UK Parliament / Open data

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

These changes build on the changes of 2017, so we do not expect there to be such an impact, because there is not such a change for the market.

We think it is too simplistic to attribute the changes in the market since 2017 solely to the valuation framework. The reforms in 2017 also made it easier for operators to share equipment, which will have reduced the demand for new mast sites to be built. Of course, we all hope that there will not be disruptive effects of a pandemic, as we have seen in the years since 2017.

Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asks the Government to conduct an implementation review of the Act after it is brought into force. However, we believe including such a requirement in the legislation is not necessary. The Government will of course monitor the effect of this legislation to understand how it is working in practice. Requiring an assessment at a specific time and which is focused on such specific elements would fetter the Government’s ability to judge when a meaningful review of progress can most sensibly be completed and what information it should include. I am happy to reassure my noble friend Lady Stowell that of course we want to monitor the effect of this legislation and to see and understand how it is working in practice.

Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, seeks to impose duties on telecommunications operators to provide a variety of annual data to Ofcom. It must be remembered that imposing reporting obligations on the industry necessarily diverts resources away from delivering the very targets that the Government have challenged them to deliver and on which noble Lords are rightly pressing us for progress. Any such obligations must therefore be proportionate.

The Communications Act 2003 already gives Ofcom substantial powers to collect and publish data. Procedures are therefore in place to monitor the progress that is being made and to ensure that details of this progress are published. For example, licence obligations for the shared rural network require mobile network operators to report on coverage and the number of new sites built through the programme. Operators also provide Ofcom with information on the geographic availability of coverage to enable consumers to make informed decisions. This is all data that is, or will be, published in Ofcom’s Connected Nations report.

10.15 pm

The amendment refers to a number of specific reporting requirements, but I will focus now on those relating to the valuation regime. In general, we believe that any obligation to publish details of amounts paid to site providers would be inappropriate. The point has been made repeatedly that we expect agreements between operators and site providers to be reached on a consensual basis wherever possible. Those negotiations will reflect site-specific considerations. Publishing data on average rents paid has the potential to undermine effective negotiations, setting expectations that may be entirely unrealistic given the different circumstances that will inevitably arise. That is why we think it would be unhelpful to introduce an obligation of this nature into the Bill.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for their Amendment 48, which would require the Government to publish a rollout strategy. We agree that the issues highlighted in this amendment are of vital importance to national connectivity, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss some of our ongoing strategic work in these areas.

Telecommunications infrastructure may be divided into two types, wireless and fixed, and I shall begin with the former. The Government are currently developing a wireless infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term vision to support the development, deployment and adoption of 5G and future wireless networks, and lay out the Government’s aims for the availability of wireless connectivity. This will entail setting a new ambition for the deployment of 5G to ensure that the UK can reap its full benefits. In the spirit of public consultation, development of this strategy included a call for evidence, and we aim to publish the strategy itself later this year. That is not all we are doing on wireless connectivity, and I would be very happy to speak to noble Lords in further detail about it if they would like me to do so.

I turn to the Government’s work on fixed infrastructure. As many noble Lords will know, the 2018 Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review set out the Government’s strategy to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable broadband as quickly as possible. The review creates a regulatory environment that stimulates competition and investment in the market while busting the barriers to deployment and investing in areas that the market will not reach without subsidy. This strategy has facilitated growth in the number of UK premises that now have access to gigabit-capable broadband, from 8% in July 2019 to more than 68% today.

Aside from this, we are pursuing several other methods to encourage the rollout of fixed infrastructure, which were published in our barrier busting update last year. I hope that gives noble Lords some flavour of the work we are doing and confidence that the Government are taking this work very seriously.

We believe that a further strategy on top of those I have outlined this evening would simply serve to muddle our work, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be content on that basis to withdraw her amendment, and that other noble Lords will not press theirs.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

823 cc751-3 

Session

2022-23

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top