My Lords, I am moving Motions A and B en bloc. When the Bill was introduced in early 2020, we could not have predicted the situation that we find ourselves in now. Over the past year, our telecoms network has allowed businesses to continue to operate, children to continue to learn and those in isolation to continue to see and speak to families and friends. As the Minister for Digital Infrastructure has done in the other place, I give wholehearted thanks to the UK’s digital infrastructure providers, internet service providers and mobile network operators. They have stepped up and worked with us to bridge the gaps in provision, be that through whitelisting educational websites, providing free data and devices to struggling families or coming together to deliver connectivity to the Nightingale hospitals and vaccination sites. As with any industry, there is a tendency to pay attention only when something goes wrong and to ignore the huge amount of effort and hard work it takes to keep things working normally. The industry’s efforts during this extraordinary time cannot and must not be forgotten.

However, the coronavirus pandemic has put into sharp relief the divide between the digital haves and the digital have-nots. This Government’s ambition is to support the delivery of fast, reliable, resilient broadband to every home and business in this country. Noble Lords will be aware—not least from our discussions during the passage of the Bill—of the myriad, complex barriers that face infrastructure deployment. There is no panacea, but the Bill provides a modest yet vital development. Despite having once been described by the Guardian as “an obscure technical bill”, it has within its initial scope some 10 million people in the UK who live in flats and apartments. It also contains the flexibility to bring still more people into its scope in the future, such as those in office blocks and business parks, where the evidence points to it.

We expect these provisions, once commenced, to make a real difference to rollout, along with other measures we are taking forward such as mandating gigabit connectivity to new-build developments and reforms to the street-works regime so that it better supports deployment.

I trust that your Lordships will have seen that a consultation on further potential changes to the Electronic Communications Code has now been published. We will carefully consider whether further legislative changes beyond those made in the Digital Economy Act 2017 are necessary as a result of what we learn from that consultation. These are all steps that, combined, will help operators achieve their, and this Government’s, ambitious connectivity targets. Crucially, these measures will take into account the interests of those needing greater connectivity, balancing those interests alongside those of landowners. Just as with the Bill, that balance is crucial to ensure that we continue to bridge that digital divide.

The Motion asks that this House does not insist on its Amendment 1 and does agree with the Commons in its Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu. As noble Lords will recall, Amendment 1 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, following similar amendments by the Opposition front bench, here and in the other place. Its purpose is to clarify that people who rent their flat can make use of the policy in the Bill. While we maintain that the Bill has always provided for that, the strength of feeling on the matter is undeniable. To make it clear that the Bill serves the interests of tenants as well as leaseholders, the Government have tabled two amendments in the spirit of that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The amendments clarify the definition of “lease” in the Electronic Communications Code, to ensure that it includes, for example, any tenancy. I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments.

I hope that the House will not insist on Lords Amendment 3, to which the Commons has disagreed for Reason 3A. That amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, adds a new Clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of the Bill on the Electronic Communications Code. The proposed new clause requires the commissioned review to include an assessment of whether the code is sufficient to support the delivery of one gigabit per second broadband to every premise in the country by 2025. The amendment also requires that further, separate assessments be made of whether the code should be amended to

“introduce rights of access to telecommunications operators akin to those available to suppliers of electricity, gas, and water”.

The amendment also provides for an assessment as to whether the code should be amended to provide additional development rights and encourage collaboration alongside other works being carried out in the locality.

I recognise and appreciate the intention with which this amendment was tabled. It is important that the Government are held to account over their rollout targets, and it is frustrating that many parts of the country still do not have access to the digital services they need. However, we continue to believe that the amendment is unnecessary and seeks to introduce provisions which fall outside the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, the code itself. As I have said, there are already mechanisms in place by which the department’s rollout targets are measured and scrutinised.

ofcom, the independent regulator, publishes its annual Connected Nations report, which it updates a further two times a year. This provides a clear assessment of the progress that this country is making in providing connectivity, both fixed and mobile. These reports provide detailed analysis of the connectivity available in the UK as a whole, in each of the nations and in urban and rural areas. They show the progress that is being made in the deployment of gigabit-capable networks and 4G and 5G coverage. They show progress in relation to connections to superfast services, as well as the areas in this country which are not yet served—for example, those premises unable to access a broadband speed that meets the minimum under the universal service obligation. Should the Ofcom reports raise questions, the Government continue to provide answers and clarity on any aspects of their work in this area, both in this House and in the other place.

Furthermore, there are established means of scrutiny through Select Committees. To take some recent examples, in December 2020 the DCMS Select Committee published its report, Broadband and the road to 5G; in January this year, the Public Accounts Committee published its report, Improving Broadband; and in February, the Science and Technology Committee published UK telecommunications infrastructure and the UK’s domestic capability. Ministers and senior officials have given evidence to Parliament on a number of occasions and have been asked to account for their progress towards achieving greater connectivity as part of these sessions.

Moving on to the more technical reasons why we cannot accept this amendment, I remind your Lordships that the Electronic Communications Code is technology neutral. It is not about what is being installed; rather, it is about where, when and how equipment is installed. It is about the rights of operators to perform these activities and the rights of those whose land is used for this purpose. It is simply not possible to judge whether the Electronic Communications Code supports access to 1 gigabit per second broadband, because it is not designed to facilitate just gigabit-capable connections.

By contrast, the code is about access to land to facilitate the installation, maintenance and upgrade of electronic communications networks, including gigabit-capable broadband but also mobile telephony. The only way to judge the code is to examine the availability of all types of connections. As I have mentioned just now, the independent regulator does exactly that and regularly publishes those reports.

With regard to comparing the powers of telecom operators with gas, water and electricity suppliers, the Government recognise that further changes to the code may be required if it is to effectively support the achievement of our coverage and connectivity targets. Shortly before Third Reading, we published a consultation on further potential changes to the code. That consultation seeks responses from interested parties on a number of different issues relating to access to land. These issues have been raised by us with stakeholders and go beyond the specific matter of unresponsive landlords that the Bill addresses. The consultation is open until 24 March 2021. The Government will look closely at all responses in evaluating whether further changes are needed and, if so, what those changes should be.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, goes further still and references permitted development rights and street works. DCMS does not have responsibility for these two policy areas, but I reassure your Lordships that DCMS officials work in close contact with the relevant parts of government to take a joined-up approach and to pursue the reforms that the industry is asking for.

Additional development rights are a planning matter which sits outside the Electronic Communications Code. However, many noble Lords will be aware that telecom operators are afforded significantly more flexibility in how they install their infrastructure. This includes, for example—under permitted development rights—exemptions from a number of requirements to request planning permission. My department continues to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in that regard, and in August 2019 we launched a joint consultation with MHCLG regarding potential reform of permitted development rights, particularly to support mobile network deployment. The Government published their response to that consultation in July 2020. The response announced that, subject to a technical consultation, we will take forward the proposed reforms. We expect to publish the technical consultation in the spring.

Finally, I reassure your Lordships of the work that the Government are already doing with regard to the co-ordination of street works and promoting greater collaboration between telecom providers with local authorities and the suppliers of gas, water and electricity. My department is working closely with the Department for Transport and last year released the new Street Manager digital service. This was the largest update to street works in a generation and has simplified and improved the planning and co-ordination of works throughout England. This service is used by utilities and highway authorities alike and is offering unprecedented opportunity for collaboration and joint works. The Government are continuing to assess what further reforms can be made to improve co-ordination and collaboration, including changes to both permitting and traffic management schemes. I also note that roads are an area of devolved competence, so they would not be an appropriate addition to this Bill, which applies throughout the UK.

I hope that the Government’s reasons for disagreeing with Amendment 3 are clear. We fully appreciate the intentions of this amendment, and the Government share your Lordships’ concerns that telecom operators must be given the best tools possible if they are to deliver world-class connectivity.

We are listening to the telecom industry very carefully, and I assure noble Lords that we are getting there and identifying and delivering the necessary reforms. However, this amendment is impractical. It aims to bring into the Bill issues that it has never been the role of the Electronic Communications Code to provide, such as gigabit-capable connections and improved planning and street works.

I hope that your Lordships will be reassured by the recent publication of the consultation considering potential reforms to the Electronic Communications Code. We remain very much open to ideas from the industry and landowners on how the Government can better support rollout, and we will take legislative action if the evidence demonstrates a need to do so. I therefore beg to move that this House disagrees with Amendment 3.