you welcome an amendment to the Bill that specified that devices have to be supported for a minimum time?

Professor Carr: Yes, I would.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Do you own an Alexa-type device in your home?

Professor Carr: No.

[Kevin Brennan]

Why not?

Professor Carr: Because I do not trust them. There we go. I will not have one, because I do not trust it.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Will the Bill give you sufficient trust to purchase and acquire such a device and have it in your own home?

Professor Carr: No, to be honest.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Q Very briefly, Professor Carr, if the security threat as regards connected products were substantially to change over the next few years, will the Bill cover those changes, or will some flexibility need to be built into the Bill to address them?

Professor Carr: It is impossible to answer that. That is what makes this type of legislation difficult. We do not know how the threats will emerge or change. A couple of years ago we could not have imagined that ransomware would be the threat that it has become, but the fact that we cannot anticipate the future with certainty does not mean that we cannot act now. Nothing will be sufficient to fix the insecurity of the digital world that we live in. No Bill will change that, but small bits of legislation beginning to address these vulnerabilities is the right way to go. I do not think that anyone should be afraid of doing this. This is the beginning of the future. Governments will not stand by forever and watch the damage and destruction that can be done by digital devices. We have to start somewhere, and I think that this is it.

David Rogers: I am coming from a slightly different position, but obviously I would like to see all 13 requirements implemented. I think that it does provide future proofing, because this provides the foundation of future trust for everything. Everything that we have written in there provides future underpinnings. If we are allowing industry-based organisations such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to maintain the specification for the future, that allows organisations to improve and add things. I think Dave mentioned biometrics, for example. They can go to ETSI and add to it, and let’s allow industry to develop that. Organisations such as NCSC and DCMS are also there to input into those standard bodies. I think it is a really strong start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shailesh Vara]

Sixty-three per cent. is still a significant sum for a small farmer who is counting every penny in his budget. The Committee can understand your reasoning in terms of policy and so on, but as far as the individual is concerned, I maintain—we will have to agree to disagree—that the 85% figure is somewhat misleading if taken in its individual context. I have made my point. Thank you.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Just to get the record accurate, Ms Colloms, you mentioned earlier the Government’s 85% manifesto target. That was not the target was it?

Catherine Colloms: That is the current target.

[Kevin Brennan]

The manifesto target was for full gigabit by 2025, but that was dropped to 85% in November 2020, wasn’t it?

Catherine Colloms: I think you are right.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Ms Wallace, you said earlier that your companies were “over-enthusiastic” in the early years after 2017. I suspect that it is not really enthusiasm that you are referring to, but being over-assertive or aggressive with landowners, perhaps—that is probably what they would say. If that were the case after 2017, why would landowners not believe that the same would happen after 2022?

Juliette Wallace: When the new code came into effect, it set out how sites should be valued for the use of mobile infrastructure. Previously, there was no mention of how sites should be valued. Pre-2017, we had an industry that had been built up over the previous 20 years or so and that had got somewhat out of hand. Rather than paying a fair price to install infrastructure on land, a fair price being one that recognises what else the landowner could rent the land for—

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Can I stop you there? I do understand that—I served on the 2017 Bill Committee; obviously, I know about it—but my question is, why would your companies not do exactly the same again? You implied that they did not act very well after 2017 by using the term “over-enthusiastic”. Why would they act any better now?

Juliette Wallace: We have learned from the past. My comment about being over-enthusiastic related to the suggestion of David and Goliath with respect to the valuations. The valuations that were proposed very early, in 2018, were much lower than we are going out with now. As this Bill does not intend, currently, to adapt the valuation methodology, there should be no reason to think that the valuations that are currently being offered will change.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Okay. Finally, Mr Bartlett, you mentioned a figure just now in answer to Mr Vara—was it 64%?

Mark Bartlett: It was 63%.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is the average. Could you tell us some of the figures for those who were worst affected? If 63% is the average, what were some of the biggest drops in income for people affected?

Mark Bartlett: At this point I obviously do not know—

[Kevin Brennan]

Would anybody have suffered a 90% reduction?

Mark Bartlett: I was about to say that at this point I can only talk about Cellnex UK, because obviously I am not aware of the commercial agreements of any other members of Speed Up Britain. I can be clear that there have, in a handful of cases, been—we have been open about this—90%-plus reductions in rent. But in the main, that normally means the rent itself was over-rented at the point of agreement—that is, we were paying drastically too much. On average, 63% is in line with the Cellnex UK achievement. We have to understand that we have an ongoing relationship with our landlords above and beyond a renewal. There is no interest in the industry for us to behave in a way that alienates our landlords.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Ms Wallace, do you have any figures in relation to that?

Juliette Wallace: I was going to pretty much echo the Cellnex example. We have a handful that are towards 90%—in that sort of area. We also have some sites where the rent has gone up as a result of the new code.

[Kevin Brennan]

But the average has been a reduction.

Juliette Wallace: The average is a reduction, but it is creating a fair environment that says, “We will reimburse you for the land that we’re utilising.” As I say, we have a lot of sites where there has been no reduction and we have a small number where the rent actually increased.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thanks. I think everyone understood there was going to be a reduction, but I cannot remember those sorts of figures ever being mentioned at the time of the 2017 Bill.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Q This question is for Catherine Colloms and Simon Holden to start with. My constituency, Hastings and Rye, has urban and rural areas—we have small Rye—and pre-existing 2017 infrastructure. You have both explained the consequences of the cost if you cannot use existing duct and pole infrastructure. What activities, exactly, would be required to upgrade existing infrastructure, and what reassurance can you give landlords or people who own gardens containing a telegraph pole or that sort of thing?

Catherine Colloms: Effectively—let me take a multi-dwelling unit and then I will take a pole—we need to put a new fibre cable over some of these pieces of infrastructure. I actually have my kit behind me, which I can show you in a second. With an MDU, there is often fibre outside a premises; we will build to the curtilage. What we have inside an MDU is the existing cable—the existing hybrid fibre—that is going up inside the risers. You basically cannot see it. It then kind of pops on to a room. We would reinstall the new part of the full-fibre kit in the classic plant room downstairs, so that it is all with the maintenance bits. We then need a new small cable—this one is basically it; it is called InvisiLight—which we would run up through the risers. This is what you would see, or not see, running through corridors or along the wall. When you put this on a wall, you cannot find it because it is absolutely tiny. This cable has all the fibres running through it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q On the Which? side, Ms Concha, one of our earlier witnesses said that they thought it would be a good idea if the Bill were amended to establish in law a minimum time limit for which this type of device is supported. Is that something that Which? would support?

Rocio Concha: Yes, we would support that. If it is not possible to include it in the Bill, we would ask that the Bill allows for it to be included in secondary legislation in the future. We would be very supportive of introducing minimum supporting periods for products.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q You have not drafted an amendment by any chance, have you?

Rocio Concha: No, we have not, but we have provided amendments in other areas. We have provided an amendment to allow the Bill to introduce this through secondary legislation in the future, and there is an amendment there. We would be happy to discuss that in more detail.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Genuinely, do you think that it is a preferable outcome for the measure to be in secondary legislation so that it might be a little more flexible, rather than putting it on the face of the Bill?

Rocio Concha: It depends. On these baseline security requirements, we firmly believe that the Bill should list them and be very clear that they will be included. In terms of the minimum security periods you provide to different products, it will depend on the different products and we do not want to delay the legislation to get to the bottom of that. It would be preferable to allow that legislation to be introduced as secondary legislation.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Understood. Ms Eagleton, what are the devices that cause the most problems in relation to cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls?

Jessica Eagleton: Some of the most common devices we see reported to us include your smart home hubs, smart voice assistants, smart TVs, plugs, light switches and fitness trackers. Those are some of the most commonly misused. I myself have various different connected products at home.

Perpetrators quite often set up a host of different devices in the home. Recently, we supported a woman whose former partner had bought a whole host of devices, including smart cameras, a smart doorbell, a smart thermostat—all those kinds of things. She and her child felt like they were constantly being monitored; they talked about how exhausted they were by that constant surveillance.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q You mentioned that people could report that sort of thing using a helpline, but are women concerned that, if they make a report using the internet on their computer or telephone, that might be detected by the abusive partner?

Jessica Eagleton: It is definitely a big consideration. That is why we advise that people get in touch with us and then we can help with safety planning. If a perpetrator has access to those devices and a survivor moves to take back control of them and change the settings, that can be detected by someone with that access. We would work with a survivor to safety-plan how to control her technology.

[Kevin Brennan]

Q Finally, should the Government provide clarity by detailing measures that industry could take on the face of the Bill?

Jessica Eagleton: My fellow panellist may have some thoughts here as well, but that could certainly be useful for industry. Thinking about the general low awareness of tech abuse, it could be useful to provide industry with some certainty. It could play into that broader awareness piece, as well.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you.

[Ruth Edwards]

Q Ms Concha, you represent the consumer perspective. I wanted to ask about some concerns around labelling that were put to us this morning. In particular, Google mentioned that it has concerns about having a static label on the product because security information changes all the time—a product might be fine today, but it could discover a vulnerability about it tomorrow. It strikes me that we are dealing with a really wide range of security awareness, and ability to use and understand technology among consumers. Google suggested a sort of live label, such as a QR code, which could give the real-time security status. What do you think is the best way to communicate security information to consumers—such as the information in requirement 3, about the minimum time for which a product will receive security updates—bearing in mind the huge range of understanding and ability that we have in this area?

Rocio Concha: Is this about the length of time a product will be supported for? That information should be provided clearly at the point of sale, before you make a decision, so that you know you are going to buy something that may be supported for only two years, versus another product that may be supported for longer. That will hopefully provide everyone with the incentive to extend the number of years for which a product is supported.

We also need to make sure that that information is very clear. We should avoid “up to three years” and “for the lifetime of the product”, which do not really mean much for the consumer. For the consumer to be able to act on that information, it has to be very clear and easy to find when they are making that decision. That is what I would say.

On changing the security, I am a little worried about the industry saying that it may change the period during which a product will be supported. If that change is to extend that period—great; if it is to reduce it, that is very bad. At that point, the consumer has made a decision and bought a product because that product was going to be supported for longer.

If someone was told that a product would be supported for four years, and they later found out it was two years, that product would not be fit for purpose. Under the Consumer Rights Act, you have a right on the same grounds as the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th March 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I apologise for giving you a dilemma about the advice on jelly babies. I will start with a few words about the importance of the Bill. As we heard from our panels of witnesses this week, and as we know from our increasing dependence on technology, improving protection for consumers and networks from a range of harms associated with cyber-attacks is incredibly important. In the first half of last year, there were 1.5 billion attempted compromises of internet of things devices—double the 2020 figure for the same period. Voluntary standards, such as the 2018 code of practice for consumer IOT security, are not being adopted quickly or consistently enough. That is why we need legislation to progress security in the design of consumer connectable products.

Before turning to amendment 6, I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore for the constructive and helpful way that he has approached the legislation and for the Opposition’s broad support of it. As this is the first Bill that I am taking through the House in its entirety, I am particularly grateful for that constructive approach. It may reassure him that the Government are committed to introducing security requirements based on the first three guidelines through regulations at the earliest appropriate opportunity. We have consulted on those security requirements and have communicated them extensively.

We have not been vague on the matter. In April 2021, we published our response to the call for views on consumer connectable product security legislation. We stated in detail how the three security requirements would work. When the Bill was announced by Her Majesty at the start of the Session, we repeated that commitment. Indeed, as hon. Members will see in the Bill’s explanatory notes, we have again committed to those three requirements. We made that clear from the start for an important reason: we need industry to act and prepare for implementation. We do not want surprises for manufacturers, importers or distributors. They know what they have to do.

Amendment 6 is unnecessary, but might also be dangerous. We are keen to ensure that the legislation retains flexibility, so that it can adapt to and reflect the changing threat landscape, and the security requirements needed to address it. What might seem like a no-brainer security requirement today might become a security threat or barrier to security innovation in years to come.

Amendment 6 reaches back to 2018, when our code of practice was first published. Security requirements have developed since then. When the Bill is implemented, we do not think it should be constrained by what was appropriate five years ago. The requirements we will introduce are based on the first three guidelines in the code of practice, but they also contain necessary improvements. They are up to date, more detailed and have been translated into practical requirements that businesses can implement to get the right security outcomes without unnecessary burden. Stakeholder engagement and impact assessment work conducted since 2018 ensures that the guidelines are nuanced, and are in a robust and enforceable statutory framework that delivers optimal security outcomes.

Finally, hon. Members may not be aware that because this new legislation will impact on manufacturers globally, we have given notice of the Bill to the World Trade Organisation. We invited comments on our proposals two years ago, and when the Bill was introduced to Parliament, we gave notice again. We have worked to ensure that all manufacturers understand our intentions. Amendment 6, if accepted, would cause confusion by taking us back to 2018, and away from the more developed position we have reached on the three principles. That would cause market confusion, require new notification to the WTO, and potentially delay this vital regime from coming into force. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 1 is needed to provide the Government with the necessary powers to specify and mandate security requirements, through secondary legislation, that businesses must comply with. There is a common notion that Governments are behind the curve when it comes to regulating technology. not in this case. By establishing a flexible and futureproof regulatory framework in this way, the Government can be agile and proactive in amending and introducing security requirements through regulations, in lockstep with tech innovation. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any future security requirements designated through the secondary legislation process and, as new threats emerge and international standards develop, we can act and set new security requirements, keeping consumer connectable product security up to date and fit for the future.

The purpose of clause 2 is to provide further detail about how the Secretary of State’s power to specify security requirements can be used. Clause 3 is essential because it provides the Secretary of State with powers to specify circumstances in which a person is deemed to have complied with the security requirements. The clause, when exercised, would provide more than one route to compliance and would provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate and recognise international standards and mutual recognition agreements where appropriate.

I turn to new clause 3. In practice, it would commit the Government to reporting on a fixed basis on the security risks posed by products affected by the Bill. Those reports would be laid before Parliament. Cyber-security is definitely not an area where the Government hold back on publishing information. If we are to raise the cyber-resilience of the nation, we need to ensure that everyone is clear about the threat. In December, we published our national cyber strategy. The Government will continue to publish regular reports on our progress on that strategy, as we did with regard to the previous strategy. The Government also publish an annual report that surveys cyber-breaches across the economy. This report, together with others, forms a key part of the evidence base used to inform organisations about action to take to raise security standards. Indeed, the breaches survey meets the quality threshold to be managed as a set of official statistics.

Our National Cyber Security Centre is also a model of transparency. It is there to advise businesses, and guide them towards better managing cyber-threats. It publishes an annual report, and for those who want to focus on consumer connectable products, it provides specific advice on those, too. Parliament is already regularly kept informed of cyber-security matters; our regular publications are placed in the Library. Our national strategy, implemented with £2.6 billion of investment, is overseen by the Public Accounts Committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy provide further oversight. Also, there are mechanisms for holding the Government to account in the manner intended by the provision, such as regular parliamentary debates and questions.

Cyber-security is a fast-moving and sensitive topic. A fixed-period reporting clause that imposes an obligation to report on security risks may duplicate existing activity. Such a system would also lack the agility necessary to enable us to report quickly when threats are identified. It may reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the Secretary of State will be required to review the effectiveness of the Bill’s enforcement regime; they, or the designated enforcing authority, will be required to report on that to the relevant departmental Select Committee after Royal Assent. The enforcement authority will also report its activity and findings, where appropriate. The measures already in place will likely meet the intention behind new clause 3. For the reasons that I have set out, I do not accept the need for the new clause.

I turn to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about Dr Carr’s concerns about Alexa, which I also found eye-catching. A lot of secondary legislation comes with this Bill, and that will hopefully reassure Dr Carr. I also note the comment made by a lot of our witnesses: we can never have 100% security with those devices. I therefore commend clauses 1 to 3 to the Committee.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Good morning, everybody. Happy St Patrick’s day to everyone. I congratulate the Minister on her first Bill. I have been through the process many times, and it is an exciting and proud moment to lead on a Bill for the Government for the first time. When I did it, my father, who was from West Cork, said, “Not bad for someone from the peat bogs of West Cork.” I am sure that the Minister’s family are equally proud of her achievement.

I want to raise a couple of general issues, as we are debating the first three quarters of the Bill in this grouping. I congratulate the Minister for providing such a comprehensive impact assessment on the Bill. I was slightly confused by the figure for the cost of business, which is set at net present value, and is put at “£1,246.9.9” million. That figure looks like a typo. I wondered what the correct figure was, and if the Minister could provide it. I suggest it is just the one “point nine”.

This is a very significant piece of legislation, given the impact it will have on consumers and business. It is very technical. Page 8 of the impact assessment details the Government’s key assumptions about how the Bill will impact on businesses. Businesses will have to dispose of devices that no longer satisfy the criteria that the Minister is likely to set. The impact assessment’s optimistic assessment of what percentage of devices will have to be disposed of is 5%. Its working assessment is 45%. The figure it is using, however, for the impact on business is that 10% of devices will have to be disposed of by businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

The amendment itself is fairly self-explanatory. However, I will take the opportunity to speak briefly on it in the hope of persuading Conservative Members—and indeed the Minister—to support it.

Clause 7 defines the relevant persons subject to the security requirements as being manufacturers, importers and distributors. Crucially, however, online platforms such as eBay and Amazon are not defined as falling under any of those categories. To my mind, that is both deeply concerning and preposterous, given that, under any definition, online platforms such as the two I have just mentioned are without doubt distributors themselves.

I am sure everyone in this Committee has either sold or bought something through eBay or Amazon. The oversight in the Bill has real-world consequences, as products sold on those online platforms will not be policed in the same way. That is problematic, as research by groups such as Which?—which we heard evidence from earlier this week—has consistently shown that online marketplaces are flooded with insecure products, while the Bill would do nothing to increase the legal responsibility online marketplaces have for the safety and security of products sold through them.

In tabling the amendment, we are merely expanding the number of organisations that the security requirements would apply to, in order to better protect all our constituents, which is the expressed aim of the Bill according to the Minister’s opening remarks and indeed those of the Secretary of State at Second Reading. I therefore urge the Minister and all Committee members to support the amendment.

[Kevin Brennan]

I support my hon. Friend in pressing the amendment to a vote. As we heard from the Minister, the Bill covers quite a lot of different devices. The examples given by the Government in their impact assessment include the following:

“Smartphones; connectable cameras, TVs and speakers; connectable children’s toys and baby monitors; connectable safety-relevant products such as smoke detectors and door locks; Internet of Things base stations and hubs to which multiple devices connect; wearable connectable fitness trackers; outdoor leisure products, such as handheld connectable GPS devices that are not wearables; connectable home automation and alarm systems; connectable appliances, such as washing machines and fridges”

and, as we have heard, “smart home assistants”, including things such as Alexa-type smart speaker products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Cardiff West, and I am happy to address their concerns. The Bill covers obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors, but I will provide a bit more detail.

Clause 7 specifies which relevant persons will be responsible for ensuring that the security requirements are properly complied with. In that regard, a “relevant person” is defined as a manufacturer, importer or distributor of a relevant connectable product. As a result, amendment 7 is wrong to suggest that online marketplaces are exempt from this new legislation. Online marketplaces do not just offer products on behalf of third parties, but are often acting as the retailer, so in those cases the full security requirements apply. I accept that there may be instances in which the online marketplace is not the distributor. None the less, it is necessary for the third party operating in the marketplace to comply with the security requirements, and it is not just that one party who carries liability under the Bill: the manufacturer and importer also have responsibility. We think we have taken a belt-and-braces approach in that regard.

We have also worked closely with industry to make sure the regulation is proportionate and fits the wider regulatory environment for product safety. Manufacturers care a great deal about these regulatory requirements. On Tuesday, we heard from a representative of Google, who described how it works to comply with requirements in many different jurisdictions. Over the past three years, hundreds of manufacturers have engaged with my Department through the many public consultations and industry discussions we have had. The hon. Member for Ogmore gives the impression that amendment 7 would provide consumers with a vital line of defence, but that is not the case: there are already multiple lines of defence in this Bill.

It is also worth noting that consumers can never be 100% protected by regulation—a point that we have already discussed this morning. We need to have a broader approach to raising national cyber-resilience, which is why in December we published our national cyber strategy. The Cyber Aware campaign is ongoing—hon. Members may have seen the advertisements last weekend, or the ones on the radio and online this week. We also have a range of school programmes designed to reach parents and teachers in order to raise cyber-security awareness, and the Home Office, the police and the NCSC run regular campaigns at a local level in every region of the country. In relation to the comments made about Ukraine, the point is even more important because of the context in which we are operating.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just to be clear, if, for example, I purchased a connectable baby monitor online through Amazon, but it came from a third-party supplier—which is quite common when customers are given that list of products to buy—how would the Bill impact on that device and its availability in the UK?

[Julia Lopez]

As I say, we are putting requirements on not just manufacturers, but the importer. The importer would be under an obligation to check whether the product fulfilled some of the requirements we would have for it, as would the distributor. I would hope that, along the chain, that product would have been checked several times to make sure it complies.

We have done a lot of work on general cyber-resilience. I will take this opportunity to add that it is also important that we as Members of Parliament try to make our constituents aware of the increasing challenges we face with cyber-resilience, and that we all need to have our own cyber-hygiene in that regard.

The amendment is well intentioned—we understand where the hon. Member for Ogmore is coming from—but it is drafted in a way that would have a much broader reach than just online marketplaces. It would impose security requirements on businesses that cannot comply with them, such as advertising platforms and website hosting services. Distributors use many online facilities offering a vast array of cloud services to support e-commerce to make their products available. As drafted, the amendment would extend duties beyond what is intended.

The Government have carefully considered the amendment. It is clear that our intention is to secure consumer connectable products in the most effective and proportionate manner, without hindering business growth and the online retail facilities enjoyed by consumers. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.

I turn now to chapter 2 of the Bill and clauses 8 to 25. These clauses place duties on businesses in the supply chain of a consumer connectable product to comply with security requirements. Compliance is fundamental to the operation of the regulatory regime. Under these clauses, manufacturers, distributors and importers must prepare, or ensure the presence of, a document to accompany the product that states that, in the opinion of the manufacturer, it has complied with the security requirements, before that product is made available in the UK. I note the point that was made about baby monitors. I hope that, in that process, there would be clear information and a record provided with the product that stated compliance.

The clauses in chapter 2 also require that businesses take all reasonable steps to investigate a compliance failure or potential compliance failure. That is vital to hold businesses accountable for complying with their security requirements and to mandate investigation of potential compliance failures. If compliance failure has occurred, businesses in the supply chain must take all reasonable steps to prevent the product from reaching UK customers and remedy the compliance failure. The measure is needed to ensure that insecure products do not remain on the market and that those that have not yet reached UK customers are prevented from doing so.

Finally, the clauses in chapter 2 require manufacturers and importers to retain records of compliance failures and investigations for at least 10 years. The Secretary of State is able to request this information to investigate and to enforce the legislation. These duties encourage ongoing compliance and accountability. The records will allow a clear audit of the importer’s and manufacturer’s activities, so that we can have effective enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

The clause deals with very complex and technical issues. Since the Bill was introduced, my Department has been testing the provisions to ensure that they meet the policy objectives and that they have no adverse impacts on other parts of the code, or on how the code operates in practice. Should we consider it appropriate to make further changes to the clause, in line with our policy intentions, we will table an appropriate amendment.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister says that the Government might revisit the clause, perhaps in the other place. If somebody who is operating equipment on the land is potentially deemed legally to be the occupier, under the provisions in the clause would the person who would then be asked to consult about further extending any arrangements be the landowner? Is that the assumption in the clause, in most instances?

[Julia Lopez]

As I said, this is a very complex and technical area. I do not want to provide the hon. Member with an incorrect answer, because this is one of the issues on which we are still in discussions with industry to ensure that we get it right. I believe that is the intention, but I will have to get back to him.

[Kevin Brennan]

Some inspiration might come to the Minister during the course of the debate. It seems to me quite an important question. I thought that what she meant was that, in an instance where somebody is deemed to be the operator on the land, because they have the equipment there, they obviously cannot grant themselves an extension of permission, and so it would be sensible for there to be a way to go to the landowner in order to achieve that further agreement. If that is not the case, that is quite important, because who will they go to in that instance? She said that if the landowner or interested party could not be identified, it would be people with a principal interest. What sorts of people would that be? Would it be the local community, or neighbours of the land involved? Even if she cannot offer an explanation now, it is quite important that the Committee at least has a grasp of what is intended by the clause.

[Julia Lopez]

This is tricky, because I wish I could provide greater clarity, but I cannot, which is obviously an unsatisfactory position to be in. In this case, I think the court would be approached to make a decision if the landowner was not in a position to grant those rights and they could not get a position out of the landowner. The intention, I think, would be for it to be decided at a legal level. I apologise that I cannot provide clarity.

Without the clause, there is a gap in the legislation that prevents operators who need code rights from being able to obtain them. This has potentially adverse consequences for consumers and businesses, with the risk of service disruptions and unnecessary delays in the delivery of improved capacity and enhanced services. As we all increasingly rely on digital services, it is important to address this situation. This is an area of active discussion, because we want to make sure we get it right. I believe it would be the case that, if the landowner were not in a position to offer the rights, the operator would go to the court to seek redress.

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand the difficulty the Minister faces, but it would be helpful if there was official support for her at times when technical questions are asked. It is important that the Committee gets a full explanation before agreeing to a clause. The sensible thing to do in this instance would be for the Government to revisit the clause—possibly on Report. It would certainly be of help if, by then, a clearer view as to the intention could be given to Members of the Committee and people interested in the Bill. I am sure there is a fairly straightforward answer to the question, so we should make note of the fact that it needs to be dealt with at some point.

[Julia Lopez]

I acknowledge that this is legally a very complex area. It is something that we have not entirely settled on, and it is under active consideration. We will come back to the Committee if we believe we have not got the policy intention correct. I am sorry that I was unable to address the hon. Member’s point in greater detail, but I am reluctant to provide information that might not be correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Rights under the electronic communications code to share apparatus

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

We are looking at rights that will provide easier access to underground and over, but not on. These are very techy points. If my hon. Friend feels that that does not answer her question precisely enough, I would be happy to ask officials to get in touch with her.

The measures in the Bill as drafted ensure that apparatus installed under agreements concluded prior to 2017 can be upgraded and shared quickly and cost-effectively. At the same time, the specific conditions that we are introducing will ensure that the right balance is maintained between the interests of private individuals and the wider public benefit, which is a difficult balance to strike. We are concerned that the amendments would not maintain that balance. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Ogmore assurance that the provisions in the Bill regarding retrospective rights to upgrade and share represent a balanced approach, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Clauses 59 and 60 are vital clauses that support and encourage greater upgrading and sharing of existing apparatus. The 2017 code reforms provided operators with limited automatic rights to upgrade and share their apparatus, subject to certain conditions. However, the 2017 changes did not introduce paragraph 17 upgrading and sharing rights for subsisting agreements, which are agreements completed before the 2017 reforms came into force. This means that a significant proportion of the UK’s existing networks cannot be upgraded or shared without specific permission, despite the fact that apparatus can be upgraded and shared in many situations with no adverse impacts on any individual or private land.

Clause 59 therefore inserts new paragraph 5A into schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017 in order to introduce rights for operators to upgrade and share apparatus installed under a subsisting agreement. These rights differ from those contained in paragraph 17. They are available in more limited circumstances and will be subject to stricter conditions and specific notice requirements. Taken together, the measures in the clause will ensure that apparatus installed under a subsisting agreement can be upgraded and shared quickly and cost-efficiently, and do so in a way that takes into account both the interests of individuals and the wider public benefit.

Clause 60 deals with the same issue of upgrading and sharing apparatus, but in this case in relation to apparatus installed before 29 December 2003 where there is neither a subsisting agreement nor an agreement concluded after the 2017 reforms. It is right that upgrading and sharing rights should be available for all apparatus installed before the 2017 reforms came into effect. Clause 60 therefore inserts proposed new paragraph 17A into the code, conferring rights to upgrade and share apparatus installed under land before 29 December 2003, where the operator who owns that apparatus is not a party to an agreement under part 2 of the code.

[Kevin Brennan]

I have listened carefully to the Minister and I do not agree with the Government’s position on rejecting the amendment. She is right that large swathes of the Bill are about the difficult balancing act between private property rights and the public interest. It seems to me, in the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore in support of the group of amendments, that this is an instance where the public interest is overwhelmingly clear, while the private property interest that the Minister defended in her response is not.

My hon. Friend put forward the problem that has been received by the Committee in evidence, which is that many blocks of flats are not updated with their internet connections and so on. There is a huge public policy interest in the digital divide, which we all know about across the country, and in ensuring that the people who live in those kinds of premises have excellent access—as good as someone living with the best infrastructure available in an urban setting. He mentioned the rural-urban divide, but I am talking specifically about the case he made about blocks of flats.

I think what the Minister was saying was that because what is being proposed represents a retrospective change, a higher standard should apply to protecting those private property interests than would apply in the case, for example, of equipment that was installed post 2017. That, however, does not make a jot of difference to a poor child living in a block of flats who does not have good internet access to do their homework. That is a pretty clear judgment for the Government to make, because they have made no real or clear case that any compelling property rights are being imperilled, or that there is any compelling cost—other than minor inconvenience, perhaps—to the landowners who might be affected by the amendment.

There is, however, an overwhelming public policy case for wanting to do everything possible to assist children living in such block of flats. There is an overwhelming public policy case that a child in that block of flats with pre-2017 infrastructure should not be treated any less equally or favourably than a child who lives in a neighbouring block of flats that happens to have equipment that was installed post 2017. I urge the Minister and the Government to rethink their position for those reasons, unless I have misunderstood their case.

[Julia Lopez]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we do not disagree with the ambition. We all want children in such blocks of flats and other difficult-to-reach premises to have excellent digital infrastructure. As the Member for an urban constituency, I certainly want that. We have been testing this extensively, from legal team to legal team of operators. Some operators tell us that the additional rights are not necessary to be able to access buildings in the way that they hope; others say that they are. As I say, we have been testing this. Some of the suggestions would give greater legal access to property than law enforcement has. We have to get the right balance and we have to test whether this proposal will ultimately speed up the roll-out.

[Kevin Brennan]

That seems to be rather a weak argument. If law enforcement were entering someone’s property, it would probably be to search it, make an arrest or something like that. A telecoms operator entering a property to install some cable is a very different proposition, is it not?

[Julia Lopez]

It is a difficult balance to get right, between having a roll-out and ensuring that somebody’s property rights are respected. If we are considering giving greater powers to an operator than to law enforcement, we have to ask whether that is necessary. Operators have told us that that is not necessary to get access and to increase roll-out. On balance, therefore, we are not minded to support the amendment.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debates: 4th sitting
Thursday 17th March 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Elmore]

The Government introduced the electronic communications code in 2017 and promised at the time that reductions in rent would, in reality, be no more than 40%. However, as we heard from Protect and Connect during Tuesday’s evidence session, there have been thousands of cases in which small tenant farmers, sports clubs and community organisations that host masts have seen their rents fall by vastly more than that, with many facing reductions of more than 90%. That was confirmed during the evidence session, when a question was asked about the average, followed by questions from other Members, including me. That clearly showed that there had been far higher reductions for some organisations and owners. One such case is James, a 71-year-old sheep farmer who has maintained a mast on his farm for 15 years, normally receiving £2,900 a year in rent. In 2020, James received a letter informing him that he was now being offered £200 a year under a new agreement. That was a reduction of 93% and a huge overnight shock to his personal and professional finances.

The average reduction for contracts negotiated by Cellnex UK, as Mark Bartlett informed us on Tuesday, has been 63%—a decrease that would cause a huge dent in the finances of all the kinds of organisation I have referred to and a figure well above what the Government promised in 2017. I am sure that members of this Committee would not be best pleased if a significant stream of their income fell by 63%.

I know that the Minister said at Second Reading that valuations pre 2017 were much too high, but surely she must recognise, after the oral evidence we heard on Tuesday, that the race to the bottom that we are seeing is not sustainable and that the level of reduction in rent that is occurring will deter other landowners from agreeing to host infrastructure in the first place, thus slowing the roll-out that this very legislation is designed to speed up.

Rather than leaving reductions to chance, the Opposition have tabled amendment 8, which would enshrine in law that rents under any new agreement fall by no more than 40%. That would strike a much fairer balance between operators and site providers by ensuring that what is a significant income stream for many individuals and community groups is not wiped out overnight. It would also contribute significantly to a faster roll-out of telecommunications infrastructure, as site owners would be more willing to engage. Speeding up the roll-out of new telecommunications infrastructure is the express desire of the Bill. I hope that Members from across the Committee will stand squarely behind their constituents by supporting this amendment.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend in pushing the amendment, in order to hear what the Minister has to say in response. The amendment goes to the heart of what a lot of the Bill is about: balancing the rights of private property owners and the policy requirement to speed up the roll-out of digital infrastructure.

This morning we debated an instance in which there would be no real financial cost to the private property owners from doing the right thing. In that instance, the state was ensuring that their properties could be accessed to put in the necessary infrastructure to roll out digital infrastructure in an urban setting—big blocks of flats, where lots of people might not have very good access to the internet and so on. In that instance, the Government were not prepared to accept our amendment, even though it would not have had any significant detrimental impact on the private property owners. In other words, they took the view that in that instance the private property owners, even if they would be only marginally inconvenienced, had to have their property rights protected, because this was a retrospective imposition and they would not have given permission.

In this instance—in fairness, I think this was not intended in 2017—private property owners have suffered, or might suffer, significant detriment to the income they can acquire through somebody else’s use of their land with the state’s assistance. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to say that the balance should be to ensure that they are not affected in a way that causes a massive reduction in the income they can earn from the use of their land.

If that was not a strong enough argument in itself, which perhaps it is not, the way the market has reacted to what happened after 2017 and the problems that there have undoubtedly been, with people reluctant to get involved with rolling out the infrastructure we need for the future, which we all want to achieve through the Bill and by other means, is further evidence that an adjustment perhaps needs to be made. The Minister could discuss with the Committee whether that adjustment is exactly what is contained in the amendment, but whether something should be done to address the arguments and concerns that have been expressed to us by those who own land on which such infrastructure is sited is certainly worth further consideration.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

I thank the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Cardiff West for their contributions and for the amendment. I acknowledge that this is a tricky issue. There have been problems between both parties since the 2017 reforms, but we maintain that the 2017 valuation provisions created the right balance between the public need for digital communications and landowner rights. I think there is agreement that the prices being paid for rights to install communications apparatus before that date were simply too high. With digital communications becoming an increasingly critical part of our daily lives, that needed to be addressed.

The new pricing regime is more closely aligned to those for utilities such as water, electricity and gas. We think that that is the correct position. As I said earlier today, we are not seeking to take sides. We are on the side of good digital connectivity for our constituents, and we firmly believe that landowners should still receive fair payments that, among other things, take into account any alternative uses that the land may have and any losses or damages that may be incurred. I was alive to the concerns expressed to me by the Protect and Connect campaign, but also to those raised by individual Members about tricky constituency cases. When I came into my role in September, I met individual Members to discuss those cases. I also met Protect and Connect.

I tested the cases that were brought to my attention and asked for further details, which often were not forthcoming. There was a catch-all excuse that a lot of them were under non-disclosure agreements and the precise amount of rents settled at could not be disclosed. My broad view is that there were initial concerns and difficult cases where the mobile network operators were too aggressive in their negotiations—I think that was effectively acknowledged in the panel discussions earlier in the week—but we seem to have found an equilibrium now, helped partly by some of the cases that have gone through the courts.

We now have a body of case law that can be referred to in some of these tricky negotiations. We are also trying to deter people from going to the courts in the first place, by introducing more alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I say that to reassure Members. There were problems initially. As far as I can tell from my case load, the correspondence coming in, the discussions that I have had with Members and the lack of additional noise on the subject in the Chamber, a better equilibrium has now been found between the mobile network operators and the landowners. If that is not the case, I am happy to look at those cases again, and we are introducing mechanisms to provide better negotiations between parties via the legislation.

Turning to the amendment, I am not sure why the hon. Member for Ogmore thinks that a specific limit should be imposed on the percentage by which rent can be reduced when the rental payment is determined by a court. Further, it is unclear why he has chosen arbitrarily to apply a figure of 40%. We have strongly resisted specifically regulating the amount of rent payable under a code agreement. Our preference has been to allow the parties to freely negotiate the amount payable under an agreement, based on a statutory framework either in the code, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Even where the parties cannot reach an agreement and the court has to impose its terms, including the rent to be paid, the court has the freedom to reach its own conclusions using that framework, rather than having its discretion restricted by statutory rent controls. As I said, my understanding is that we now have a much better equilibrium, in that we have amounts of rent that both parties are much more content with.

I understand the concerns about whether this has stymied roll-out. If operators cannot get their infrastructure on to land, I imagine that they would start paying more to try to incentivise landowners to take it on. I think we have also seen cases where it has been in the landowner’s interests to try to drag the process out so that they are on the old rents, rather than the reduced, new rents. I think that has also contributed to some of the delays.

If the amount of rent is controlled in the way suggested in this amendment, we will be heading closer to a regime that will apply reductions on a blanket basis, rather than take into account the broader range of relevant circumstances, as permitted by the legal framework. I suspect that that is something that both site providers and operators would be keen to avoid.

I am aware that it has been alleged that the Government expected rents to fall by in the region of 40% following the 2017 reforms. It is unclear whether it is on that basis that the hon. Member for Ogmore chose the statutory cap of 40% in his amendment. At the time of the 2017 reforms, which I confess predate me, the fact is that the Government were unsure what the level of rent reductions would be. We were clear that that was the case. Independent analysis contained in the impact assessment that accompanied those reforms predicted that reductions could be 40%, but that was never a Government prediction nor a target.

[Julia Lopez]

That certainly is a fair point to make, and I apologise for not picking that up in the hon. Member’s comments.

A cap is likely to be even more detrimental to constituents in rural communities, who will benefit from the increased connectivity and reliability that we hope the Bill will bring.

As I have explained, agreements to which the code applies can currently be renewed in various ways, depending on the type of agreement and where in the UK it was entered into. The intention of clause 61, along with clause 62, is to create a clearer and more consistent legislative framework under which agreements are renewed. Central to that is ensuring that, no matter where in the UK an agreement is renewed, the financial terms are calculated in the same way. That will help to ensure that there is not a digital divide across the UK, with one country receiving additional investment at the expense of others because operating costs are cheaper.

The amendment suggests limiting any reduction in rent that may be imposed by the court when agreements are renewed under the 1954 Act. While that proposal is well intentioned, we do not believe that it should be allowed to proceed. It is vital that there is fairness throughout the UK. The Bill as drafted provides a clear framework, which will not only result in all payments being calculated in the same way, but in the ability to renew agreements quickly and cost-effectively. We think that will expand the digital network.

[Kevin Brennan]

I take what the Minister said about the figure of 40%, but it was contained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, in a previous Government’s impact assessment. I remind her that, when Ministers issue impact assessments, they sign them, as she did with this one, saying:

“I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.”

When her predecessor signed the impact assessment on behalf of the Government to say, “This is the Government’s official view of what is likely to happen,” their official view was that rents would drop, probably by 40%.

[Julia Lopez]

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I also accept that in some cases rent reductions were much greater than expected. As we discussed earlier in the week, some of those were the result of overly aggressive behaviour by mobile network operators. We need to address some of the challenges that were raised by some of the changes that were made. In the body of case law, we now have a better equilibrium between landowners and operators, which should help to address some of those cases.

On some of the more emotive cases that have been raised with me over my tenure, I have sought to understand the details. Those cases are not always as has been presented, and I am led to believe that, in terms of a lot of the initially very difficult cases that came after the 2017 reforms were initially introduced, we are now in a very different place.

It is vital that there is fairness throughout the UK. As drafted, the Bill provides a clear framework that will not only result in all rental payments being calculated in the same way, but in the ability to renew agreements quickly and cost-effectively. We hope that will help us expand the digital network across the whole of our country. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member for Ogmore to withdraw his amendment.

I will now turn to clauses 61 to 65, which deal with the renewal of agreements to which the code applies that have expired or are about to expire. There are several ways in which such agreements can be renewed, depending on the type of agreement and where in the UK it was entered into. The aim of the clauses is to make all the routes to renewal as clear and consistent as possible, so that the process is the same across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

I want to make clear the Opposition’s support for clause 66. From all my conversations with industry, it is quite clear that where there is an unresponsive landowner, it is extremely complicated to then meet the public’s demands. If the Bill is about improving digital activity for all our constituents, particularly in some of the most rural and hard to reach communities—I find it hard to believe that includes my own constituency, but it does—then this is an important and welcome change.

[Kevin Brennan]

Despite the very thorough explanation that the Minister gave of what is a technical clause, I understand what the difference is between something being placed over or under land, but I am not sure what the difference is between something placed over or on land. There must be a technical reason why it is there; does she know the answer to that?

[Julia Lopez]

I think it being on land is a much more intrusive process. For instance, we could be talking about a cable that happens to be going over somebody’s land, and therefore to do something to it would not require a great deal of intrusion. Similarly, if it was the matter of being able to dig at the side of a road, it is technically access land, but only underneath the surface of the land—I hope this makes sense. It is much less intrusive process. I think it is a process that could be objected to far less by a landowner; they are not being asked if somebody can drive over their land, put something unattractive on it or inconvenience them in any way. We are talking about underground works and cabling works that objectively would have no real impact on their land.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Unresponsive occupiers: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 2, in the schedule, page 66, line 17, at end insert—

“(c) in sub-paragraph (8), after “placed on” insert “, under or over”.”

This amendment clarifies that the right mentioned in paragraph 26(8) of the electronic communications code to require the removal of apparatus applies in relation to apparatus placed under or over land.

Amendment 3, in schedule, page 66, line 18, after “sub-paragraph (4)” insert—

“(a) after “placed on” insert “, under or over”;

(b) ”

This amendment clarifies that the right mentioned in paragraph 27G(4) of the electronic communications code to require the removal of apparatus applies in relation to apparatus placed under or over land.

Amendment 4, in the schedule, page 66, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (9).—(Julia Lopez.)

This amendment removes the amendment to paragraph 30(3) of the electronic communications code. The amendment to paragraph 30(3) is unnecessary because paragraph 30(2) would not in any event apply to a code right conferred by virtue of an order under new paragraph 27ZE of the code.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67

Arrangements pending determination of certain applications under code

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

Clause 72 confers on the Secretary of State a power to make any changes to other legislation that are required as a consequence of part 2 of the Bill coming into force. By way of example, changes may be needed to ensure that legislation that references the electronic communications code continues to work correctly after the Bill is passed. The power can be used to amend any legislation. In the case of primary legislation, it is limited to legislation passed or made before the end of the parliamentary Session in which the Bill is passed.

Clause 72 requires that any regulations made using this power that amend or repeal primary legislation be subject to the affirmative procedure. The negative procedure will apply to any other regulations made using this power. Where any changes are required to devolved legislation, the UK Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the wider legislative framework operates as intended. Clause 73 provides a straightforward explanation regarding references in this Bill to the electronic communications code.

[Kevin Brennan]

As the clause impacts the devolved Administrations and gives Ministers the right to interfere with primary legislation that is being passed by the devolved Governments, what consultation there has been with the Senedd, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly about this power of the UK Government?

[Julia Lopez]

We have official-level contact frequently, in case something has to be changed. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have met my counter-parts in the Scottish and Welsh Administrations, including one of his colleagues in the Labour Administration. I will continue to have those meetings, in case changes that would have any meaningful impact are required as a result of the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Power to make transitional or saving provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.