Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[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 Haselhurst]

I should say—by the way, my internet connection is unstable—that I did not mean to make a speech on this amendment nor indeed on the other one that bears my name. I was able to cover the issue in my earlier speech, which was more broad-ranging than on just that particular amendment. All I will add now that you have been good enough to call me, Deputy Chairman, is that the Secretary of State has been left with very wide regulatory powers. This was considered by the Delegated Powers Committee and quite deliberately left in a wide form. I therefore hope that this addition can be made in the fairly near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

I thank noble Lords for their brevity in outlining the purpose of this probing amendment. I shall try to be similarly brief in response.

I certainly welcome the intention behind this amendment—namely, to clarify which premises other than multiple-dwelling buildings such as blocks of flats might be in scope of the Bill and why. The decision initially to include only multiple-dwelling buildings is deliberate. It was informed by careful consideration of the evidence that was made available to us, not least through the consultation that was held before the Bill was drawn up and introduced. That evidence indicated that specifically this type of premises—multiple-dwelling buildings—most needed the sort of targeted intervention that is proposed in the Bill. We were not, by contrast, presented with compelling evidence for other types of property at this stage and certainly not enough to justify legislating at this point. However, we recognise that such evidence might emerge in time and we are mindful that office blocks or business parks, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, mentioned, could face similar issues. We continue to engage with providers and others about this.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked how far our ambition stretches: as far as the evidence suggests. This is why we have included a clear power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations, should they be needed, to widen the scope of the Bill and make it apply to other premises of a specified description. That will allow the Secretary of State to legislate in a flexible and proportionate way, led by the evidence. This approach will allow the Government to continue to engage with interested parties, as well as to consider and balance the evidence that becomes available to us. Crucially, it will also help to guard against any unintended consequences that could arise from widening the scope of the Bill too quickly, before there is sufficient evidence to support doing so.

The noble Lord raised a point about new-build developments. The Government have set out plans to ensure that new-build homes in England are built with gigabit broadband by amending the 2010 building regulations to require developers of new-builds to install the infrastructure necessary to make them gigabit-capable. As we set out in our consultation response published on 17 March this year, the Building Act 1984 contains the necessary primary powers that would mandate the installation of gigabit broadband in new build developments. To include the new-build developments in the Bill in the way proposed by this amendment is therefore unnecessary, and could hamper the simple and proportionate approach we have set out in the consultation response.

I should add that, as housing is a devolved matter, the Government are also working closely with the devolved Administrations on this. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that we have firm proposals in place to address the issues raised, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for his response. I shall be brief. The Minister talked about the absence of overwhelming evidence and said that, if this evidence were to come to light, we would be treated to a statutory instrument in order to implement or extend this Bill. What in the Government’s view is overwhelming evidence? What actually constitutes evidence that people require this? It is quite clear that people living in the wider group of residences as set out by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones want access, so what do they have to do to overwhelm the Government in order to bring forth one of their statutory instruments?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has indicated that he wishes to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for her anatomical explanation of the situation. Large lumps of Victorian and Georgian cityscapes have been converted into a multiplicity of dwellings and flats, many of which are going to find themselves unable, within the definitions of limbs (a) and (b) and the rules set out in the Bill, to request access. Is that correct? There is obviously complicated ownership in all such places: perhaps the need to go through one flat to get to another; there may be leaseholds and freeholds muddled up. However, the point of the Bill should be to get gigabit broadband capacity to as many people as possible, rather than rule out everybody except a very pure clay of candidates. Perhaps the Minister is grasping—albeit eloquently—at the wrong end of this stick.

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for pressing this point. I cannot comment on the specifics of different layouts. As he noted, this is a very complicated area. We have tried to listen to operators on the issue of unresponsive landowners more widely and they have highlighted difficulties where there are owners of third-party land which the operator needs to cross in order to deploy their equipment.

As I said, we are very concerned that the risk of a non-responsive landlord and the operator then getting code rights would be disproportionate and would unbalance the Bill. However, the noble Lord makes a fair point about the spirit of the Bill being to open up access. We certainly share that goal and I will take his points back and consider them further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

I agree with the two previous speakers. The Bill would mean that a landlord could be considered responsive simply by acknowledging the request notice in writing without taking the engagement further. In fact, it is pure territory for what I would call passive-aggressive obfuscation—a serious of meaningless letters going back and forth but leading, in the end, to absolutely nothing. It would mean, in the end, the operator being unable to meet the needs of the potential customer. Frankly, the operators have so many other options at the moment that they would simply walk away and go where it is easier to install, leaving yet another person disfranchised from the digital economy. We have heard from operators that they are identifying landlords who will potentially act in this way.

Again, this is a proving amendment; I thank the noble Lord for moving it. What constitutes a meaningful response that moves this forward? Put simply, a passive-aggressive, obfuscatory approach will mean that, in the end, a bad landlord or a landlord who really does not want to enfranchise their tenants will win.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments, which would require a landlord to respond to the substantive point of the notice—that is, providing access. The amendments seek to examine our thinking on allowing a landlord to remove themselves from the scope of Part 4A simply by responding to the operator’s notice. The Government understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but there is the potential for unintended consequences, if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will forgive me for saying so.

The Bill was created to address the specific problem of the repeatedly unresponsive landlord. That is what telecoms operators have told us is one of the biggest issues they face when it comes to rolling out networks. The Bill was not intended to offer a solution to instances where a landlord may take longer than the operator would like to agree to the terms proposed in their request notices. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, gave the example of the passive-aggressive landlord, but there could be absolutely fair instances where a landlord sends a holding response because they are seeking legal advice. The Bill gives flexibility for that, but its real focus is on incentivising landlords and operators to engage with each other in the first place. We believe that the Bill, as drafted, reflects that crucial distinction.

As was discussed in the debate on previous amendments, we are aware of the challenges that some operators face in reaching agreements with landlords. We have held numerous discussions with a wide range of stakeholders since the implementation of the reforms to the Electronic Communications Code in December 2017, and we continue to do so, but we do not think that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for addressing the wider range of ongoing access issues. Any broader changes to the code would need to be carefully considered and consulted on, but if we saw sufficient evidence that there is a problem, we would of course consider what intervention to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Apologies for skipping over you, Lord Stevenson. We will try the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, again. He is not there. Lord Liddle? We go then to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for introducing this, because it throws up a sort of paradox—although the noble Lord did not mention it—and I am interested to know the Government’s view on it. In certain categories of installation government money is going across either directly or through local authorities into investment in installation and hardware. Are the Government suggesting that state-subsidised and state-supported hardware would not be mandatorily interchangeable?

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Griffiths and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling Amendments 15 and 16. As I have said several times in Committee, the aim of the Bill is to support lessees in occupation to access the services they request from the providers they want. As drafted, we believe the Bill already ensures that they are not locked into services provided by a single provider. Nothing in this Bill prevents a person with an existing gigabit-capable—or indeed any—connection from requesting another service from another network provider. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a provider from requesting code rights from a landlord. If the landlord repeatedly refuses to engage with that provider, then, as we discussed earlier, that provider could apply for a Part 4A order of their own to deliver the service.

I understand that operators may be concerned that certain of their competitors may install their digital infrastructure in such a way as to physically prevent others installing their own. However, we consider that this issue could be better dealt with through the terms of an agreement imposed by a Part 4A order. Those terms are to be specified in regulations made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Noble Lords will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recently considered the Bill and concluded that there was nothing in it to which it wished to draw the House’s attention. Noble Lords may also be aware that that particular regulation-making power is subject to a consultation requirement that is expressly set out in the Bill. This reflects our concern and commitment to get this crucial aspect of the Bill’s practical operation right. The Bill therefore already envisages that the views of interested parties will be invited before the regulations are made.

With each operator undertaking works in a slightly different manner and there being a number of differences between network infrastructures, it is exceptionally difficult to place into primary legislation a requirement for operators to undertake works in a specific way or in a way that cannot easily be circumvented, for example by an operator stating that it was not “reasonably practicable” to select and install apparatus. Furthermore, far from improving competition and access to gigabit services, the amendment may have the unintended consequence of doing the opposite.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the words of my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure in the other place, when he said that much of the cost to operators of connecting premises is in the initial installation. The noble Lord challenged whether this was an anti-competitive statement, if I followed his comments accurately.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

Amendment 17 seeks to remove the 18-month time limit, while Amendment 19 seeks a mechanism that would extend it. Both amendments are guided by the same curiosity. In a sense, what was driving the Government’s objective in including the limit of 18 months? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked, why was the period of 18 months chosen? Why not 20, 16 or 28? What was the economic analysis that arrived at 18 months? In consulting with operators, what was it that any operator said that encouraged the Government to put this clause in? I cannot imagine it was anything, so I can conclude only that it was about what grant is set. We are back on the same balance of the equation in terms of where the Bill balances itself between the granters and the operators, who are essentially the champions of the consumer in this process.

Can the Minister explain what it was that the granters, landlords and owners put to the Government that pushed them into putting in this 18-month time limit? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it will seriously compromise the investment prospects for operators, particularly in difficult or harder-to-reach areas––possibly places like where I come from in Herefordshire. Why would an operator invest huge sums of money without any security, knowing that in 18 months’ time that investment could be written down to zero? These amendments together are all part of the same spirit of inquiry. What was the Government’s thinking when this was included in the Bill?

[Baroness Barran]

I thank noble Lords for tabling Amendments 17 and 18. I will do my best to address the very valid points raised.

I will clarify the intention of the amendments. Amendment 17 seeks to examine the rationale for placing a maximum time period of 18 months for the interim code rights granted under a Part 4A order in the Bill. Amendment 18 would require the Government to consult on the maximum time period for which the interim code rights should last. I want to highlight, in response particularly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that the Government have already consulted on the principle that there should be a period during which code rights arising from this Bill should last.

In the original consultation for this policy in October 2018, we proposed that these rights should be enjoyed until an agreement was reached with a landowner. A number of responses to that consultation made compelling arguments that we should consider imposing a maximum time limit. This was to ensure that operators continued to engage with landowners to try to reach a permanent agreement, and to ensure that the important balance of rights was maintained. I hope noble Lords agree that an indefinite time period could risk being open to abuse, deliberate or otherwise, and importantly potentially leave both landowners and operators with great uncertainty.

It was never the intention that this process should replace the existing process under the code, by which an operator can apply to the court to have permanent code rights imposed. That process requires the judiciary to carefully consider the merits of the case before it, and to make a judgment on which rights should be imposed, and potentially any compensation or consideration to be paid. The process envisaged under a Part 4A order requires the judiciary––in this case, the First-tier Tribunal––to be satisfied that the evidential requirements laid out in the Bill have been met.

This leads us to the maximum 18-month time limit that we have settled on. Following consultation and subsequent stakeholder engagement with representatives of operators and landowners, they informed us that, in practice, when a landowner does not respond to requests for access, if an operator continues to make attempts to engage, the majority of landowners will eventually respond within approximately 12 months. Setting a slightly longer time period gives the operator a degree of flexibility. Another reason for the decision to set the time limit for the Part 4A interim code rights at 18 months was to provide certainty to consumers. Most consumer broadband contracts last for either 12, 18 or 24 months. Placing the time limit at 18 months, depending on the speed with which the operator can enter the property after a successful application, will allow consumers to enter into a standard contract for either 12 or 18 months, enjoy the special discounts offered by retail broadband providers for those taking out such fixed-term deals, and be confident that their service will be uninterrupted for its full duration.

I ask your Lordships to note that the Bill contains a clear power to make regulations to specify the period for which code rights arising from the making of a Part 4A order are to last. New paragraph 27G(3) of the code, as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill, makes clear that the specified period is to be no more than 18 months, and it will be for the regulations made under that power to specify the period itself.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this demonstrates that we have thought carefully and listened hard to all stakeholders about how long interim code rights should be imposed for, and that it was our consultation in the first place that informed our current position. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for her answer; I felt the language was revealing. Perhaps I am confused and the legislation has confused me, but the way in which she described the process was as if she was trying to calm down someone who did not want this to happen, rather than encourage someone who did. “No more than”, “a maximum of”—this is language that I would use if I were trying to pacify someone who did not want this to happen, which perhaps is what is happening. She mentioned that there had been a number of responses that led to the 18-month period being adopted. Perhaps she could indicate, without revealing exactly who those responses were from, which sector they came from—was it the operators, or was it landowners and potential granters of this technology?

I think that to use legislative nit-picking, if the Minister will excuse the phrase, to unseat probing amendments such as Amendment 19 is a little below the belt. The idea is not to complete a work of drafting genius; it is to get the Government to commit time to produce something that instils some flexibility into the Bill and provides an opportunity to extend things when they need to be extended and puts the courts and due process, if noble Lords will excuse the phrase, in place in order for that to happen.

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. Just to clarify, I am sorry if the language sounded pacifying. The noble Lord will remember that in an earlier amendment I talked about the spirit of the Bill being about incentivising communication between landowners and operators. The aim of this is to bring clarity and certainty to all involved, including consumers.

In the consultation we had responses from landowners and local authorities. The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that some who responded thought this was too short a period and some that it was too long, so this feels like a bit of a Goldilocks moment. There is a balance to be struck between the flexibility that the noble Lord rightly points to and clarity and certainty. Based on the consultation responses that we received, we hope that we have achieved that balance.