Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
Lord Clement-Jones
Main Page: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Clement-Jones's debates with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill
Lord Clement-Jones ExcerptsTuesday 19th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 107-I Marshalled list for Virtual Committee - (14 May 2020)
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that tenanted premises are included under the provisions of this bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, but at the same time I will make some general comments on the Bill. I should explain that my noble friend Lord Fox will be present and making his general comments in the second session but, for the Chair’s benefit, will not be present at the proceedings until then.
It is rare to have the opportunity to hear both Ministers’ speeches at Second Reading before delivering my own take on the Bill, so there may be some advantages in our new Committee procedure.
As to the subject matter of the Bill, the Covid-19 lockdown has shown how dependent we all are on good, fast, resilient broadband. Indeed, it is clear from the inability of many MPs and Peers to contribute to Virtual Proceedings how woeful broadband is in some areas. Moreover, recent international comparisons show that we are 81st when it comes to value for money in broadband service internationally, so we need to move forward quickly. In her Second Reading speech, the Minister said that only 12% of UK properties currently had access to full-fibre connections, but the status of the Government’s intentions regarding delivery of a one-gigabit-capable service is unclear. From what the Minister said at Second Reading, this will happen “as soon as possible”, but that hardly matches the Prime Minister’s pledge during his leadership campaign of 100% fibre to the home by 2025 or the Conservative manifesto commitment.
What is the target? What is the strategy now? Is it 1 Gbps by any appropriate technology by 2025? We need a firm date and a clear plan. What is the relationship to the rollout of 5G? Indeed, are changes to the current, extraordinarily low universal service obligation of 10 Mbps contemplated? Superfast, namely 30 Mbps, broadband availability reached 95% of UK properties as of February 2018. Surely the USO, albeit new, needs upgrading to 25 or 30 Mbps from the current 10 as quickly as possible. We currently have an impossibly low bar.
When it comes to infrastructure spending, we also need a target of GDP percentage spending. What actual investment are the Government making in 1G rollout? What do they expect the private sector to make? The Commons briefing paper on the Bill highlighted the fact that the May Government’s future telecoms infrastructure review estimated that the national rollout of full-fibre broadband would require a total investment in the region of £30 billion. This Government have allocated £5 billion to tackle the hardest-to-reach 20% of UK premises, but there are no details yet of how that funding will be used.
There are several existing funding programmes for full fibre, launched under the May Government, including two voucher schemes to subsidise full-fibre connections to rural premises and small and medium-sized businesses. What is the status of these? How are the Government avoiding unnecessary duplication in the rollout of full fibre to the home? How will Ofcom’s determination that there will be market competition in some areas, prospective competition in others and non-competition in yet others work? Is the division into three types of area now agreed as the settled way of doing this?
Private sector plans are extensive. Openreach has committed to deliver full fibre to 4 million premises by March 2021 for its Fibre First programme; Virgin Media plans to reach 4 million premises by the end of 2019-20 as part of its Project Lightning network expansion, which includes a mix of full-fibre and cable broadband; Hyperoptic plans to expand its network to cover 2 million homes by 2021; and CityFibre, in partnership with Vodafone, has plans to roll out full fibre to 1 million UK homes and businesses by 2021.
However, the Government clearly need to will the means by breaking down the barriers to installing these networks. Generally, let us not forget that the PM described Theresa May’s Government’s target to build a UK-wide full-fibre network by 2033 as “laughably unambitious” and we must hold him to that statement. Indeed, many would give that description to this Bill. The future telecoms infrastructure review made it clear that a wide package of legislative and regulatory reform is needed to support the industry to deliver full fibre at scale across the UK. The industry says that it can meet the Government’s 2025 target only if public policy and regulatory decisions are made quickly to support rapid investment and rollout.
The Bill will go some way to address the challenges currently faced by network builders in connecting people living in flats and apartment blocks if they cannot identify, or do not receive a response to requests for access from, the building owner. According to Openreach, 76% of these MDUs—multi-dwelling units—miss out on initial efforts to deploy fibre because of challenges in gaining access. Up to 10 million people live in these properties across the UK. Even in this respect, the Bill should go further to provide greater flexibility for network operators. It should allow operators—not just tenants—to trigger the provisions. The time limit of 18 months within which the new rights would apply should not be on the face of the Bill. There should be a more specific requirement on landlords to engage with operators under the new process which the Bill establishes.
Ultimately, however, even if we made these amendments, should not broadband operators be treated as a utility and the operators given the same rights of entry that others—such as electricity companies—have under the Electricity Act 1989? The deployment of new 5G networks as well as fixed fibre should also be a focus. Surely, the 1 gigabit per second commitment is technology-neutral, but in other respects the Bill is deficient. What about other forms of wayleave, in particular in rural areas and commercial property such as business parks?
Why do we not see legislation for a complete rollout strategy? For instance, legislation on gigabit broadband infrastructure for new-build properties was promised in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech. Broadband operators also cite skilled labour shortages. What is the plan to overcome these? Is Ofcom now satisfied that adequate protection is in place for consumers, particularly as to the cost of services during the transition from copper networks to VoIP services?
Despite criticism of the wayleave situation, are the Government simply going to rely on their street works toolkit—which provides practical guidance for managing street and road works—for the deployment of broadband infrastructure, rather than the digital champions in local authorities that the National Infrastructure Commission recommended? Are the Government and Ofcom generally satisfied that their reforms to allow Openreach’s ducts and poles have been effective? Why does the business rates exemption apply only to laying new fibre and not to upgrading—in other words, substituting full fibre for copper?
The Minister outlined the Government’s intentions regarding the timing and content of a telecoms security Bill. On these Benches, we agree that that will be the appropriate time and occasion to discuss amendments relating to high-risk vendors. This is a very modest Bill, which raises so many questions about the Government’s strategy and their ability to deliver it. These cannot be addressed by responses alone to the detailed amendments which have been laid. I hope that the Minister will attempt to respond.
On the substance of the amendments, I hope that they are to some extent self-explanatory, so I will be brief. Surely the current wording of the Bill with regard to lessees creates considerable uncertainty as to whether tenants who do not hold a lease are covered. Conventionally, lawyers describe the areas of law covering contracts for the occupation of land as landlord and tenant law. So it would have been entirely understandable if the reference had been to tenants throughout, but this way around, where “lessees” are intended to encompass tenants, does create uncertainty.
What is the position of a tenancy at will or a renewable tenancy, which are not covered by the documentation of a lease as such? There are considerable distinctions between a tenancy and a lease in general parlance. A lease will normally have some kind of capital value attached to it on assignment. A tenancy, under a rental agreement, will be very unlikely to have that. I hope that the Minister can give a full answer on the legal point, including any legal authority. This will be important for any future interpretation purposes if a Pepper v Hart situation arises, as I suspect it may.
The words I have just spoken apply to Amendments 1, 3 and 4. Amendment 5 is seemingly small, but it is important. Why does a lessee have to be in occupation? What if it is a second home or a sublet? Does that disqualify a lessee from being able to invoke the Electronic Communications Code? This gives rise to many questions. Why should a lessee have to be in occupation? I very much hope the Minister will be able to answer that question. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for his further questions. To cover the point about Openreach, the noble Lord will be aware that on 15 May the Financial Times suggested that BT was considering the sale of a stake in Openreach to potential buyers, including Macquarie. Officials spoke to BT last week, which confirmed that this was inaccurate. Both Openreach and Macquarie sources have also publicly told the press that this is inaccurate. On his wider point, if the Government became aware that Openreach did not have the capacity to deliver on our target, we would obviously reconsider how best to meet it, but I am not in a position to be able to give any more detail here.
I will also correct something. I hope noble Lords did not understand me to say that potential delays in rollout from the impact of Covid-19 are only short term. At the moment, we understand some of the short-term impacts and we hope we will be able to absorb them, but given that none of us has a crystal ball on how this will all unwind, I wanted to clarify that for the record.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, implied, it was ironic that we were talking about fast, reliable, resilient broadband, in the Minister’s words, yet she is the one who has principally suffered from not having it in the course of the debate. I thank her anyway, and I look forward to the letter she will send, which might be a little bit clearer than the reception we had for her response.
I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendments. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, brought out some of the real issues associated with getting the wording wrong. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, that there is nothing wrong with Liberal with a large “L”. We might want to see the ECC interpreted with a large “L”, not just a small one.
I felt the Minister really did not start off on the right foot when talking about the actual aim—the Government’s objectives. I understand that there may be some delay as a result of Covid-19, but the target was set out in the Conservative manifesto. We have not really had a pledge on that. We have had “as soon as possible”—I think that that was in the Minister’s speech last time—but no pledge that that is the objective and that all the Government’s sinews are being strained to achieve it. That is what we want to see.
On the amendments, we are back to the question of access. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, got this right. It is about absolute access for various types of occupier. We should be treating this as a utility. We cannot be talking about this in 19th-century property terms. It is as if we were at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, when people were arguing about whether electricity should be installed in their houses. Broadband should take its place alongside gas, electricity and water as an essential utility and we should give suitable powers of access to do that.
I look forward to the letter from the Minister but to say that my amendments affect the clarity of the drafting of the wider Bill is almost laughable, because the drafting of the Bill is not clear. The use of the term “lessee”, which excludes quite a number of different types of occupation and tenancy—as has been pointed out—is not adequate. We do not just have a legal issue; we have a clear access fault line about how we treat broadband and its essential nature. We are going to have have-nots who are not able to benefit from the ECC and that will be greatly regretted, not least by those who are unable to access the kind of service that the Minister herself would like. I do not necessarily take on board the arguments about unintended consequences and occupation. One is being over-cautious in the way that the Bill has been put together, but that is a characteristic of the Bill as a whole. We will, no doubt, come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is listed to speak next but I believe does not wish to contribute at this stage. I therefore move on to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I absolutely support what the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Livermore, said on this matter. A lot of what we are trying to achieve with our comments on the Bill—clearly there is a great deal of commonality here—is to get the Government to state very clearly what their objectives are and how they will achieve them. This is a very well-worded amendment designed to do just that, so that the operators must commit to a one-gigabit-capable broadband commitment. Amendment 21, when we come to it, has a very similar intention.
The problem is that we seem to be faced with a really slippery objective that we cannot quite get our hands on; the Government have not quite committed to it. We really need to see proper commitment from the Government to full access to the one-gigabit-capable broadband which they absolutely promised in their manifesto. At the moment, there seem to be an awful lot of get-out clauses. That is not satisfactory. We will keep arguing through this Bill for a proper commitment to the one-gigabit-capable broadband promised at the last general election.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, I will now respond to Amendment 2 and the points raised by noble Lords.
This amendment would limit the use of the powers contained in Part 4A only to operators installing gigabit-capable services. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stressed, the spirit of this amendment is to test the Government’s commitment to providing gigabit-capable broadband. I am obviously disappointed that he found insufficient the remarks of my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure in the other place.
The Government remain completely committed to bringing faster, gigabit-capable broadband to the whole country as soon as possible. Our ambition remains nationwide coverage by 2025. However, we do not believe that we should force consumers to take out specific services.
Clause 1, as currently drafted, supports our ambition. It provides a bespoke process in the courts that will allow an operator faced with a landowner of a premises within the scope of this Bill who repeatedly fails to respond to notices, and a tenant waiting for a service to be connected, to gain interim code rights for the purpose of connecting that building to their broadband service. To limit provision only to services
“that can deliver an average download speed of at least one gigabit per second”
runs the risk, particularly in the short term, of limiting access to better broadband, which, as all noble Lords have agreed, is extremely important.
This Bill, like the Electronic Communications Code, which it amends, is technology neutral and therefore speed neutral. It makes no distinction between the type of service being deployed but recognises the consumer’s right to choose the service they want from the provider they want. Of course, many consumers will want the speed, reliability and resilience offered by full-fibre or gigabit-capable connections, and it should not be the role of government to limit their ability to choose.
In a similar vein, although gigabit-capable services are being rolled out across the UK, they are not yet being deployed everywhere. In practice, the amendment would mean that households in areas yet to be reached by gigabit-capable networks would have to wait—maybe for a long period—even though a superfast or ultrafast service might already be available. Our experience and current practice suggest that an operator would be very unlikely to install outdated technology, and therefore such a delay would be unnecessary and extremely frustrating for consumers.
Finally, were this amendment to form part of the Bill, we consider that it would not have the effect intended by noble Lords. It amends paragraph 27A, which is an introductory provision and explains in very general terms what Part 4A of the code does. The amendment in itself does not amend any of the Bill’s substantive provisions, such as paragraph 27B of the code. Its drafting would not therefore operate within the rest of the Bill.
I understand what noble Lords are seeking to achieve in tabling the amendment. The Government absolutely share the aspiration of achieving gigabit-capable broadband across the whole country, but it is important that the Bill, and the Electronic Communications Code more widely, stay technology neutral for the sake of the consumer’s right to choose and to ensure that we do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the universal service obligation, which is the safety net that we legislated for and which went live on 20 March. It ensures that everyone across the UK has a clear and enforceable right to request high-speed broadband of at least 10 megabits a second from a designated provider and up to a reasonable cost threshold of £3,400. We keep the speed and quality parameters of the USO under review all the time to make sure that it keeps pace with consumers’ evolving needs, and our officials work closely with Ofcom regarding the implementation of the universal service obligation.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Stevenson has said. I do not understand the Government’s problem with giving operators this right. There is clearly a planning benefit, in terms of efficiency, in giving them the right to look at the problems area by area and to identify where additional provision needs to be made in order to promote a universal service. I just do not see why the Government want to deny us this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who is correct in saying that the purport of our amendment, Amendment 8, is very similar. I was struck by the Minister’s implying that, if we are not careful, consumers will be forced to take a service. That is not the situation. What we want to do, as far as possible, is to facilitate the laying of fibre across 100% of the country. Consumers can well make up their own minds about whether to enter into a consumer contract. We need, as far as we can, to facilitate the operators in what they do. Just as with electricity—we have had several references to the utilities aspect—people should have access to this. I cannot understand why the Government are not making a distinction between laying the infrastructure and then entering into consumer contracts for the supply of internet services; the distinction is readily understood.
I accept that the Bill introduces a new process for operators to gain access in cases where a tenant has requested a service and the landlord is unresponsive. This will, of course, be helpful for deployment but it depends on a tenant requesting a service rather than supporting the proactive laying of cable ahead of individual customer requests. That means that operators’ teams may not be able to access buildings in areas where operators are currently building, or plan to build, so they will be less effective in supporting rapid deployment. That is what the Bill is ostensibly about: facilitating the deployment of fibre. The most efficient building process is when operators can access all premises in a given area, rather than having to return to them when a building team may have moved many miles away.
Operators say that if they were able to trigger this process without relying on a tenant request for service, they would be able to plan and execute deployment much more efficiently—in effect, proactively building in these MDUs at the point where their engineering teams are in place, rather than waiting for a tenant to request a service. Both these amendments are pure common sense; I hope that the Minister will accept them.
Baroness Barran
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for tabling these amendments, which would allow telecommunications operators to apply to the courts for a Part 4A order without requiring a “lessee in occupation” in the property making a request for a service. I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but we are concerned that both have the potential to undermine the balance between the rights of the landowner, the rights of the operator and the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to our comments in the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review but we then consulted publicly on the policy in this Bill. What is here in the Bill reflects the outcome of that consultation. The Bill, like the rest of the Electronic Communications Code, was designed to create a fair and balanced framework to underpin the relationships between telecoms operators and landowners. We believe that it works because it is balanced and gives the interests of all sides careful consideration. We believe the Bill continues that balance. Where a landowner is unresponsive, for whatever reason, it is important to ensure that an interest other than that of the operator is being considered by granting an order which potentially impinges on an individual’s property rights.
This is the reason for the requirement that the lessee in occupation of the property actively requests that a telecommunications service be delivered. This is integral to the policy. This request is an unequivocal demonstration that the interests of parties other than the operator alone are reflected and goes to the heart of the Bill’s carefully crafted work, taking into account and balancing the respective interests of tenants, landowners and operators. Some network operators may well welcome the freedom of being able to judge for themselves what is and is not in the public interest and the ability to gain access to a property simply by proposing to make a service available. That freedom is what these amendments would give them. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that without any accompanying constraint on such a freedom, such a system could be capable of being abused, and that is a risk the Government are not willing to accept.
I am also mindful that these amendments would mark a significant shift from the policy that was consulted on, and that is something to be particularly cautious of when dealing with issues around property rights. With that in mind, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I will speak to Amendments 9 and 14, but, as I did not speak at Second Reading and before I get to Amendment 9, it is important to set out some context.
I am pleased to see that both Houses are now focusing on business other than the current virus crisis. We have already been reminded today that our democracy is dependent on fast and reliable broadband, and we have seen the struggles that some of us have had with that. Therefore, fast and reliable broadband connectivity has become a national utility and something that people should expect as a right.
It is right that we pay tribute to all those who have kept that national utility going in the past few weeks, as we rely more and more on wi-fi, broadband and mobile connectivity. Although the people who have kept such critical national services going are perhaps not often referred to as key workers, I think that they should be included as such. They have connected loved-ones in hospitals, often at the worst possible time in anyone’s life, and provided online access to education—the subject of a wider debate. They have enabled online appointments for doctors working from home, which is a working pattern that is likely to continue, and family harmony—if anything is to be taken from the example of how much time my 12 year-old spends on his Xbox.
Therefore, the Prime Minister and the Government were right to make a clear commitment to gigabit connectivity nationwide by 2025, and it is important that Ministers stick with that target. I know from my time as Culture Secretary just how personally committed the Prime Minister is to this. Having that target of 2025 should concentrate minds both within government and outside in terms of those responsible for the rollout. I hope that there will be no let-up in making sure that the target is achieved.
Having better connectivity across the country is part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. It will also be part of necessary infrastructure spend, which will be very important in getting our economy moving after at least the first wave of the current crisis has passed and we can see how much work needs to be done to get our economy restarted.
This Bill is an important part of removing all barriers to faster broadband rollout. As we have heard, it is about accessing premises where leaseholders want better broadband. In a similar vein, I know that the department is working on removing other barriers to deployment. Another important step will be making sure that all new-build developments have broadband connectivity points installed right from the start so that people do not have to move into new homes or new business premises only to find that they cannot get better connectivity.
This is a short and focused Bill. That is why I argue today that Amendments 9 and 14, although very important—as we have heard, noble Lords feel very strongly about the issues under discussion—are not right for this Bill. I know that the Secretary of State made a commitment in the other place to bring forward a telecoms security Bill, but obviously he was speaking before the events of the last few weeks. The commitment was to bring forward such a Bill before the Summer Recess, although I think we all appreciate that the legislative timetable has been somewhat disrupted. However, we can see from the debates so far on these amendments that there is a real appetite both in this House and in the other place to have these discussions.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that the decision to allow high-risk vendors to play a limited role in our national connectivity was not an easy one, and it certainly was not rushed through. It stemmed from years of looking at this situation, particularly the telecoms supply chain review conducted by my predecessor in the culture department, but I do think it was the right decision. I will talk about the Statement that I made in the House in January—not in March, as I think she said.
We need faster, better and resilient broadband. That is why having a number of key suppliers at this time is important, so that the infrastructure can be relied upon. It is also right, as I said in the Statement to the House on 28 January, that diversification of the suppliers’ market is important. We must not, as a country, find ourselves in this position again when we have to make difficult decisions about high-risk vendors. I understand the noble Baroness’s amendment but, as I say, the Government’s approach and the decision made at the National Security Council are right, not easy. I therefore hope that we will return to this important subject at a future date on a future Bill. Putting a hard deadline of the end of 2022 on it, although again understandable, also risks the wrong decisions being made and potentially a less resilient broadband network being rolled out across the country. That really will help no one in the longer term.
A full technical and security analysis was undertaken by GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre. Its view and advice were central to the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review and the decisions taken off the back of that. Just as a reminder, the UK Government’s approach is obviously to have a new telecoms security regime, which we will discuss in that future Bill, to diversify the supply chain. Although subject to the current crisis, of course, work should begin to start on that. It is very important that we work with our allies around the world on that supply chain to ensure that it is more diverse. However, we will put ourselves on the back foot if we ignore any key suppliers at the moment.
The third condition was the most important: we have to be clear about what makes a vendor high risk and have clear rules and guidance on how we mitigate the many cyber risks to our telecoms networks. We know that cyber risks come from a variety of sources. As I mentioned in that Statement, the most recent cybersecurity risks have come from Russia, and the Russians play no part in our telecoms infrastructure at all.
I said in the House back in January that
“high-risk vendors should be excluded from all safety-related and safety-critical networks in critical national infrastructure; excluded from security-critical network functions; limited to a minority presence in other network functions up to a cap of 35%; and be subjected to tight restrictions, including exclusions from sensitive geographic locations.”
I noted what the noble Baroness said about the answer that I gave to her back in January. I will certainly check the 2013 report again, but I also ask her to check the words that I used about the most sensitive networks. It is clear, as I also said in the Statement, that
“nothing in the review affects this country’s ability to share highly sensitive intelligence data over highly secure networks, both within the UK and with our partners, including the Five Eyes. GCHQ has categorically confirmed that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we share classified data. The UK’s technical security experts have agreed that the new controls on high-risk vendors are completely consistent with the UK’s security needs.”—[Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1340.]
Given the current crisis, there will be time for a full-scale evaluation of the relationship between the UK and China. I should make it clear that companies such as Huawei could help their cause if they encouraged the Chinese Government to participate fully in any global inquiries, particularly into how the current coronavirus crisis was started.
We also need to be clear about the motivations of some who are objecting to the use of high-risk vendors and want to set dates. As we have heard in this debate but also in the other place, there are many different motivations. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just set out a very powerful case in relation to human rights, and I hope that will be part of a future debate. There are of course issues of security and intelligence sharing, but there are also those who use this particular concern and debate to advance other geopolitical strategies: namely, the successful conclusion of a UK-US trade agreement. The US has strong feelings about Huawei’s involvement, as we have seen in recent developments. We need to be very clear, and the Government were very clear in January, that we were making a decision about the involvement of high-risk vendors on the basis of what was right for the UK.
I hope that the House will not want to see this amendment in the Bill, but it is clear that we must return to this issue in the Bill. It is right that we hold the Government to account over the diversification strategy so that, as I say, that we are not in this position in any further future telecom supply chain decisions that we might have to make.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we have heard some passionate speeches today, but, truth be told, this infrastructure Bill is about much more mundane matters. It is all about rights for operators getting access to install fibre broadband in order to achieve faster broadband rollout, not vendors or their equipment, or indeed high-risk vendors or their equipment, so we on these Benches do not believe that this is the appropriate time or place to discuss these amendments. Quite apart from that, the amendment deals with 5G infrastructure content and leads to our strong view that this debate is not appropriate now but will be when the telecom security Bill comes forward.
I do not say this very often, but I agree with the Government’s view on this, as expressed by the letter of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. That will be the right peg for the noble Baroness’s amendments, and we should debate the substance then. For that reason, I am not going to engage with the substance of many of the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, in moving these amendments or indeed those of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
The background is that, despite earlier speculation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, after some considerable consideration the Government made their Statement in January 2020 and said that Huawei would continue to play a limited role in delivering the 5G rollout. As she said, that decision took into account analysis and insight from several security bodies and experts in the UK, including GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre, and she explained the reasoning very clearly.
On these amendments specifically, there is of course a problem in the operators being given the right to install equipment from high-risk vendors now but ahead of a deadline set in future. Will that fibre have to be removed? What level of use by a telecoms operator and Huawei is sufficient—that its network supports connections from Huawei phones, or that it uses Huawei equipment in its 5G network but not in its fibre installation? What about a company that installs fibre under this legislation but then sells the infrastructure to another company? Why should operators be forced to develop plans to remove high-risk vendors on the advice of the NCSC when that advice is that the risk can be accepted up to a 35% network cap? Do companies now have to submit plans to reach 0% but without any expectation of that actually being implemented?
All this adds up to enormous uncertainty just at the point when we need the maximum rollout of fibre and 5G. That is why the Government are right in their approach—as I said, I do not say that very often—when they say that the issue of wayleads in the Bill should be kept separate from security considerations that will be covered by the telecoms security Bill.
For the information of the House, I do not underestimate the substantive arguments. I considered these matters very carefully myself some 10 years ago. I was a member of Huawei’s international advisory board, but I think that gives me a useful insight into these matters rather than any conflict in the current circumstances. I hope we can debate all these issues at a future date, but not in this Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(aa) form part of a building used as the premises for one or multiple businesses or organisations,(ab) form part of a purpose-built retirement development,(ac) form part of a new building completed after the period of one year after the passing of this Act, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include office blocks, retirement developments and new builds in the scope of the bill.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, because I believe Amendment 10 is fairly self-explanatory. It includes many of the other premises that operators would like to see included in the Bill. For instance, legislation on gigabit broadband infrastructure for new-build properties was promised in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, yet we have seen no evidence of it.
What is the difference between blocks and, say, a purpose-built retirement development that needs access to full-fibre broadband? This has been brought home to us more than ever in the past few weeks. Take business premises, such as business parks. Those kinds of development are absolutely crying out for the kind of operator access provided for by this Bill.
The purpose of this—clearly a probing—amendment is to see how far the Government’s ambition stretches. I have criticised this Bill on the grounds of lack of ambition to date, but it would be nice to hear from the Minister that the Government’s ambitions stretch rather further. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. This is a simple amendment, but if the Government are sincere in their ambition to roll out broadband to the widest possible number of people —in fact to everyone—it has to be grasped. It is all very well taking about a limited set of multi-occupancy buildings, but without this amendment that set is very limited. In brief, I support this amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why this was not in the Bill in the first place and perhaps an undertaking to solve that in time for Report.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, we have tried to strike a balance in the Bill so far between the requirements and the desires of providers and of course the rights of those owning property. At the moment, the evidence suggests that there is a distinction between multiple residential dwellings––where the owner of the building is perhaps not as easily contactable or is not responding––and business parks, for instance, whose owners seem to be more alert to requests from providers and are therefore responding in a more timely fashion to requests. However, if the evidence suggests that they are not, then the secondary power proposed in the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make provisions and bring forward some statutory instrument to extend the Bill in this way, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to my noble friend Lord Fox, for which I am grateful. The fact is that the Government have actually got the wrong mindset on this. This is not some precious commodity to be supplicated for by a group of property tenants or lessees. This is absolutely a utility, as we have debated and discussed throughout the relatively short period of this Committee.
That shows the poverty of ambition behind the Bill and, in a sense, behind the 1-gigabit strategy put forward by the Government. We should allow 1 gigabit to be laid by operators in all those places. Small businesses, almost more than ordinary consumers, are in desperate need of good connectivity. As we have seen, online business is now absolutely crucial, yet many business parks do not have proper connectivity.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
The Government are certainly very ambitious regarding the provision of sufficiently fast broadband for everybody. As mooted earlier in the proceedings, the current situation, with so many people working from home and relying on the internet to communicate with their loved ones, underlines its vital importance. We aim to lay the regulations as soon as possible, but I will be happy to write to noble Lords with further details of when they will come into effect.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Therefore, as yet the regulations are not in place and, as yet, there is no new-build obligation. We very much look forward to the Minister’s letter setting that out. I hope that there will be a sense of urgency, because the regulations were promised last year in the Conservative Party manifesto, and of course there is a great expectation that the manifesto will be fulfilled.
I thank the Minister for some of his clarifications. I keep urging the Government to be more ambitious but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement for land to be held in common ownership with the target premises.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, again, I shall be extremely brief in the hope of eliciting a positive and ambitious reply from the Minister. This measure will inevitably be frustrating for operators because the current changes to the ECC allow access only where land is held in common ownership with the target premises. If we are not careful, in many cases that will be a barrier to the proper laying of cable.
To refer back to the Minister’s previous reply, I do not know what the evidence is but operators who have approached us on this question think that it is an important aspect. They may well need to access third-party land across multiple fields, for example, and it will help deployment, particularly in rural areas. That is where we are most mindful of the difficulties—where you cannot get a direct connection and you have to cross a field or other property which belongs to a third party and not the owner of the premises involved.
I would be very grateful to hear from the Minister just what the Government’s evidence has been and what the response to the consultation was, and why they have not managed to include this very sensible provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. For one nightmarish moment, when she started talking about connected land, limb A, limb B and so on, I thought that I was returning to a land law viva circa 1971, but this was all in aid of explaining that it is not possible to do anything as far as 27B(3) is concerned. For one delirious moment, I thought she was going to say that the definition meant that my objections had been covered, but of course that was not to be. I understand where she is coming from, but I suspect we are again back into the language of unintended consequences which has been so freely bandied about. I congratulate the Minister on her restraint in not using that phrase in response to this, because this is about landowners’ rights.
Given the extensive compensation rights set out in the ECC, which are amended as part of today’s Bill, it seems to me that the boot is on the wrong foot. If we are really talking about opening up, which the Minister mentioned was a function of this Bill, then surely it is important that we get this right. What I will take as an invitation from the Minister, and I think the operators should too, is that evidence may emerge. If operators can actually demonstrate that there are issues with this kind of connected land, which is not in common ownership and therefore does not fall within 27B(3), they should try to demonstrate that beyond peradventure at the earliest possible opportunity. The representations that my noble friend Lord Fox and I—and clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—have received suggest that this is a major issue which will slow down deployment.
Whatever the solution—again, the Minister seemed to give some encouragement that thought is being given to this—I very much hope that the Government will continue to think about this and come up with a satisfactory solution. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
