Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2015.

New Clause 19 - The electronic communications code

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 2—The electronic communications code.

Government new schedule 3—The electronic communications code: consequential amendments.

Government amendments 71 to 76.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This group of amendments reforms the electronic communications code, the legal code that regulates the interaction of electronic communication operators, mobile network operators and landowners.

If, Mr Hood, you had had the pleasure of visiting me in my constituency and coming to my home in Moulton, Lincolnshire, you might have had the enormous pleasure of seeing me standing on a chair in my conservatory. I would not have been doing so for your edification or entertainment, but by necessity, for it is only by standing on a chair in my conservatory that I can make and receive mobile telephone calls. That circumstance is shared by many of my constituents, and it leads to great inconvenience.

Not for a moment would I want anyone in Committee to think that I was a slave to that modern god of convenience. Most of the things that I have done that have been most worthwhile, enlightening and lovely have been immensely inconvenient. One thinks of falling in love and having children—both inconvenient. None the less, the inconvenience of inadequate mobile phone coverage does damage to the well-being of countless of my constituents and to the businesses on which they rely for their employment. That is true not only in my constituency, but in large parts of our kingdom. In many places, it is hard to receive or make a mobile phone call. In the modern age, that is simply not acceptable.

For that reason, there has been considerable consensus. As the Committee knows, I like to conduct my ministerial affairs without unnecessary contumely or discord; and we can do so in respect of the reform of the code that governs such matters, for no less a person than the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has said:

“The Law Commission found the Electronic Communications Code to be complex and outdated and took the view that it was making the rollout of electronic communications more difficult.”

She continued:

“As long ago as February 2013, it recommended amendments to the Code strike a better balance between code operators and landowners. This needs to be acted on.”

Burke said:

“All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.”

The amendments we are making to the code are the reasonable balance sought by the Opposition between the interests of mobile phone operators and the landowners on whose land they must put their masts to get the better coverage that I believe is necessary.

These days, electronic communications form a vital part of our societal well-being and our economic health. It is vital that the law regulating the manner in which the supporting infrastructure is maintained and extended is clear and effective, yet it may surprise some to know that we are relying on a code that was part of the Telecommunications Act 1984, when mobile communications were in a very different place from the one they occupy now in national life. The need for change is certain and long overdue. The ’84 code, which I have available for the sight of Members and am happy to circulate, is clearly no longer fit for purpose.

The current lack of clarity, given that the code has not been substantively amended since 1984, has led to countless complaints from all kinds of sources and a demand for action. To that end, the Law Commission looked at matters, and its February 2013 report suggested a wholesale rewrite of the provisions designed to improve procedures and the clarity of the drafting. The changes before the Committee are designed to implement substantially the Law Commission’s report.

The revision of the code forms part of a series of Government measures that seek to build on this country’s position as a leader in communications infrastructure. The existing code extends throughout the entire United Kingdom, and the intention is that the revised code will be similarly applicable. We will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the revised code works in each location, particularly in relation to issues such as land law and tribunals. We will consult the Northern Ireland and Scottish Governments before implementing any reforms.

The revised code will not apply retrospectively or to existing agreements. It comprises 17 parts, which can be found in new schedule 2. Let me take the Committee through the core elements of the revision. Part 1 deals with the key concepts that are central to the functioning of the code. Paragraph 3 of new schedule 2 defines code rights, the rights that enable operators to install, maintain and operate electronic communications networks.

The code works on the basis of regulating consensual relationships between site providers and operators. Part 2 of the code sets out how code rights work in practice, including how they are conferred, whom they can bind and what code agreements need to look like. Operators do not automatically benefit from all code rights; each right needs to be agreed or imposed by the court.

The industry needs a legal framework to underpin it, specifically one that meets the demands placed on it by ever-changing technology and consumer expectations. In response to that, part 3 of the code centres around two concepts, which were the central changes at the heart of the Law Commission’s report. They are the changes that I described earlier as being overdue and that were sought by consumers and the mobile industry—the assignment of code rights and the upgrading and sharing of apparatus.

Upgrading apparatus is crucial to ensure the sustainability of networks and to keep pace with technological developments and consumer demands. In addition, allowing operators to share apparatus enables consolidation, thereby reducing each operator’s apparatus footprint.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I can see the definition given at the start of the code:

“In this code ‘operator’ means…where this code is applied in any person’s case by a direction under section 106”

and so on. Will the Minister be kind enough to help the Committee by listing who he believes will be covered by that definition and how that will happen in law?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the principal beneficiaries are those who provide the mobile phone network that we all enjoy—the mobile phone operators whose infrastructure apparatus is necessary to afford the coverage that I described earlier as being beneficial to both businesses and individuals. I am happy to deal with the specifics of his question during the course of my speech and to try to give him some indication of the full range of possible beneficiaries of the changes.

To return to my point, the consolidation of apparatus has value because it reduces cost and allows for the more straightforward extension of the technology necessary to deliver wider coverage. Due to the wide range of possibilities and associated implications, it would be difficult to have an automatic right to upgrade and share apparatus in all circumstances. Instead, individual requirements can be negotiated with site providers or granted by the court.

There are cases, however, in which making small upgrades or sharing can have a significant positive effect on network provision. The revised code provides an automatic right to upgrade or share under certain conditions as long as that places no additional burden on the site provider. Code operators will still be able to pay for additional rights or apply to the courts to impose them. Generally speaking, such matters are agreed between operators, but it is important that the code sets the context for those kinds of agreements, backed up by statute.

Operators are also subject to mergers, acquisitions and other corporate developments affecting their circumstances that complicate the issue of sharing apparatus. The current code is not able to deal effectively with those situations, whereas the revised code will let operators assign code rights to another operator in such circumstances, effectively allowing the second operator to stand in the shoes of the first. Doing so will present no additional burden to site providers, as there will be no practical change in the existing relationship, agreement or responsibilities. The change reflects the fact that this is a dynamic marketplace in which the ownership of organisations or the relationships between them may change. The revised code essentially updates the circumstances in which, in the light of such changes, technology can in effect be shared.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

What powers are in place to encourage, force or cajole private sector mobile phone companies to provide infrastructure when it is economically unviable to do so? Who has the map of coverage of which operators are operating in an area? What are the actual mechanics of forcing, cajoling or encouraging providers to provide infrastructure in economically unviable circumstances?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that has been done by voluntary agreements. The mission is to get as much of the country covered as possible by seeking a commitment from operators as a group to widen coverage, as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has done. Estimates of the character of coverage are not a perfect science, because of the complexities caused by the range of different operators with different apparatus that I described earlier. But the objective is to get much greater coverage than we have now—the figure of 90% has been used with regard to the voluntary arrangements, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know—by a combination of the services offered by a range of operators.

The ambition is to get as much coverage as we can, and the working figure of 90% underpins the voluntary agreement that I described. That will depend on putting in place the statutory changes that will allow the roll-out to happen. The bar to extending coverage has in part been the inappropriate character of the existing arrangements—the outdated character of the code makes it harder to put the new apparatus into place, which makes it harder to get the coverage that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

What role can MPs play in the communities in their constituencies on this issue? Does the Department hold maps of constituencies with locations of mobile masts stating which operators emit signals from those masts? What role should we be playing in accessing details of the percentage of coverage or the blackspots within our constituencies? Should we be writing to the Minister to force the companies to cover those black holes? Should we write directly to the companies, or to Ofcom? What is the plan of attack for a Member who wants to be a good constituency MP and ensure that his constituents have access to this modern means of communication?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is a seasoned parliamentarian. Far be it from me to lecture him on ways in which he can highlight his constituents’ concerns using his considerable authority as a Member of Parliament.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No, the hon. Gentleman would not want to challenge that suggestion, because after all, it is offered with respect for and experience of his performance in this House. Just before he comes back in, I make three suggestions to him. First, it is absolutely fair to say that these matters can be raised with Government and with Ministers in the House of Commons. He is right to say that where he feels that his constituency is at a disadvantage through inadequate communications, whether those are by mobile telephone or any other means, he can make that case to Ministers.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is also right that he should work with local mobile operators in his constituency—I am sure that he has—to encourage them to extend their provision. At the moment, 96% of premises in Britain have some kind of mobile coverage. The problem is that there are places, largely in remote rural areas, that have become known as “not-spots”—standing on my chair in my conservatory offers some kind of mobile coverage, so I am not a not-spot—where there is almost no coverage. If the hon. Gentleman has not-spots in his constituency, he is right to draw them to the attention of mobile phone operators and Ministers, and he has done that today.

My final suggestion—this is the third, for those who are following closely—is that the hon. Gentleman should support the new clause, new schedules and amendments. They are in line with the Law Commission report and respond to the call from the Opposition for the code to be updated. They will have a dramatic catalysing effect on the interests he articulated so diligently and eloquently this morning.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I thank the Minister for his kind comments. Indeed, I have campaigned on this issue in my constituency. In the coastal area, we have 4G and state-of-the-art connectivity. In the rural area around Denbigh, we do not. Whether a business succeeds or fails depends on connectivity. If they cannot operate PayPal and other modern means of paying for goods and services—I am thinking in particular of the Llindir Inn in Henllan in my constituency, which is having great difficulty with connectivity—it disadvantages our constituents. I ask again: what help can the Department give to individual MPs, such as a map showing what is available in their constituencies, so that we can help to fix the problem?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman will know that Ofcom publishes maps broken down to county level. Ofcom does that work on identifying coverage, which is why I know that a little more than 96% of the country is covered by some sort of mobile operation. Those maps are available to him, but we might go further than that.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let me go further, and then I might go even further following the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In fact I might go even further as a result of the overtures from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. On the county-based maps that Ofcom produces, I wonder whether we could look at breaking them down to constituency level. As he said, when making representations it would be most useful to have a view of the villages and towns in one’s constituency that do not have coverage. Some of the not-spots in my constituency are specific to a particular town. When I travel to Long Sutton, which I regularly do to represent the interests of my constituents there, I struggle to get mobile telephone coverage. When I drive to the next town, coverage suddenly becomes better. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have similar examples. I will ask Ofcom, following today’s scrutiny, to look at breaking the maps down still further to constituency level, which will help Members of Parliament to make the representations that he described.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Ofcom does, as the Minister says, post the stakeholders’ mobile base station database on its website. That website states:

“Ofcom makes no corrections to the data supplied by operators.”

It also says that the current data set is out of date. The last Sitefinder update was done in 2012. That is operated by Ofcom on behalf of the Government. Will the Minister get his neighbouring Department to get its finger out and get the data up to date?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes. That is a perfectly reasonable request. It is difficult because, as the hon. Gentleman says, these are highly dynamic matters. New phone operators are coming on stream, new masts are being erected. We hope that dynamism, as I said earlier, will be catalysed by the improvements to the code that we seek in the Bill. None the less, a more regular analysis is necessary.

I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done his work, but I will double check the facts. It is appropriate for us to consider how to update that information. I will look at the data set and see how it can be updated. In fact, I will go even further than that.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The Minister is being over-generous.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

No, I am in that kind of mood today. Before the Bill completes its passage through the House, I will come back to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston with some firm information about how we can update the information, because it is appropriate to do so.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I am trying to be relevant, following that highly relevant question. It would be helpful to have a bit more granularity. I represent a large rural area, and many villages have areas where there is good mobile reception. However, I can stand in the middle of my house and get no reception at all, whereas if I stand outside my back or front door I seem to be able to get reception. It would be useful to call them not blackspots but perhaps brownspots, where there is mixed reception on a more granular level on a village-by-village basis.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is the point that I was making, as was the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd who raised the matter initially. The variability of coverage is particular and needs to be broken down at a level that is meaningful for us to be able to make proper representations to Government and the operators. I am always at pains to ensure that Members of this House have as much useful information as possible.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

I want to point out that I think all the mobile operators have very granular maps of coverage on their own websites. They are so granular that the blackspot that my own house in under is off the map in a nice white area not shaded in at all. That information is easy to find on the operators’ own websites.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, that is true, too. It seems from the few interventions that we have had so far that there may be a particular problem with houses of Members of Parliament. I do not know whether that is coincidental. I would not for a moment want to add to the paranoia that sometimes affects elected Members. Certainly, the granularity described by my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Daventry should allow us, when we do the more detailed analysis I have committed to today, to pick out the homes of every single Member of Parliament to see if a pattern emerges. Indeed, an unhappy pattern may be the product of that further work.

As I said earlier, for those who have been following my exciting discourse closely, I am coming to part 4 of the code. I think I have dealt with part 3, which, to reiterate, is underpinned by the consensual relationships that are in the first instance the means by which we guarantee coverage. Part 4 focuses on when that agreement between parties cannot be reached and allows courts to impose an agreement, including by granting interim or temporary land access in order to speed up the roll-out of networks.

In order for an agreement to be imposed under part 4, it must pass a two-stage test. That is an important change, so I want to deal with it comprehensively. The test requires that the site provider can be compensated in money and that the public benefit from placing apparatus on the land outweighs the harm to the site provider. It therefore strikes a balance—a balance of the Burkean kind that I described at the outset—between enabling the roll-out of networks and protecting the rights of site providers, who play a crucial role in making land available for the apparatus that underpins those networks.

Under the current code, unhelpful practices can occur when site providers charge operators above market rates for sites. There are those—they may include the shadow Minister; I do not want to anticipate his sagacious contribution to our affairs—who say that in such a case, we should apply the circumstances that currently prevail in respect of organisations such as National Grid, which obviously has to put apparatus on to land in order to guarantee energy coverage, or the water companies, which have to access land to pipe water to different locations. That was not the Law Commission’s view. Although we think that there is a problem in this regard, we are determined to try to strike the balance that I set out between the interests of landowners and the interests of operators. We think that we have got that right, but I will wait to hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

To tackle the problem of when a voluntary arrangement cannot be reached, part 4 defines how the court should calculate the price that an operator pays a site provider for code rights. Market value will remain the valuation basis. However, the new code introduces two important disregards. The first prevents the inflation of price on the basis of site uniqueness. To explain that in a little more detail, I will go off the script that was prepared for me, because I do not like to stay on it; that is very tedious.

This is about what happens when an area is not adequately covered but covering it requires the erection of apparatus in a site with a particularity that marks it out—for example, a site where the landscape is particularly glorious or where the built environment is historic. The problem at the moment is that, with the looseness of the current code, although landowners are not quite able to charge what they like, as there is ultimately a redress to the court, they can charge immensely variable amounts. Even allowing for the current right of redress, rarely do operators successfully challenge that variability, even where they think it unfair. We are trying to create two disregards in those circumstances.

The second disregard ensures that the automatic rights to assign, upgrade and share are not included in any valuation by the site provider. That brings a degree of clarity to the issue of pricing and prevents the sort of ransom pricing that I described, albeit in rather gentle terms.

To be absolutely clear, market value will be assessed on the value of the land to the code operator as a site for communication apparatus rather on than the value of the land per se. It will not be about using land for some other purpose and valuing it accordingly—for example, grazing sheep or engaging in some other kind of commercial activity.

We have built in an assumption that more than one site is available to the operator, to prevent the possibility of a landowner with a unique site in a particular kind of area, as I described a few moments ago, seeking a ransom or profit share from the operator.

To be clear, and moving away from what is printed in front of me, that is in the new code. In areas such as I described a few moments ago, where it is necessary to erect new apparatus to get coverage but the site has a particularity, rather than the landowner being able to say, “Well, there is no other place you can put this to get that coverage, so I can charge what I like”, a notional second site will afford protection and give a reasonable assessment of market value.

The legal framework also needs to be flexible enough to remain relevant and useful for the roll-out of modern telecommunications infrastructure. Paragraph 24, in part 4 of proposed new schedule 3A, allows for further reforms to the basis of valuation should evidence prove that it is required. That power would be used only after a full public consultation and is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I say that to reassure the Committee.

Part 5 of the code deals with the termination and modification of code rights. It allows site providers to terminate code rights under certain circumstances, for example if the operator persistently delays payment. Although code rights and apparatus can be imposed on site providers under specified circumstances, the code ensures that operators and their apparatus can be removed from sites, including in cases where the operator persistently delays payment or if the site provider intends to redevelop the site. The revised code clearly sets out those processes and the protections available to site providers. I emphasise that that is a matter of balance. I am absolutely clear that landowners should not be put at an unreasonable disadvantage as a result of the code reforms. The code has to balance their interests with the interests of the mobile phone operators.

Part 6 of the code sets out the circumstances under which site providers can remove apparatus when code rights expire or if the courts order removal. Parts 7 to 9 deal with specific types of land on which operators have rights to install apparatus. Part 7, in particular, relates to how the code works on transport land—for example, railways and canals. Similarly, part 8 covers the conferral of rights on streets or roads. Part 9 focuses on the conferral and exercise of rights on tidal water and lands. The rights for those particular land types do not require agreement under part 2 because of the public nature, or other special nature, of that land.

Part 10 deals with those who are carrying out work for certain purposes on lands on which apparatus is sited, for example works related to transport systems. They are known as undertakers. It provides mechanisms for ensuring that any such works do not interfere with, or impair, operators’ networks.

The following parts specify how the code can be used by, or impact upon, third parties. Networks depend in part on the cables and wires that pass above us. Part 11 details the provisions relating to overhead apparatus. Part 12 provides rights to object to certain apparatus, including setting out who is eligible to object. Depending on the apparatus or its location, that includes site providers and those with interest in the land or neighbouring land. Part 13 provides a right to lop trees or other vegetation. The final parts of the code return to the general regime—the parts that will be used in most cases.

Then there is the issue, in part 14, of the award of compensation. It can be awarded to a range of people who may be affected by the installation or modification of apparatus. There are some further formal parts of the code. Part 15 sets out how notices can be given under the code. Part 16 deals with provision for dispute resolution, which largely maintains the current arrangements and forums—the county courts, or the sheriff courts in Scotland. Paragraph 94 enables the jurisdiction for code disputes to be transferred to the lands chamber of the upper tribunal, the specialist expertise of which—including on land valuation matters—is considered particularly suited to dealing with them. Part 17 focuses on supplementary provisions, including the application of the code to the Crown.

New schedule 3 proposes several consequential amendments to ensure that the code aligns with existing and relevant legislation. Amendments 71 and 72 are technical and will amend clause 46 of the Bill, which makes provision about the procedure applying to the powers to make regulations amending legislation. They will ensure that any amendments made by regulation to primary legislation follow the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 73, 74, 75 and 76 make consequential amendments to the Bill on extent and commencement and to the long title, to allow for the introduction of the electronic communications code, which I know will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who has raised that in Committee.

Finally—I sense that the Committee will be nervous about my drawing my remarks to a conclusion, lest I might not quickly return to my feet—let me emphasise once again that ensuring effective broadband and mobile coverage across the UK is critical socially and economically. It will make a big difference to rural areas such as the one I represent and areas represented by Members across the Committee. I look to Members representing seats in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and other places; Devon springs to mind. I know that they will have received countless representations from businesses and constituents about the inadequacy of current mobile coverage and its effect on their lives and livelihoods.

The code provides a modern and rigorous legal foundation for the roll-out of apparatus that is essential to obtain that wider coverage and the positive multiplier effects of this technology. I said at the outset that I was not a slave to convenience, and neither am I a blind adherent to the view that technology is always a necessary good. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this change’s time has come. I invite Opposition Members to look beyond the narrow confines of, dare I say it, cheap politics to the wider national interest.

I know almost every member of the Committee and I know that they have the promotion of the national interest and the protection and advancement of the common good at the heart of all they do. I know them all well enough to be sure of that. While I freely acknowledge, in advance of any further contributions, that it would have been better had these matters been introduced earlier, I think that we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. As soon as this matter was brought to my attention, I was at pains to ensure that the new clause and amendments were tabled, and I know that there has been some time for Members across the Committee to consider them. I will write to the Committee before Report about any matters that arise from today’s debate. I also intend to hold a further meeting, open to all members of the Committee and all Members of the House, as I have previously done, to allow them to put technical questions to officials across a range of Departments. I will do that next week and give notice of that meeting today.

I agree that, in ideal circumstances, this would have been considered by the other place before it came here and we would have had a chance to look at it in rather more detail. However, I hope that the extent of my explanation today and my willingness to provide further information on request is sufficient to persuade all members of the Committee that, given the necessity of amending this code, they should, with some enthusiasm, support the provisions that I have moved in this all too brief speech.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

I start by thanking the Minister for his explanation of new clause 19 and the 50 or so pages of schedules and amendments that accompany it. I must say that I was a little worried at the start of his explanation when one of the first things he did was invite you to his home, Mr Hood, to see him standing on a chair. I began to wonder where it was going. I was not sure if it was undue influence on the Chair, distinctly unparliamentary or what it was. It became clear that he was talking about his mobile phone coverage, ending with the memorable phrase, “I am not a not-spot.” I am pleased to hear that.

He moved on to some interesting comments about analysing mobile phone coverage at the homes of MPs. That would be quite an interesting exercise. A serious point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd about the difficulty Members have in getting the kind of information they need to represent their constituents effectively. I welcome the Minister’s comments, especially his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about ensuring that information available through public agencies is comprehensive and up to date. The Minister was helpful in saying that, if that information can be broken down by constituency, it would be beneficial. I welcome all those points.

The Minister is right that the aim of the changes is to update and reform the regime covering the roll-out of communications infrastructure, to ensure that it is fit for this century, not just the last couple of decades of the previous century. That is all well and good, but it is not something that occurred to people only as they were doing their Christmas shopping in 2014. The way the Government have tried to clot the new clause and all the schedules, running to nearly 60 pages, into the Bill after the eleventh hour, indicates that that is precisely what they want us to believe. Suddenly it was urgent to do this just before Christmas, to get those amendments written and out, and the new clause appeared only after we returned from the Christmas break.

I do not blame the Minister for that. He has had it dumped on him at the last minute by his colleagues in other Departments; he has done his best with it. I genuinely thank him for his courtesy in trying to do the best he can to preserve the integrity of this Committee and enable it to scrutinise the Bill. As soon as he was told in December that Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport intended to insert this entirely new provision into the Bill, he alerted me as the Opposition spokesperson so that I could alert the relevant Opposition team scrutinising DCMS.

As far as the Minister and I are concerned, since our Departments are not involved, we both felt that if the new clause and schedules and consequential amendments were as uncontentious as we were led to believe, despite the irregularity and last-minute nature of the Government’s actions, we might be able to co-operate in the national interest. Mr Hood, it did not turn out like that.

As we know, amendments were not tabled until we got back after the Christmas recess. They ran to around 60 pages. All that was added to yet more clauses, now defined as infrastructure measures, that were never mentioned when the Bill was introduced in the other place. They were never mentioned on Second Reading in this place, and mentioned only once we were well into the Committee stage. As we now know, one measure even necessitated changing the long title of the Bill— the very thing that is meant to define what the Bill is about.

Now we have the new clause, new schedules and amendments related to electronic communications with just four hours to conclude consideration of what was already in the Bill. Let us remember that the Bill contains measures on matters that require major scrutiny, such as shale gas extraction, which we discussed in Committee last week and at the start of this week. We have had to cope with reports from which the Government had redacted key information that would have benefited our scrutiny of the Bill.

We are required to deal with things which, in a sense, we were expecting—not necessarily the redaction of paragraphs from a report yet here we are, on the very last day of the Bill’s consideration in Committee, and we are just starting to scrutinise 60 pages of new clause and amendments that we saw for the first time last week. They were tabled after all the other stages of the Bill and after we agreed programme motions for a Bill that did not bear a close relationship to the Bill we ended up discussing when we got to Committee. Frankly, that is not good enough.

As I say, the Minister has done his best. In just one week, he has met with me, with my colleagues and with Members across the House. I am pleased to say that he has facilitated a meeting with the Secretary of State at DCMS. The Minister takes his responsibilities very seriously and I pay tribute to him for that. However, the reality that we now face is this: although there is a consensus on the need for reform in this area, it has become abundantly clear in the past week that there is no confidence in the mobile phone industry or among the landowners who will be affected in the provisions that have been tabled. The changes will involve uncosted financial commitments which Ministers expect a new Government to sign up to before they have the information we would all need to do so.

There are inconsistencies in the amendments, the new clause and the new schedules. With the best will in the world, we cannot give them the scrutiny they need in the time available. With 60 pages containing all those problems, there really has been no opportunity and there will have been no opportunity by the end of Committee stage for consideration and amendment of what the Government propose. That is why we did not table any amendments; there was no point. They would have provided a fig leaf or a veneer that scrutiny was somehow going on when it was not possible.

In a minute, I will outline some of the problems with the detail of the provisions. With the best will in the world, they will not have had the scrutiny they need by the time we get to the end of today. Despite being urged in business questions this morning to provide two days to debate the Bill on Report, the Government still, as far as we know, propose to provide just one. We will have one day to debate—let us remember—not just these provisions but shale gas extraction, various issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has taken up in relation to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the big issue of Highways Agency reform and the road investment strategy, as well as the future of our road network.

In the light of that, the Bill will not have the scrutiny it needs. That is why I urge the Minister to think again. I ask him—this is the first time I have done so in relation to the Bill—not to force us to vote against the proposed measure but to do the right thing and withdraw the new clause and new schedules so that the code can get the proper scrutiny that it needs. It does not have to be in the Bill. Let us take the time to do what is needed and get it right. If he will not do that, the Opposition will oppose the new clause.

So what is wrong with what the Government are proposing today? On this side of the Committee, we have no problems with the aim of reforming the code. As the Minister said, it was enacted more than 30 years ago, in 1984. The electronic communications code sets out the rights to install and maintain apparatus on public and private land. That means that in 2015 it governs the infrastructure needed for networks which support broadband, mobile internet and telephone, cable television and landlines. Hon. Members know just how important that infrastructure is for our economy and society, and the Minister referred to that.

The electronic communications market is valued at around £35 billion in the UK. It is difficult to see how British business and our economy would function without that industry. Mobile phones are no longer a luxury; they have become a necessity and a utility. Some 95% of households use mobile phones and 16% have no voice landline.

The code governing the infrastructure that upholds the networks is essential. It provides the legal framework for when landowners and communications companies come into dispute, or cannot reach an agreement on the roll-out of the infrastructure that is needed. There is widespread consensus; I have not come across anybody who says that the code does not need to change. It is not fit for purpose in its current form. The courts and the people who work with it have said that it is complex and confusing. Operators and landowners have been calling for it to be reformed and simplified.

As the Minister said, the Law Commission reviewed the code in 2012, and published a set of recommendations to bring clarity and certainty to network providers and landowners. We agree that reform of the code is needed to enable those parties to reach agreements more easily, saving everyone time, effort and money. Reform is vital to support the effective roll-out of electronic communications and improve coverage. Far too many people are still locked on the wrong side of the digital divide. We have heard that some of those may be Members of Parliament, but we need to remember that the digital divide is still most commonly associated with poverty and deprivation. Mobile not-spots—areas of poor or no coverage—are still a major problem in rural and urban areas, and cause huge frustration for people trying to use their mobile phones for the internet, calls, texts and so on.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has for some time been calling for action to reform the code and support the expansion of mobile telephony access. Sadly, a gulf remains between the intention to clarify and update the code, and the new clause that we are being asked to scrutinise. Over the past week my inbox has been filling with concerns from the affected parties—from operators and infrastructure providers, to landowners and land valuers—who are quite rightly angered about having a week not only to see these things themselves, but to contact members of the Committee. Members of the Committee then end up having just one day to sort through all the problems. It bears repeating: 60 pages of reforms to the code.

As many have pointed out, the Law Commission reviewed the code more than two years ago. So what happened when it reviewed it? We have had no official Government response. Indeed, we looked at the Law Commission’s website yesterday, which said about that review:

“We await the Government’s response to our recommendations.”

The Law Commission said that yesterday. Members will know that the Government are meant to set out their response to Law Commission reviews every year. However, that has not happened in this case. The Government have stalled. They have delayed and they are now rushing through changes without giving—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. If the Whips want to have any discussions, could they please go into the corridor?

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

The Government are now trying to rush through these changes without giving anyone adequate time to scrutinise them. We have had no public consultation to consider and no updated impact assessment on the revisions to the Bill. My colleagues shadowing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as well as the affected parties, have been poring over this text since it was published just before the deadline on Thursday 8 January.

With nearly two years to consider this, the Government could, if they had wanted to, have introduced these provisions to the Bill when it was first published in July of last year. I will come to what I think are the reasons for this being so last minute in due course; suffice to say for now that if changes had been proposed in the initial draft of the Bill, people would have had adequate time to give them proper scrutiny. By “people”, I mean those in the other place and in this place, as well as external stakeholders. Instead of that, we are trying to scrutinise those 60 pages on our last day in Committee.

The Country Land and Business Association has not minced its words. It has called this an “abuse” of the parliamentary process and said that the Government have failed to meet the Law Commission’s recommendation to rewrite the code in plain English so that the public do not need to have recourse to a lawyer to work out what it says. I cannot imagine that peers in the other place will be pleased with that approach or the poorly drafted changes to legislation that have resulted from it.

I have some initial thoughts on why these reforms, as proposed, are not fit for purpose. The Government are now in the absurd position of proposing amendments that aim to clarify the code but could result in confusing it further. Although only one week has been allowed for scrutiny, all parties affected by the legislation to whom the Opposition have spoken state that it is poorly drafted. The House of Commons Library has said that the amendment is “extremely technical”—very diplomatic words, as ever, from the Library.

The full scope of the new clause is not clear. The media infrastructure company working with the Government to expand new mobile sites, Arqiva, has warned of the risk that the “ambiguity of the drafting” will lead to

“unintended consequences that will have a detrimental effect on the communications services to consumers.”

I am not sure about the Minister, but that sounds rather familiar to me, because Arqiva is not the first organisation to say that kind of thing. In the case of Geo Networks Ltd v. The Bridgewater Canal Company Ltd, Mr Justice Lewison stated:

“The code is not one of Parliament’s better drafting efforts. In my view it must rank as one of the least coherent and thought-through pieces of legislation on the statute book.”

That poorly drafted code that the judge was talking about has lasted for 30 years. Its successor might end up lasting just as long. Members have a duty to get this right. We cannot just replace a code criticised for being poorly written, poorly drafted and confusing with another that is poorly written, poorly drafted and confusing. I will give a few examples of the confusion and uncertainty that the code could result in if the Government get their way.

First, there is confusion over who, and what agreements, the reformed code will now apply to. The drafting is not clear about whether the code will apply to third-party infrastructure providers—those operating apparatus such as masts—and the agreements between them and mobile phone operators. That was one of the Law Commission’s recommendations.

It is not clear whether the code applies to commercially negotiated agreements between mobile phone operators. In locations where it may not be economic for one operator to roll out its own mast, companies will reach agreements together. That is essential for expanding coverage. It is not clear whether the new code rights will be able to be contracted out either. The commercial trends of electronic communications infrastructure models are changing and network sharing is increasing, so we need clarity, not ambiguity, over who this applies to.

Secondly, we do not know whether the changes to the code will affect existing agreements. The Law Commission was clear that reform should not be retrospective, recommending that the revised code should not apply to existing agreements. The Minister said today that he does not believe that the new code will apply to existing agreements. I am pleased about that, but it is not clear from looking at the words on the page or from looking at the new clause and schedules. In just one week, everybody affected is saying, “This just is not clear.”

Thirdly, and very importantly, the new clause that we are being asked to support fails to provide clarity on the issue of facilitating upgrades and site sharing. That is one of the key reasons for reform in the first place. DCMS has said its aim was to give greater automatic sharing rights to code operators because the ability to share infrastructure is essential for upgrading, expanding and delivering communications. Telecoms apparatus has to be updated to keep pace with rapid changes in technology.

Around 80% of 4G roll out will be delivered through upgrades, but the Mobile Operators Association has said that the provisions do not help to achieve that. It says that it will make it difficult to share infrastructure, stating that paragraph 16, which states that changes to apparatus should not have an adverse impact on appearance, will in practice prohibit sharing and upgrading, which often requires operators to use different cabinets and antennas. It states that preventing sharing could create inconvenience, and the amendment will lead to confusion and increased litigation from landowner objections. I do not know whether the Mobile Operators Association is right about that; I do not think anybody knows if it is totally right. We should not be left now on a wing and a prayer to hope that it is not right.

I could go on and on with questions. Just some of the additional considerations and concerns that have been raised include what the new forum for dispute resolution will be. All stakeholders state that that requires reform. The Law Commission recommended

“that the revised Code should make provision for the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal to adjudicate Code disputes”.

However, it is not clear what the new forum will be or whether the Lands Chamber will be used as was anticipated.

There are questions about whether the revised code will mean that electronic communications apparatus passes to landowners because it is attached to land. That is not clear. There are concerns about the effect of the code on the way that market value is assessed. The Minister said that it sorts out that issue. I am pleased that he is confident about that, because nobody else is. It seems—we have not had the time to look at it properly—that it will change the Law Commission proposal to an assessment on the basis of value for the operator, which would be a major and significant change to current costs.

The Minister cannot dismiss the many concerns about the provisions, which pertain to issues such as which parties the code rights will cover and how disputes will be resolved. The problems with the new clause are not just minor and technical; it is complex and ambiguous and it clearly needs to be changed substantially. The Opposition have not had time to consult the affected stakeholders and to draft and table effective amendments to make that change. I therefore request—on behalf of the Opposition, the parties that will be affected by the code and members of the public who want communications infrastructure to be rolled out effectively—that the Minister does the right thing and withdraws the new clause. We want the Government to address those concerns, revise the code and introduce so it can be given proper legislative scrutiny. I hope the Minister listens to our calls.

As I said, we think we know why the Government introduced the measure so quickly and produced such a problematic, ambiguous and rushed new clause. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been looking at legislative options to improve coverage in partial not-spots for some time. After facing opposition on proposals for national roaming, just before Christmas the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) announced a deal with mobile phone operators on future coverage obligations, which guarantees £5 billion of investment in mobile infrastructure by 2017, provides guaranteed voice and text coverage from each operator across 90% of the UK by 2017 and will be legally binding and enforceable by Ofcom.

We understand that the Government will provide no cash payments. However, they agreed to inform Ofcom of that deal in their ongoing work to revise annual licence fees—in other words, the subscription fee that mobile networks pay to the Government. The widespread view is that the revision would have seen the fees increase in the next Parliament. The deal will enable the Government’s freehold buildings to be used as sites for mobile infrastructure. Finally, it will reform the code, which the Mobile Operators Association said

“is the single most important regulatory reform to improve mobile coverage.”

So there we have it. Although there is widespread support for ECC reform, the new clause is being pushed through Parliament in this way as part of a Government deal with the mobile phone operators negotiated behind closed doors. In addition to the ambiguity in the new clause and the schedules that accompany it, there is little clarity about the implications of that deal.

The anticipated increase in licence fees, which, as we heard, is expected to raise an additional £1 billion in revenue for the Treasury from 2015 to 2020, is unlikely to happen as a result of the deal. We have seen no business case, impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of it. There are concerns that it may cause problems if it constitutes state aid under EU law, which the Government have failed to address. It is completely unclear whether the decrease in the number of partial not-spots, with the potential loss of up to £1 billion in revenue, constitutes a good deal for the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been explicit, as mentioned in today’s newspapers, that the Opposition are simply not willing to sign off on one element of uncosted proposals that could result in substantial loss to the taxpayer.

Of course, it might not come to that now. It seems that this new clause is so poorly drafted that it threatens to put the Government’s entire deal at risk anyway, whatever we do. The mobile network operators have said:

“Neither new clause 19 nor new schedule 2 as currently drafted deliver the reforms necessary to extend coverage in line with the 17 December agreement.”

Whatever we do today, it is not clear whether that deal is still on or has ceased to be a deal. What a mess, Mr Hood. And what a clear example of why the Government should not have tried to rush through such an important deal, and should not be rushing such important legislative change.

In conclusion, in the light of the substantial and wide-ranging concerns raised about the new clause, as well as the schedules that accompany it, and the serious implications it could have for further confusing the regulations governing communications infrastructure, if the Government do not backtrack, the Opposition will vote against it. I repeat that Labour absolutely supports the expansion of mobile phone access and the reform of this outdated code. What we do not support is ineffective and rushed reform that will increase ambiguity, confusion and litigation. We need to get this right. If our Committee approves the new clause today, we will be doing a disservice to the bodies that rely on this legislation to roll out communications infrastructure effectively, to those who own the land on which it is placed and to the public who rely on that infrastructure for their everyday lives.

So, let us get this right. Get it out of the Bill. Do it properly. We have known this has been coming for years. If this Government will not do it properly, I am confident that the next Government, after May, will get this right, get the infrastructure in place and get the right deal for the taxpayer.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hood. Alas, it seems this will be our last day together. I want to say thank you for the courteous way in which you have chaired our proceedings. As I have been nice to you, if I range out of order now, you might be slightly nicer to me, though you seem a very strict Chair.

I generally welcome the provisions we are discussing. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, these changes have been needed for some time. The existing code is old and essentially out of date. I obviously want to see much better provision of mobile telephony and broadband services across my constituency. I find the general direction or push of this code most welcome.

I have also had many issues in the past. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years and have seen how these big, chunky pieces of code-changing and technical legislation take so much time to get to the point of being signed off and delivered by Government and industry, so that people can get the better service provision that they expect. I therefore do not have quite as much of an issue with the speed of the process we are having. I have always wondered why it takes Government so long to bring things forward.

However, like the hon. Gentleman, I was surprised at what happened with the 60-odd pages just before Christmas. I received the letter from the Minister and the attachment. I always look forward to letters from the Minister: they tend to be slightly shorter than his speeches—it is not that I do not like his speeches, but his letters get to the point a bit quicker. I was slightly surprised to see that the attachment contained so much.

As an interested observer of these industries and how they are regulated, both in my European Parliament days and since I have been in this place, I am aware that some of the language used in the code can be very confusing. I will have more to say about the pace of change, but I would appreciate—I do not think this is beyond the bounds of what can happen before we get to Report—a nice plain English guide to the code. DCLG has done that recently in other areas. It issued one for planning, for example, so that people can easily read a digestible plain English planning guide to the many changes that have happened over the past five years. It is not too much of an ask for Members of Parliament to have a plain English guide on Report to what the code actually does and how it is delivered.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I would like to say that that is a laudable suggestion and I will make sure it is acted on.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister is always so quick to act. He is a gem among Ministers. Some would say he is a rough gem at times, but I believe he is a polished diamond—well fracked as well, or perhaps sandblasted.

The Opposition spokesman was slightly unkind. There has been a great deal of agreement in this Committee over many things, but I was taken by the statement that the Opposition are unwilling to sign off uncosted proposals; I have just been reading the uncosted proposals mooted by the Leader of the Opposition.

I took some umbrage when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield—no, hon. Gentleman—

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

Thanks, anyway.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

Perhaps one day he will be a right hon. He said that the Government dealt with mobile phone operators and negotiated behind closed doors. If it was the case that the code was negotiated with mobile operators behind closed doors, they would not be so concerned about how it would function for them, so I do not think that that was a fair statement. Also, there would not be so many concerned mobile phone operators paying attention to what goes on in this Committee today, so I think he was slightly over-egging the pudding; there is some concern.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have received the same e-mails that I have, some operators have a particular concern about the drafting of the code in relation to third-party infrastructure providers. The code does not apply to such providers in their relationships with landowners. However, it does apply to the sites that they provide to mobile network operators. So there is a risk to the mobile operators who are being forced to switch off large parts of their networks during any contractual dispute and will be in a weak position in negotiations with other parties as a result. This particular provision may prevent them from upgrading and sharing sites easily with third-party infrastructure providers.

The code suggests that infrastructure does not form part of land and is therefore not subject to the code. Many mobile operators have relationships with third-party providers based on the rights in the current code, so there is a great deal of concern among mobile operators about this sizeable change to the code. Such issues need to be addressed in Committee today or next week so that when we get to Report stage we can have a plain English argument about a code that is in plain English and everybody knows exactly where they stand. It would help the mobile operators, landowners and third-party infrastructure providers, and they could stand down their QCs and legal teams, because they would completely understand what is in the code, the benefits of it to all our constituents and what it is meant to do. Then the issues that the Opposition spokesman and I and other speakers have rightly outlined will have been addressed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I said in my opening remarks that I would write to the Committee and other Members of the House about a range of matters, including that one. I will meet Members of the House next week, again making officials available to deal with some of the queries he described. I will also ensure that, through DCMS, we write to mobile operators, dealing with any queries of the kind he describes, before Report.

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

I thank the Minister for the way he is conducting himself and the pledges he has given in Committee. If, on Report, a whole host of the wrinkles in the code are ironed out, we might well be able to deliver a code that is very much fit for purpose, does the job that everybody expects it to, is welcomed by industry and third-party infrastructure providers, stands down the lawyers so that the legal profession does not make quite so much money out of all concerned, and makes quite a big change in a relatively short period of time.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and I follow what he is saying. May I put it to him that we face some pretty big logistical problems here? I also welcome the Minister’s offer to meet again to try to run through things, but if Report is going to be for one day on 26 January, all amendments will have to be tabled by next Wednesday. Let us say that next Friday we work out that a big change needs to be made to the code. We will be going headlong into Report and nobody will be able to do anything about it. Is it not better to take a step back and do it properly?

Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition have been saying. I am a Back-Bench Member and I am not going to make any pledges or changes. I want to see how far we can get this measure right in the limited time that we have available.

I know, and we have heard, that the Minister and the various Departments have the will to get this right. While there are a number of issues, and I have only briefly described a couple of them, the will is there so let us see where we are next Wednesday before we get too excited about process, knives, programme motions and how long a Report day should be. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about timing, but we are pushing at an open door at the Ministry and I will be interested to see how far we get today and by Wednesday next week.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The new clause and new schedule deal with issues that will have a profound impact on each and every one of our constituencies. We started this discussion with an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd and the Minister about my hon. Friend’s constituency. I intervened and pointed out that Ofcom’s website provides everyone, on a grid basis, with details of where every single mobile phone mast is. Someone can look at an Ordnance Survey map and pin it down just by the grid reference. Great.

Unfortunately, the website has not been updated for two years. That is the fault not of the operators or of Ofcom but of DCMS. The task of providing the data and, if it is not getting the information, chasing the operators accordingly, lies firmly with the Department. That presents us with a basic problem. All the way through this discussion, we need to focus on the inaction of DCMS, not the quick-to-act Minister sitting in the hot seat today. I agree that he is trying his best in a rather difficult situation.

I asked the Minister at one stage to define who the operators were. New schedule 2 says that the “operator” is a person as described in section 106 of the Communications Act 2003. The Minister ought to be aware—I am sure that he is, and his officials are certainly aware—that the definition of operator here is not a straightforward case of saying, “Here are the four telecom providers: Vodafone, EE and so on.” It also includes Airwave and Network Rail. Of course, it excludes some who were in existence merely a few months ago, such as Orange, which is now incorporated into the EE side. That information is not publicly available because, as I pointed out, the website is two years—actually, close to three years out of date, having last been updated in May 2012.

There is a real problem in defining who the operators are. What discussions has DCMS had with the Department for Transport in respect of Network Rail, or with the Home Office in respect of Airwave? These are very serious issues.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned various wholesale infrastructure providers, it might be worth clarifying whether they are code operators. As he will know, the Law Commission considered this issue. It was anxious that such agencies should, for the purposes of the new code, be defined as operators. They are, indeed, defined as such in the new code. The new arrangements are clearer on that than the existing ones and are entirely in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

That may well be the case, but my specific question to the Minister is this. Has this draft code been discussed with the Home Office or the Department for Transport in terms of their responsibilities? I suspect that the answer is no because of the speed of processing here.

Just before Christmas, I contributed to an article in an online magazine, www.cable.co.uk. On 30 December, in an article headed, “‘Common sense’ approach needed to eradicate mobile not-spots”, I set out the case in a few lines for a “knocking of heads together” to resolve the issue of mobile not-spots, and for some clarity of thinking. That was just after the £5 billion deal to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred. It is quite clear that, at that time, the Government had been discussing the much-needed revisions to the code. However, that code was not made available to us in a timely fashion. As a consequence, we find ourselves in some real difficulty. I hope, during the course of my remarks, to set out some of those difficulties and explain why I regard this as extremely dangerous, especially for those of us who represent areas that include some beautiful spots, where there are still concerns about siting, and difficulties with landowners and local authorities about consents and access arrangements. I would like to point out some of those difficulties.

The hon. Member for Daventry made some thoughtful remarks. There was only one sentence on which I disagree with him, and he knows which. As he mentioned, the issue has been raised by a number of the operators, both principal and secondary. One is the Wireless Infrastructure Group, which e-mailed us all yesterday. It was yesterday because it has only just seen the proposals. It is a principal player in the discussion and yet it makes the points also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and the hon. Member for Daventry. It says:

“However, whilst the new Code recognises the role of wholesale providers in the sector and establishes them as Code Operators, the drafting leaves unnecessary uncertainty. We are particularly concerned that an unintended consequence of these complex amendments on a complex sector could be to inadvertently interfere in the vital commercial relationships between Code Operators. The purpose of the Code is to govern the rights of Code Operators in their dealings with landowners yet the lack of clarity in the text could lead to confusion in the relationship between Code Operators including between wholesalers and network operators. This could discourage wholesale infrastructure providers from bringing further investment to the sector.”

That cannot be good for our constituencies; that will not solve the Minister’s problem of standing on his chair. The WIG e-mail continues:

“We would urge the Committee to seek clarity from the government regarding the intention of these amendments in so far as they will affect wholesale providers.”

Similarly, the Mobile Operators Association has made some thoughtful and telling observations in an e-mail to us. I shall not recite those because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield covered a significant part of them. It is worth pointing out that the way the code is drafted creates a built-in incentive against mast sharing. It seems a little too technology-specific. The way I read it—I have taken advice from people who know more than I do—it seems to include only one type of sharing box, the one that is called a MORAN, Multi-Operator Radio Access Network.

Having technology-specific legislation is not good practice in this field. We need to create codes of practice that enable the advancement of technology, so we need to cover everything we possibly can. It will create a slowdown in the roll-out of internet access in our constituencies, especially in rural areas where 4G and potentially 5G will be hugely important in filling some of the gaps.

Those of us who represent areas including hard-to-reach spots would be doing a disservice to our constituents if we let this code go through unchallenged. We do need to get some clear answers to these questions. For the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield in his exchange with the hon. Member for Daventry, we do not have enough time to do that. Like the Minister and my hon. Friend, I want to see this code developed. That is why I said we needed to knock heads together and get it done.

The problem is that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has sat in its bunker and not dealt with the key players. The mobile operators did not see the finalised code until it was too late to comment or encourage Members to table any amendments. Had that been done just a few days before, we would not have found ourselves in this position. We would be debating amendments that the Government might have found themselves tabling.

As a consequence, there is only one choice in front of us; and that is firmly to reject this code. If we accept the new clause, we are going to damage the roll-out of these important technologies in our constituencies—something that not one of us wants to do—and I lay a bet that the Minister will still be standing on his chair in a year’s time, cursing the time when he had to carry the can for DCMS in this Committee and justify the code.

It is not going to work in its current form. It will be a lawyer’s paradise, as the hon. Member for Daventry hinted. I urge members of the Committee to reject it firmly.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering:

Government new schedule 2—The electronic communications code.

Government new schedule 3—The electronic communications code: consequential amendments.

Government amendments 71 to 76.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I want to say a few words about this important new clause, which I strongly support. I was so moved by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield on the drafting of what is before us that I felt I had to speak. We are extremely well represented by having such an articulate Minister as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who has shown not only that he is on top of his brief and understands the issues facing many of our constituents, but that he has been listening to Opposition Members in particular.

The bottom line is that there is a thorny issue of not-spots in all our constituencies, particularly in rural areas. In my constituency, which has more than 50 villages, that is a matter of considerable concern. If we are trying to encourage people and small businesses to do their business from home, and if we want to ensure that our villages are lively and vibrant, we need to ensure that the required technology and support is there through access to better mobile communications. That is how people communicate most nowadays.

Although, certainly in my area, many villages seem to have been dying over the past two decades or so, the opportunity for individuals to be at home and run their businesses makes the implementation of the new clause extremely important, at least for my constituents. It is important not only for businesses in rural areas but for individuals, particularly the elderly. The elderly—I think of my mother, who is 85 and very technologically savvy —want to be able to have access to mobile communications, which are important. I receive text messages often. A lot of elderly people rely on mobile phones as opposed to fixed-line communications.

I support new clause 19, but I am an active listener, and the point that some Opposition Members have made about greater granularity and greater understanding of where not-spots are is important. I encourage the Minister to ensure that not only Members but the public at large have a better understanding of where not-spots are with much more granularity than seems to be available at the moment, and to be clear about the Government’s implementation strategy to ensure that our constituents know when the problem of not-spots will be dealt with. I do not see the drafting flaws that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield talked about. I certainly believe that the Minister has been actively listening, and I hope that he will address some of the issues that members of the Committee have raised.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise briefly to reinforce the powerful and wholly justified case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for the withdrawal of the new clause, although not because we oppose it, because we do not. In principle, we want to see a modernisation of the code, but the way in which the process has been handled has not allowed for proper consideration or for all the issues that need to be considered to be teased out.

I will speak about one small provision and highlight some of the unanswered questions and issues that we simply do not have time to address given how these measures have been presented right at the end of the Bill’s passage through this House. That is the problem, not the modernisation of the code, which is broadly supported. I agree with the hon. Member for Braintree about the importance of that, but I hope he accepts that there are a lot of unanswered questions. The public need satisfaction, and they need to know that we are doing our job properly in scrutinising an important piece of legislation that will have a considerable impact on the lives of our fellow citizens for many years to come.

I intend to focus on part 13 of the code, which the Minister passed over rapidly. I do not hold that against him, for two reasons: this is a large code including a great deal of other material, and on the surface not much change is being introduced in part 13 compared with the original code of 1984. Part 13 deals with the lopping of trees. The provision in the 1984 code was to allow the lopping of trees that overhung streets and that therefore interfered, or might in future interfere, with electronic communications. That is repeated in part 13 of the new code, but with one addition: to “tree” is added “or other vegetation”.

The obvious question is, why has there been a need to add “or other vegetation”? Presumably the phrase refers to shrubs. Has there been a problem with shrubs or vegetation other than trees obstructing telecommunications and causing a problem? Why has the change been introduced? We have not had an explanation, although I do not hold that against the Minister, because we are not discussing his brief. He has been given the responsibility in Committee, but it is a highly complex and technical subject and I cannot expect him to be aware of any representations that have been made over the past 30 years about shrubs obstructing telecommunications operations and, consequently, the need to change the language. As a Committee scrutinising the Bill, however, we should be asking the questions. Why has the change been introduced? What is the evidence? What has been the problem? Why is there a need to extend the definition that previously applied only to trees?

The next question I have to ask is about the omissions. It occurs to me that it is surprising that there is simply a power for operators to serve an order by notice on the occupier of the land and require a tree to be lopped. That is a powerful power, so what are the safeguards to cover difficult circumstances? What if the tree is covered by a tree preservation order? Clearly, there is a potential conflict. How is that to be resolved? What if the shrub—we are now talking about shrubs and not only trees—has a particular value? I can think of many trees and shrubs in various areas that have landscape or horticultural value. It might cause concern were such a tree or shrub to be arbitrarily lopped for no good reason. What are the safeguards in such cases? What if it is in a site of special scientific interest? Do any special provisions apply in such cases?

Furthermore, why does Natural England have no role? I imagine that were there questions about whether trees of a special quality or value should be lopped, Natural England would be the right body to be consulted. That is not, however, referred to in any way in these provisions.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I declare a minor interest, because I have planted rather a lot of trees in my time. My right hon. Friend adds to the questions that I posed about Departments that ought to have been engaged in consultation. For example, I wonder whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was consulted.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend is prescient, because I will come on to make that very point.

The points that I have raised illustrate the problem of something being rushed through without adequate consultation, leaving questions unanswered. I do not expect the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed, because it would be unreasonable to expect him to be able to do so. He may be able to have a go, but if I were to ask him how many trees have been lopped in each of the past 30 years under the existing powers, I think it would probably be quite difficult for him and his officials to provide the information to the Committee immediately. That only reinforces the point that this subject ought to have been open to wider consultation and discussion so that the issues could have been teased out and answered in time for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

I do not object to the change; I am happy to see the new code being introduced. I can see its purpose and I want to see it in force, but I want it to be done properly. I do not want to go ahead with questions unanswered and members of the public criticising Parliament for not doing its job properly because it has not had the opportunity for proper scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will respond to the entirely justified call from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield for the new clause to be withdrawn to allow a proper period of consultation involving all the relevant parties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed out, other Departments should be involved.

If that happens, when the new, revised code comes into force, we will have a clear conscience and be able to say that we scrutinised it properly and asked all the relevant questions, that we are satisfied that it really will bring the benefits that the Government claim it will, and that there are no unexpected or as yet uncovered downsides with which we have not an opportunity to deal. That is why the new clause should be withdrawn and the code made the subject of further consultation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I welcome you back to the Chair for our final sitting, Sir Roger. We shall part in some sorrow after the deliberations that we have conducted in such a considered and measured way. So it is with this part of the Bill.

I accept at the outset that it would have been better had these measures been introduced earlier and there had been more time to consider them. I do not for a moment want to give the Committee the impression that I do not understand the weight of that argument. Indeed, if I was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, as I have many times, I would make exactly that case to a Labour Government.

None the less, when I hear from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield and for Ellesmere Port and Neston, combined, they remind me of St Augustine, of whom, Members will not be surprised to learn, I am an admirer. Of course, it was St Augustine who said: “Let me be chaste—but not yet.” In essence, that is the message that we have heard from the Labour party: let us take the opportunity to reform the code, but not here; let us serve the needs of our constituents, but not in a hurry. That is the message that has been broadcast by Opposition Members.

Mr Raynsford rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I give way to—I will say this—my right hon. Friend.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he has a great love of my constituency, so I simply put it to him that he will know that, as an eminent and serious theologian, St Augustine would not have subscribed to a doctrine unless he was aware of all its implications, and he would have wanted to be sure that there were no unanswered questions.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is certainly true of that eminent gentleman, but on this subject and in this context, I draw also on another hero of mine: W. B. Yeats. There is a proper debate to be had—we may have time for it this afternoon—about who was the greatest poet of the 20th century. I would make a strong case for T. S. Eliot, but I think T. S. Eliot would cite Yeats as perhaps an even greater poet. Did Yeats not say: “Do not wait to strike until the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking”?

What the Government are doing with these proposals is indeed making the iron hot by striking. We are taking action, and not, by the way, precipitous action. The argument that the Labour party has made would have more weight and force if the proposals were not largely based on the Law Commission’s recommendations, which were themselves subject to a detailed consultation and have been considered and debated thoroughly since.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

Again, this question comes with the health warning that I know the Minister is not from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but can he speculate on what piece of equipment that Department is using to warm up its iron? It has taken two years since the Law Commission reported—why?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As I said, I am not a man who does not appreciate that there are strong arguments from Members in all parts of the House, and indeed in this Committee, and I think it would have been better if these matters had been brought to a head earlier. I pay tribute to the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, because he has struck to make the iron hot; he has seized the initiative and been determined to use the first appropriate legislative vehicle to make the widening of access to mobile phones and improvements to coverage a priority.

I acknowledge that a longer view would have been helpful, but as I say, that would have had more force were it not for the fact that we have largely adopted—the hon. Gentleman knows that the are exceptions to this rule—the Law Commission’s report, which has been in the public domain for a long time. If Members are going to argue that delay has been unhelpful, they cannot simultaneously argue that there was not a long time to talk about the Law Commission’s recommendations. There has been a very long time to think about them and consider them, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have done. I would be surprised if he and other Opposition Members had not pored over those recommendations endlessly, night after night.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Strangely enough, the right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I wrote the article that I referred to before Christmas. I have been working on this issue for some years. However, he is failing to answer the question why there has been this unholy delay on the part of DCMS. Not only has it failed to come forward with the code, but it has failed to update, for nearly three years, the database based on which people will understand where and why masts should be erected.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I can tell that I have inspired the hon. Gentleman to poetry because that was a couplet. On the second part of the couplet, I have committed to do all I can to update that database—he is right about that—just as I committed to try to break down the maps that show coverage into an order that allows individual Members of Parliament to consider the circumstances in their constituencies.

On the issue of delay, it is not for me to answer for the previous regime in the DCMS. The current Secretary of State there has clearly made this issue a priority. The hon. Gentleman asked in an earlier intervention whether there had been discussions with DEFRA and others. Yes, there have been extensive discussions. Have there been discussions with the Ministry of Transport? I am the Ministry of Transport, to all intents and purposes, so of course there have been discussions with the Ministry of Transport.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

So when did the right hon. Gentleman know about the code? Why has he not made it available to the Mobile Operators Association?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not going to deceive the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has already it made clear that when we decided to add this provision to the Bill late last year, I speedily made contact with him to ensure that he was notified. I committed to do all I could to ensure that the Committee and the House more widely had access to officials to make any inquiries that they chose to. I repeat—I do not want to be repetitive, but repetition is not without its virtues—that, given that this is largely based on the Law Commission report, much of what is required to reform the code has been debated over some time, so there will be a broad consensus on it.

Mr Raynsford rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall come to trees in a second. Much—not all, but much—of the change that the Law Commission recommended was about matters that had been of concern for some time. There were therefore not many surprises in its recommendations in that sense, and there are not many surprises in what is before us today. This was not uncharted water. Indeed, if I were a more partisan politician than I am, or a more mischievous man by instinct or habit, I could say that not a lot was done between the years of 1997 and 2010, when many of the doubts and concerns about the prevailing code—a code that, of course, had its genesis in 1984—had already been expressed by mobile operators and others. As my knowledge of recent history is not as great as my familiarity with St Augustine, I cannot recall who was in government between 1997 and 2010.

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who I see is about to remind me.

Nadhim Zahawi (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I suspect that it was a Labour Government, Minister.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did wonder. Now that my hon. Friend has reminded me, I do recall which party was in power over that period. Now that he brings it fresh to the front of my mind, I recall how little was said and done then.

Mr Raynsford rose—

Mr Newmark rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I saw the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich first, and he was of course a distinguished Minister in that Government.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the Minister will know, I have been looking at the Telecommunications Act 1984 to see the textual differences. From studying that, I am reminded that amendments were made in the Communications Act 2003. His allegation of inactivity on the part of the previous Government therefore seems uncharacteristically inaccurate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was aware of the 2003 Act. I have both Acts at my disposal, because I always like to have to hand legislation affected by the proposed legislation before us. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having studied that set of amendments and the original code, that it is largely the original code that defines practice on the ground now. Those amendments were not comprehensive, as the provisions in the Bill and the new schedule embodying the code are. They were of a much less fundamental nature, and that is why the Law Commission recommended what it did. Had it been satisfied with the status quo resulting from the later changes to the ’84 provisions, its recommendations would have been nowhere near as comprehensive.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I do not seek to make any improper suggestions about the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but if they are accurate, why on earth does he think that reputable businesses among the mobile operators—companies such as the Wireless Infrastructure Group and Arqiva—are expressing concerns? Surely the simple fact is that the redraft has got it wrong because it failed to engage them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let us see what some people have said about the need for change. EE, which I understand is an organisation called Everything Everywhere, says:

“We hope that the Government will see the Law Commission’s work through and introduce legislation before the 2015 Election.”

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), a senior member of the Labour party, said:

“The Law Commission found the Electronic Communications Code to be complex and out-dated and took the view that it was making the rollout of electronic communications more difficult. As long ago as February 2013, it recommended amendments to the Code strike a better balance between code operators and landowners. This needs to be acted on.”

The Law Commission report stated:

“It was clear to us from the beginning of the project that the 2003 code is in need of reform. It is complex and extremely difficult to understand…It is also difficult to discern the relationship of the 2003 code with other elements of the law.”

The law firm Osborne Clarke, which covers some areas of digital business, stated:

“The Law Commission has recently reviewed the Code and has made some significant recommendations for reform which should provide greater clarity and strike a fairer balance between Landowners/Developers and Operators.”

That is the very point that I have made.

Andrew Miller rose—

Mr Newmark rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Before I give way to my hon. Friend and then the hon. Gentleman, let me deal again with the question of balance. It has been suggested that landowners and mobile operators are not happy. Frankly, were either of them entirely happy, I rather suspect that we would not have got the balance right. I am of the view that the provision strikes a fair deal between landowners and mobile operators. It does not do everything that landowners want, and it certainly does not do everything that mobile operators want, but it does enough to ensure our core objective of improving mobile coverage.

I do not want to be unnecessarily hostile, but the Opposition must be careful, because if they send a signal out from this Committee that they are in favour of code reform and wider mobile coverage and they do not take the opportunity to back it, some people—not me, I hasten to add, or other Government Members—will misinterpret that as meaning that they do not care about wider mobile coverage. I know that that is not true, and it would be a misinterpretation, but it would become widespread.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I want to reiterate the Minister’s history lesson. I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who has said that the Opposition support the spirit of the legislation and the reforms, but they need more time. If my memory of history serves me correctly, I seem to remember that during the years when the Opposition were in power, they did not spend a huge amount of time scrutinising things. With their enormous majority, they tended to ram-roll things through Parliament. I believe that the Government have got the balance right in the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

All I would say to my hon. Friend is that one of the most dispiriting aspects of democratic politics is the perceived need to demonise one’s opponents. I think that that is an unpleasant and unhappy thing, because in fact all Governments do some good things and some bad things. All Governments have some talented Ministers and some who are less so. All Governments have some successes and some failures. Although that may be regarded as a generalisation, as Hegel said:

“An idea is always a generalisation, and generalisation is a property of thinking. To generalise means to think.”

In general terms, I believe that most hon. Members would take that view.

Graham Jones (Labour, Hyndburn)

Will the Minister give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am afraid that there is a pecking order. First, I must give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and then to the shadow Minister.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

All the Minister’s quotations predated the publication of the new clause. All the code operators that have engaged with members of the Committee have expressed concerns, and I have restated those concerns. In an article that I wrote before Christmas, I expressed the need for change. It is disingenuous for the Minister to suggest that the Opposition oppose reform. We do not, but the new clause will slow down reform. Believe me, Minister; I have been working on this for 20-odd years.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I would certainly want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s diligence and expertise in all such matters—he takes a keen interest in these affairs—but, like him, I am guided by what the industry says. Ericsson says:

“By the time we install small cells there will be a new set of issues that may not be considered and should be. Operators cannot plan service when open to rent uncertainty especially not charges that increase based on usage.”

Sky says:

“Sky considers that a number of steps may further encourage…investment, including: ensuring that the Electronic Communications Code…is fit for purpose and allows operators to deploy new infrastructure quickly and affordably.”

There is a clamour for change and reform. Of course it is right that we ensure that our measures are as watertight as legislation ever can be. That is one of the endeavours of contributors to this short debate, and I respect that.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

Anyone listening to this debate or reading these proceedings will not have the misunderstanding that the Minister suggests. Opposition Members have made it very clear that we are in favour of reform. We want to get it right, but given what he says about the importance of enacting the reform, and given that the delay appears to be linked to the pattern of negotiations on the deal, is he not concerned that the mobile phone operators have said that

“neither New Clause 19 nor New Schedule 2 as currently drafted deliver the reforms necessary to extend coverage in line with… 17 December”?

If that is the case, the reason he says that this must be enacted is actually the reason why it should not be enacted.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I think the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has become preoccupied and very excited. The hon. Member for Rhondda spends a great deal of his time in a state of excitement, which I do not necessarily criticise—I am a passionate man myself—but there is a difference between the passionate pursuit of virtue and a kind of heated excitement. The righteous zeal that I hope I personify stands in stark contrast to his rather excitable claim that, somehow, this code reform is intrinsic to the negotiations to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred. The truth is that code reform would have happened anyway, because code reform was absolutely necessary. It was called for by the industry, agreed by the Opposition and recommended by the Law Commission. My goodness, this was not plucked from the ether; this was a change whose time had come.

Graham Jones (Labour, Hyndburn)

The right hon. Gentleman made the honest point, with which I would not disagree, that all Governments make mistakes. I want to press him to pursue the path he is traversing a little further by suggesting what mistakes he thinks this Government have made and how that reflects on the Bill. I would appreciate his honesty.

My second point, which is not even tangential to the first, has been raised by other members of the Committee. I have been elucidated by his fascinating quotes, and he has enlightened the Committee with some observational, referential points on our literary history, but he has failed to draw on the works of the bard in this passage of the Committee. In answering, or at some other point, will he reflect on our greatest writer?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Let me inject a philistine note into this debate. I was denied the ecstasy of listening to the first hour and 40 minutes of the debate this morning, but I have enjoyed the past 40 minutes of it. I will gently point out, however, that although I have no desire or ability to curtail the debate, we are due to finish at five o’clock this evening and I notice that there are three sets of Opposition amendments still to be debated. A degree of expedition might be in order.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I was thinking just the same, Sir Roger. I am always guided by your greater authority, experience and expertise. I am going to deal with 10 points in five minutes. They are the 10 points raised in the debate that require further comment.

I will first deal with trees. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned that the new proposals changed the ability of operators to deal with overhanging trees on roads in England and Wales and the streets in Scotland that might impede their progress in improving infrastructure or adding to the effectiveness of communication. He is right about that. Existing legislation does allow exceptions, even in the kind of areas that he described. Those exceptions will apply in respect of operators. To be honest, I am not absolutely happy about that. I have got the advice from officials, but I am not content about that. I care a lot about trees; after all, we plant trees for those born later. I want to reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and take another look to see if we are right—I can tell the Committee that that will come as something of a surprise to the officials!

Let me go through the other nine point. I say this not in an unkindly way to the shadow Minister, but he made a fundamental error. There is indeed a 30-page impact assessment on this specific measure which has been in the public domain. I am more than happy to send another copy of that to all Committee members in the general note that I will be sending.

Let me turn to my third point—someone will need to keep check that I cover 10. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked what powers the Government had to force coverage in uneconomic areas. The Government have no legal powers; we have, however, made a huge step forward in improving coverage. He will know this very well, but £150 million has been invested in the mobile infrastructure projects specifically designed to get mobile coverage to places lacking it at the moment. Broadband Delivery UK rural broadband infrastructure programmes are to deliver superfast broadband to those areas, too.

The fourth point is about the coverage map, which I have dealt with. As I said, Ofcom is responsible for that. We rely on the operators to provide detail, although we do not always get it. I do not think that is good enough. I think we want more and we want it broken down in the way I have described.

I think I have already dealt with the issue of wholesale infrastructure providers. They are defined for the purposes of the new code as operators. That is in line with the Law Commission recommendations. For further assurance, the revised code will allow all existing arrangements to continue. There is no change to those arrangements.

On clarity and poor drafting, officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have considered the concerns raised by stakeholders and are satisfied that the new code is correctly drafted and are engaging with stakeholders to explain the effects of the revised code. Some of those concerns arise from not having enough time to explain, a point that has been made. Some of the queries about drafting may be based on misunderstandings about drafting. I do not think that is exclusively true; as I said, let us get this right. The meeting we are having next week and the further note that I produce will help to address some of those specific matters.

On dispute resolution—I am probably on item six now —there is a clear power to move cases to the jurisdiction of the upper tribunal. We have already written to the Mobile Operators Association and the Mobile Network Operator on that concern.

As for the apparent £1 billion black hole, Ofcom is simply considering whether the commitment by mobile operators to reach 90% coverage affects the process for assessing licence fees. The code makes no change and has no connection with licence fees in legislative terms; we should not give the impression, albeit inadvertently, that it does. That is a matter that sits outside of the consideration of this Committee, as you will understand, Sir Roger, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it further.

As for engagement with other Departments, DCMS has indeed been engaged with a range of Departments and other agencies on the code—that was probably the eighth point. On the issue of state aid, we are confident that the agreement reached with mobile operators has no state aid risk. That was the ninth point.

The final point I want to make on this matter is that the purpose of the code is primarily to regulate consensual relationships. The Government do not intend to interfere with existing arrangements. That point was made by a number of hon. Members, who felt that we might arrive in a less desirable place than the one we find ourselves in now. Where existing arrangements have been negotiated carefully and properly under the previous code, they will of course be honoured. The Government’s view is that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the rights of two or more parties to a contract in those terms.

This is to move forward, not to stand still or move backwards. So often through our history, it is the party on this side of the Committee—the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli—that has taken the nation forward, usually in the face of opposition from Liberals and others. I always say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West that, until about the first couple of decades of the 20th century, there were still Liberals who wanted to put boys up chimneys. I am sure that is not true now. In that spirit, I urge Opposition Members to recognise that this is the future. This is about progress and expanding mobile coverage to people who do not have it. This is, as I said at the outset, about the national interest and the common good. The Opposition would do no favours to either of those, or to themselves, by burying their head in the sand.

New Clause 4 - Walking and cycling

New Clause 7 - Petroleum extraction: environmental base line data

New Clause 12 - Development Plan documents: accessible design

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I fear that we are unlikely to have the literary appeal or historical justifications for this new clause that we had in the previous debate, but I thought it might help our deliberations if I briefly gave some background to why new clause 12 is necessary.

The built environment and our housing stock fail to meet the needs of a large number of people. The UK ageing demographic structure and the 5 million British people with mobility problems mean that we have a growing need for accessible housing, but that need is not being met. As a result of the low availability of accessible housing, we know from Government statistics that one in five people requiring adaptations to their home believe that their accommodation is simply not suitable.

Similarly, Habinteg research published in 2010 found that 78,300 wheelchair-user households in England had unmet housing needs. Of the 5 million people in the UK with mobility problems, 72% say that they do not have an accessible door into their building; 52% that they do not have doors and hallways wide enough for a wheelchair; and 50% that they do not have stairs big enough for a stair lift to be fitted.

Part M of the building regulations that were introduced in 1998 sets out guidance requiring new buildings to be safe and convenient for disabled people to access and to move around in internally. As the statistics show, however, much more needs to be done.

The lifetime homes standard is a set of 16 design criteria to ensure that all homes that are built are accessible and more easily adapted to meet people’s changing needs at different stages in their lives. However, building to that standard is only optional.

Going back to the discussion that we had a few days ago, had the Government continued to insist that from 2016 homes were built to code level 6, that would have included homes being built with a lifetime promise guarantee included, because it is part of the code level 6 requirements. However, as we know, the Government are not continuing with a commitment to introducing that lifetime homes standard from 2016. The Greater London Authority has required all new homes to meet the lifetime homes standard since 2004, but estimates from the Government show that a mere 5% of homes outside London meet that standard.

New clause 12 creates a duty to ensure that accessibility is at the front of decision makers’ minds when preparing local plans in England. There is a clear precedent for such statutory duties to be included in plan making—for example, in 2008, legislation was amended to add a specific duty on local development documents to consider climate change. Similarly, new clause 12 would insert a specific duty to consider the objective of achieving accessibility into section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

There is huge support for the new clause, including from the Town and Country Planning Association and Habinteg housing association. They state that

“it is essential that local authorities are supported in all ways possible to ensure that the whole built environment is accessible, inclusive and can be used and enjoyed by everyone. As part of this we need authorities to be aware of the new standards, understand their importance, integrate them into policy and apply them to the needs of local populations. A statutory duty on plan making to consider accessibility would send a clear signal about the priority to be afforded to this agenda.”

That is backed by Age UK, Aspire, the Building Research Establishment, the Centre for Accessible Environments, Care & Repair England, Disability Rights UK, Golden Lane Housing, the International Longevity Centre, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mencap, the National Housing Federation, and Papworth Trust—and I could go on. There is huge body of opinion saying that we need to do more to improve accessibility.

I expect that the Minister will say, “We have looked at this matter and we have dealt with it via the housing standards review.” We know that the Government have created a menu of national housing standards that local authorities may choose to implement via their local plan policy. However, the new standards are set to be purely optional for local authorities and subject to narrow viability testing. The viability test is highly prescriptive and, as the Minister will know, is set out in the national planning policy framework. Because the test is concerned only with the competitive returns to willing landowners and willing developers, it does not include any economic assessment of the long-term benefits to the economy of, for example, the delivery of lifetime homes. That means that a number of organisations will need to continue to make the case for a lifetime homes standard to be the default for all new homes.

Mandatory accessible design standards would speed up the delivery of accessible housing to an appropriate rate, as they have done in London since 2004. In the meantime, it is essential that local authorities are supported in all ways possible to ensure that the whole built environment is accessible, inclusive and, as I said, can be used and enjoyed by everyone. I suggest to the Minister that it is made mandatory for all local authorities to consider accessibility when making their plans. If he wants to go a little further and change his mind on the desirability of code 6 homes from 2016, that is another option available to him to achieve the same end.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Good afternoon, Sir Roger. The shadow Minister said that she anticipated what I was going to say; of course, we always try to anticipate what she is going to say to ensure that we are well prepared for the sort of issues that might arise. The new clause refers to planning legislation, but she largely spoke about building regulations, which stem not from planning legislation but, as we know from our long and detailed consideration of clause 32, from the Building Act 1984.

I did not anticipate that the hon. Lady would go down the route of looking at part M of the building regulations and how it was affected by the housing standards review. Nevertheless, I can assure her that, having looked at that review and part M, we have made sure both that we strengthened part M as a baseline and that there are optional standards that are tougher for building homes that are age-friendly and wheelchair accessible. We have that optional upper tier standard because the demographics vary. I would guess that the demographics of Christchurch—to pluck a district council from the air—are quite different from those of Greenwich, in terms of the age profile of the population. It is a matter for the London borough of Greenwich to decide whether it wishes to apply a higher standard for accessibility over and above the baseline of part M. An authority somewhere like Christchurch may indeed find the higher standard attractive, and it is now designed, written and out there to be adopted. Although we did not anticipate that the hon. Lady would go down that route, I am reasonably familiar with that issue so hope that I have addressed her point.

The hon. Lady was correct to suggest that I would say that we are doing a lot of work on these matters and try to persuade her that the new clause is not needed. I certainly appreciate its intention. There is a complete meeting of minds on the idea that we must ensure that new homes and the built environment in general are constructed to a standard that previous legislators on this subject would not have considered necessary. Our whole viewpoint on the built environment is that it is not people who are disabled; they are disabled by their surroundings, which are designed for them by others who are usually not disabled. The mindset has switched, and I think that there is complete consensus in the House on that.

I hope that the hon. Lady will not interpret anything that I am about to say as denying her good intentions or feel that we do not also have good intentions. However, the new clause is unnecessary because it replicates requirements on local planning authorities that are already in place. The Government have been clear throughout their reforms that new requirements should be put on authorities only where strictly necessary, and that the planning system should be as streamlined as possible. In preparing a local plan, an authority must have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Before a plan can be adopted, it must be found to be sound, which includes being tested for consistency with the policies set out in the national planning policy framework.

Paragraph 50 of the national planning policy framework sets out that local authorities should plan for “inclusive” communities. Paragraph 57 makes it clear that it is

“important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development”.

Paragraph 58 of the framework similarly sets out that local plans should establish

“robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area.”

It goes on to say that policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments

“create safe and accessible environments”.

We reiterated the importance of promoting accessibility and inclusion in planning and guidance that was published on 6 March 2014. Moreover, local authorities are required by the Equality Act 2010 to have

“due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity”.

That includes the need to “remove or minimise disadvantages” experienced by people with disabilities and “take steps” to meet their needs. That public sector equality duty means that public bodies have to consider people with disabilities throughout their work, including in shaping policy and delivering services. Throughout the housing standards review that the hon. Lady mentioned, the Government are strengthening the building regulations, as I described.

Work is going on which the hon. Lady and, indeed, other members of the Committee may not be aware of. The Government are working with professional bodies in the sector to strengthen good practice and professional expertise and support inclusive design. We have given support to the Design Council and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in order to mainstream best practice in inclusive design. We have had direct engagement with key construction professionals, including architects, engineers, surveyors and builders. In particular, we funded the Design Council to deliver a web-based one-stop shop for construction sector professionals to share knowledge, relevant research and best practice in inclusive design. That hub was launched on 17 July last year and received 12,000 hits in its first month.

We did not stop there. Back in October, I chaired a meeting at the Design Council of all the professional bodies, including some of the ones that the shadow Minister mentioned. We looked at what we could do together to ensure that the need for inclusive design is built into the initial professional training of people studying for a qualification—whether it is architects, surveyors or people working in building regulations and planning—so that it is as up to date as possible. Of course, as most of the people practising in those areas will already be qualified and in work, we also looked at how that can be built into their continuing professional development.

In February, we will reconvene that group of professional bodies to see what they have done in the intermediate months. The Minister for Disabled People will, I hope, join me at that meeting. We look forward to hearing what all the professional bodies are doing to change professional practice and ensure that when people working in this area are designing a new building or an alteration to an existing one, they have accessibility at the forefront of their minds.

I hope that the hon. Member for City of Durham is reassured by what I have said. In the housing standards review, we thought through carefully what we should do on accessible design and building regulations. We came up with the baseline part M and the enhanced standard, so that local authorities can choose to go further if their local demographics suggest that they should. We have strong guidance in several paragraphs of the NPPF that local authorities have to follow in preparing their local plans.

Although we will be revealing it in February, we have been working behind the scenes with all the relevant professional bodies in this area to ensure that this good practice cascades right through the work force, from a graduate trainee to the most senior person in a planning authority or architectural practice. Inclusivity in design should be at the heart of all their work. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that there is good intention on both sides and will withdraw her new clause.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will try to explain carefully to the Minister why I am not reassured by what he had to say. Our view is that launching hubs for discussion, chairing meetings, getting professional bodies together and looking at training are all worthwhile things, but they will not deliver what we want unless there is a requirement for local authorities to take account of accessibility in developing their local plans and to think clearly about how that is going to be implemented in practice.

Just for the record, I would be grateful if the Minister told us where he thinks there will not be a demographic need to have more accessibility. Where exactly in the country do we not have an ageing population and people with mobility problems? I have not come across that area, so if he has, perhaps he can enlighten us.

I want to respond to some of the points that the Minister made, particularly about the NPPF. I clearly said that there was an accessibility requirement, but that it was undercut by the viability requirements. I do not think that the Minister dealt with that point at all. In reality, the viability argument trumps the accessibility one. That whole issue needs to be looked at. If it was a level playing field and all local authorities had to accept these new housing standards, which have been operating, as far as I can see, effectively in London for more than a decade, then we would not be in that situation.

I am really surprised that the Minister went down the rather odd route of just asking what part M of the building regulations had to do with it. The point I made about part M of the building regulations was that it had existed since 1998 and it needed looking at again. It is not enough and it is not delivering what we need in terms of building accessible homes or—which would be much more desirable—homes to the lifetime homes standard. That is where the whole debate is, and he will know that if he chairs meetings of professional organisations working in the area.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

To ask the hon. Lady a direct question, is it her suggestion that all new homes should be built to the lifetime homes standard that Habinteg owns at the moment?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The new clause asks that local authorities be required to consider accessibility in drawing up their local plans. The point I made about code 6 was that if the Government had not watered down the requirement for new homes to be built to code level 6 by 2016, then we would have had the lifetime homes standard by another route. As that route is not currently available because of the changes that the Government are making through the legislation, perhaps the Minister would consider another route, which is a requirement to put this standard into local plan policy. That was, I thought, the very clear point I made in my comments to the new clause.

At the moment, the Government do not seem to support either of the routes that would help us deliver more accessible homes. What we have is a talking shop and, for people who have serious mobility issues, that is not good enough. It is not good enough that we are not building homes to the lifetime homes standard when we clearly could.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. I did not give the full list of the people who were at the meeting at the Design Council in October—in fact, we will be re-inviting the presidents of all these professional bodies to the Design Council in February—but they included people who are advocates for the various disability groups and who are involved in the work. I do not think it is fair to describe it as a talking shop. It is already altering professional practice, and the intention is that that change of mindset will be embedded throughout the profession. It has already had tangible results and the intention is for it to have representation on all the key professional bodies from February.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will take the Minister’s word that some progress might be made in some areas as a result of the work that is going on. The important thing about the new clause—I have not really heard from him why he disagrees with it—is that it would require all local authorities to consider accessibility in their plan making. In the context of what he has just said about the discussions, I cannot see why the new clause is not acceptable. I wish to press it to a vote.

New Clause 13 - Place making objectives for new town development corporations

New Clause 14 - Impact of infrastructure spending on costs for consumers

Tom Greatrex (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 15—Interpretation of section (Impact of infrastructure spending on costs for consumers)—

In section Impact of infrastructure spending on costs for consumers—

(a) “consumer” means any individual or household of individuals that purchases a product or products;

(b) “product” means a good or service the provision of which is regulated by a regulator;

(c) “a regulator” means any of—

(i) the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation;

(ii) the Office of Communications;

(iii) the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets;

(iv) the Office of Rail Regulation;

(v) the Water Industry Commission for Scotland; and

(vi) the Water Services Regulation Authority;

and “the regulators” means (i) to (vi).”

Tom Greatrex (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

I want to talk about the intent behind the new clause, which is an important amendment to tease out the Government’s thinking on these important and significant issues. The title of the Bill is the Infrastructure Bill—we might have a discussion about the short title or the long title on Report—and it obviously impacts on different forms of infrastructure. We have heard today about energy, transport, standards for homes and a range of issues. With infrastructure, there are always costs, and costs end up being borne by the consumer and/or taxpayer—groups that often overlap.

It is important to reflect on a National Audit Office report on infrastructure costs. The NAO concluded that no one in Government is drawing together an overall forecast of aggregated costs on a range of different sectors or how that will impact on consumers. I am aware that in 2010 Ofgem in the energy sector undertook Project Discovery, which looked at costs associated with the renewal of energy infrastructure. Although a regulator did that, the Government took the view that it was policy work, so since 2010 the Department of Energy and Climate Change has done similar assessments.

In relation to water, however, as the National Audit Office report highlighted, the limited forecast for future bills is attempted by Ofwat and not by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In telecoms, neither the regulator nor the relevant Department is making any such forecast. We can see that there is an inconsistency in the approach to those important matters. I am sure that we all support infrastructure renewal; the need for it is pretty urgent in some areas and sectors. However, we are all rightly concerned about the cost and where it falls.

We can debate, as we frequently do, whether certain forms of technology are a waste of money and how effective they are. The hon. Member for Daventry may decide to start such a conversation. For the sake of transparency, however, I am sure that he and others would like that to be comprehensive. The amendment would compel the Treasury to charge someone else on its behalf, to undertake such an exercise systematically, so that the results could be compiled, compared and made available not only to those of us who scrutinise Government policy but to the general public.

Such an exercise is important for two reasons. First, it is important from the point of view of seeking the best value for money for taxpayer-funded or, eventually, consumer-funded projects when the cost ends up on people’s bills. Secondly, it is important to enable us to have an objective debate. Various different people make assessments and claims about the costs, but the comparisons are not always accurate. In the energy arena, for example, that can be done on the basis of generational capacity or of lifetime costs. The figures can be calibrated in different ways, which may lead to contrasting results from studies on the same issue. It would be helpful for the Government to consider a properly comparable way of doing that, which covers a number of different sectors in a consistent way, and new clauses 14 and 15 are designed to achieve that.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the work that the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee have done on the matter. It is always wise to take account of their work and to look at ways to respond, through the work of Government, to their legitimate concerns so that if there are any deficiencies, as there seem to be in this area, those can be rectified. Members of the Committee may well be aware that the Consumers Association has, over a long time, pressed for something similar to new clauses 14 and 15, and the organisation contributed to the evidence taken by the NAO in the preparation of the report. Even if the Government cannot accept the new clauses, I hope that the Minister can indicate that they are seriously considering the issues I have raised. I hope that they are considering ways of providing the relevant information objectively and with the right analysis, in order to remove the doubt and distortion that we have seen in some of the debates about cost and ensure that people are clear about the costs associated with different projects or policy developments. In such a way, the Government can ensure that public debate is well informed rather than misinformed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I have grown increasingly fond, during our deliberations, of a number of members of the Committee, including the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Birmingham, Northfield, but it is no secret that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is my favourite. When I saw the notes that were prepared for me—which were immensely tedious and to which I am not going to refer— encouraging me to resist the new clause, I was not exactly resentful, but there was a certain sorrow in my heart. None the less, I am going to resist the new clause, but not because it does not have some nuggets at its core.

There are two powerful points at the heart of the motivation behind the proposed new clauses. The first is that consumers should know as much as possible about what their bill comprises. There is precedent for that because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, given his shadow ministerial responsibilities in the field of energy, energy bills are broken down to show what is spent, for example, on transmission costs, which are a substantial part of bills. Distribution and transmission costs together are something like 20% of the bill, and it is important that people know that.

The second nugget at the heart of the reason for the proposed new clauses is that it is good to have some independent scrutiny of the effect—particularly in those areas of infrastructure and investment that are necessary to deliver utilities—that the character of that investment has on consumers. That argument is made by the Consumers Association and others, and the hon. Gentleman amplified it in his short remarks. However, I am not sure that the new clause is the best way to go about it.

I have two problems with the way in which the hon. Gentleman set about addressing at least two important issues. The first is that because so much infrastructural investment is private—not dictated by Government—and the Government therefore do not set the overall level of infrastructural spending, I am not sure that it is appropriate for the Government to become involved in the way that they would have to if the new clauses were incorporated into the Bill.

We do not control how much is spent on a large proportion of infrastructure. Investment in roads is funded almost exclusively privately, and although we have a road investment strategy, the delivery of that strategy is essentially about building sufficient confidence in long-term commitment to encourage private sector investment. The same might be true in the area in which the hon. Gentleman has responsibility and considerable expertise. Given that at least 60% of our infrastructural pipeline is expected to be privately funded, I am not sure that the proposal that he is making is the right vehicle to achieve the two things that I have highlighted as seeming significant.

The second reason why I would resist the new clauses—just in case any members of the Committee were worrying, there are times to speak for a long time and times to speak for a short time, and I shall be speaking for a short time on this occasion—is that I am not sure that aggregating spend on infrastructure is meaningful. I certainly do not think that it is easy to devise a robust mechanism for doing so. Certainly, aggregating effects on consumers is problematic, because of the variable character of the effect of infrastructural investment and the variable character of the nature of consumption. Therefore, for those two pretty central reasons of economic theory and practice, it is difficult to accept the new clauses.

There are any number of more detailed explanations that I could read out to the point of tedium, but I have no intention of doing so. However, because of the tone in which the hon. Gentleman spoke and the intent behind the amendments, which I recognise, I will look again at the matter, with the caveats I have mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the National Audit Office. If I were in opposition—far be it from me to teach people how to do their jobs—I might have focused more on the regulators’ teeth, because there is the question of the balance between measurement and regulation. There is an interesting point about what role regulators should and do play in assessing the appropriateness of infrastructure investment. As he will know, they already have such a responsibility, but the Bill provides an opportunity to test the effectiveness of what they currently do. There are matters that we can look at, the consideration of which has been catalysed by the tabling of these new clauses. Because of not only my affection for the hon. Gentleman but the sense in what he said, I will look at them again. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Tom Greatrex (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

Briefly, I would like to make two points for the record. The Minister talked about private investment, but that investment often ends up on consumers’ bills. I am talking not just about energy but about some transport matters that are the cause of concern.

During the festive period we saw disruption to many rail services, caused by overrunning works. The justification from, I think, one of the Minister’s colleagues in his Department, not just for those works but for the subsequent increase in fares, was that the investment would lead to better services and facilities and greater rail capacity. The Government often make that point, but it is important that the public and others who rightly want to scrutinise what the Government are doing can test the objectivity of those statements.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Let me make our argument even more sophisticated than it is already—that is a tough call, but I will give it a shot. The disruption he described was not really about the investment, but was about the decision-making process and the effects of the delivery of that investment. In a sense, it is rather clumsy to confuse the two.

That gives me the opportunity to tell the hon. Gentleman, and, through him, the Committee, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield made several points in the early stages of our considerations about the accountability of the new body that we are establishing to deliver our road investment strategy, Highways England. I am clear that I want Highways England to look as little like Network Rail as possible.

Tom Greatrex (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West)

I am sure that that will be of comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. We may return to those discussions on Report.

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. My point was not that the investment was the cause of the disruption, but that following the disruption, which led to media and public attention, one of the Minister’s colleagues had to interrupt her Christmas break to speak about it, and she said that the reason for the investment of which that work was a part was to deliver better services. That was at the same time as announcements about fare increases, which were justified in part by that Minister as a way of funding some of the investment in the improvement in the railways that we want to see.

My other point is about regulators. The important point is that regulators in different sectors, whether energy, water or telecoms, seem to make forecasts differently. That was another reason for tabling the new clauses. If each regulator—or a combination of different regulators—made those forecasts consistently and with the same level of detailed work, there would perhaps be less of an issue. However, that is demonstrably not the case—for example, I made the comparison between the work that is done by Ofgem, and the way it is passed on to the Government, and the work done by Ofwat.

There are serious issues to be looked at, but, having said that, and not just because the Minister has highlighted me as his favourite Member on the Opposition side of the Committee—and only on this side, I am sure—I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote. However, I hope that he and colleagues in other Departments will look at those issues in detail, because even if they do not come to the fore while we are considering this Bill, I am sure they will be raised in future by Members on both sides of the House who are interested in ensuring absolute clarity about cost and information for consumers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 17 - Community benefit for schemes provided by companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing

New Clause 18 - Greater London Authority: housing and regeneration

Nadhim Zahawi (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

May I add my voice to that of my colleagues in saying what a pleasure it has been to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger? You have kept us committed to doing the right thing, focused on the Bill, and wide awake as well.

I have tabled the new clause to draw attention to an anomaly in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that could limit the ability of the Greater London authority to fund infrastructure improvements as part of regeneration projects in this great city. Such infrastructure investment is vital and greatly welcome to both the residents of our nation’s capital and visitors to it, such as my own constituents.

The new clause relates to section 31(1) of the 1999 Act, which appears to prohibit the GLA’s expenditure on a project if that project could be undertaken by Transport for London. As members of the Committee will be aware, a number of important infrastructure projects in London at the moment are supported by the Government, including the new housing zones policy and the massive regeneration of Barking riverside. Many of those projects include transport infrastructure that could be considered to be covered by section 31(1). I also understand that the section could prevent the Homes and Communities Agency from undertaking work under a delegation from the GLA.

To ensure that vital infrastructure spending in the capital is on a rock-solid legal footing, I strongly believe that it is important that any misunderstandings arising from section 31(1) of the 1999 Act be removed as soon as possible. I would therefore appreciate a commitment from the Government to deal with the anomaly.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. It is nice to hear him speak in the Committee; his time spent sitting silently but supportively listening to everyone else has now been rewarded. He has raised an important point, of which the Government are aware—indeed, it was drawn to our attention—and I thank him for giving the issue an airing for the whole Committee.

The GLA recently informed the Government that in its opinion, it was ambiguous whether the GLA would have the legal powers to fund the transport elements of housing or regeneration schemes. As my hon. Friend said, that is because of a general prohibition in the original Act that set up the GLA in 1999 preventing the it from incurring expenditure in doing anything that its functional bodies can do—in this instance, Transport for London. From a commercial perspective, it is a case in which the subsidiary appears to have more power than the parent, which seems odd, but that is how the legislation was constructed back in 1999.

Transport for London has wide-ranging powers, defined as being

“for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.”

If the GLA’s interpretation of the legislation is correct, it could have a significant impact on its ability to provide financial assistance for some of its projects to build new homes in London. That is clearly not what Parliament intended when passing the Localism Act 2011, which devolved responsibility for housing and regeneration in London to the Mayor and the GLA.

Although I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause, we do not think that, as currently drafted, it achieves the clarity that the GLA is rightly seeking at the moment on the extent of its powers to incur expenditure on transport. I can inform him and advise the Committee that the Government are investigating the issue urgently and seeking the most appropriate legislative solution to ensure that the Mayor, and specifically the GLA, have the clarity needed to build the new homes and create the new jobs that London and Londoners desperately need. With that reassurance that we are aware of the problem, it is being considered urgently and a solution is hopefully forthcoming shortly, I encourage my hon. Friend to withdraw his clause.

Nadhim Zahawi (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. From his comments, he is clearly taking the matter seriously and has considered it in some detail. I hope that he will be able to come back with a legislative solution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 20 - Planning notification for the extraction of unconventional oil and gas

New Schedule 1 - Mayoral development orders - ‘Part 1 - Main amendments

Part 2 - Consequential amendments

New Schedule 2 - The electronic communications code

The electronic communications code - Part 1 - Key concepts

Part 2 - Conferral of code rights and their exercise

Part 3 - Assignment of code rights, and upgrading and sharing of apparatus

Part 4 - Power of court to impose agreement

Part 5 - Termination and modification of agreements

Part 6 - Rights to require removal of electronic communications apparatus

Part 7 - Conferral of transport land rights and their exercise

Part 8 - Conferral of street work rights and their exercise

Part 9 - Conferral of tidal water rights and their exercise

Part 10 - Undertaker’s works affecting electronic communications apparatus

Part 11 - Overhead apparatus

Part 12 - Rights to object to certain apparatus

Part 13 - Rights to lop trees

Part 14 - Compensation under the code

Part 15 - Notices under the code

Part 16 - Enforcement and dispute resolution

Part 17 - Supplementary provisions

New Schedule 3 - The electronic communications code: consequential amendments

Clause 46 - Regulations and orders

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 46, page 52, line 32, after “section 17” insert “(1)(a)”

Clause 47 - Extent

Clause 48 - Commencement

Clause 49 - Short title

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 49, page 54, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

Title

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Having changed the Bill’s long title, we have now reached the conclusion of our proceedings. It is probably good that the Bill already contained provision for invasive non-native species, because we have seen quite a few of them added to the Bill, and it is good that the long title was able to accommodate that. We have had some good discussions in Committee, and I have certainly learned many new things. I was previously unaware of the existence of killer shrimps, which caused a lot of mirth until we were brought up rather sharpish with the explanation that it is an important issue—at which point we all quickly adopted a more serious pose. If I were to pick out a debate in Committee that attracted a lot of attention, it would not be the one about the Highways Agency or about shale gas, but the one about invasive non-native species.

We will be reporting the Bill to the House in a while and, on a serious point, there are still things that need to be discussed. There is the electronic communications code, which we talked about today, and we already know that there is a need for further scrutiny on issues relating to shale gas extraction, Highways Agency reform and other things. Through you, Sir Roger, I put to the Minister some of the things that were raised in Committee. Two days on Report is not too much to ask.

This has been a good-natured Committee. At some stages I wondered where the safari would go next in political philosophy and literature. We have heard about Yeats and, today, St Augustine. We have heard numerous references to Burke, and Disraeli has been here, too. Opposition Members have been able to manage C.S. Lewis—

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Gladstone.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

Gladstone was mentioned. Sorry, I forgot the Liberals—we do that quite often. We were able to mention Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis. Throughout this Committee I have been working out where I could work in references to Tom Paine and Gramsci. I did not manage it, but I have it on the record in these closing remarks.

The Committee has been conducted with good humour, for which I particularly thank the Minister. He has approached the debates both inside and outside this room with good humour and a genuine desire to involve Opposition Members. A number of commitments have been given that will strengthen the Bill. We still have reservations that will no doubt lead to Divisions on Report, but I think a number of our discussions will be taken away by the Minister, whom I thank for the courtesy that he has shown, even when being dumped upon by Ministers from other Departments into moving things that I suspect he would rather not have moved. Other Government Front Benchers have also shown great courtesy.

I thank my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for taking on board those aspects of the role that do not fall within my areas of responsibility. They have exercised great scrutiny of the Government’s proposals. I thank the Whips for keeping us in order. There was a frisson about the programme motion at the start, but we got there in the end. I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee. Their contributions have added wisdom to the Committee.

I thank the staff. The staff from the Departments never say anything, but they have to keep alert at all times to pass notes. Legislative debates could not happen without them. I also thank the staff on the Opposition side. They are not civil servants, but we rely on them to give us the briefings that enable us to exercise our responsibilities. I want to say thank you to them. I also thank the staff involved in recording and clerking proceedings. They deserve acknowledgment, and I gladly do so.

Finally, I thank the people who kept us in order throughout—you, Sir Roger, and Mr Hood. You have conducted the proceedings in an efficient and friendly way, and I would like to say thank you to you as well.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. Unusually, I rise on this occasion to add to the tributes from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, with whom I first served on a Committee in 1992. This is the last Bill Committee that I will serve on, as I am leaving the House at the general election. I volunteered to make this my valedictory Bill on the basis of my interest in hydraulic fracturing, but it became even more interesting when the Minister was slightly dumped on with the subject of mobile phone codes, which is also something I am really interested in. It has therefore been an appropriate Bill on which to finish my career in the House.

You and I have known each other all of that time, Sir Roger, and we have even gone through the Lobby together on a number of occasions. You may not care to admit that too frequently in the Conservative ranks, but I thank you, because I count you among my friends in this place, and I thank Mr Hood as well.

In particular, this has been a great Bill Committee to finish on because of the spirit in which it has been conducted. It is a great pity that only a handful of people are watching here and that we are not going to get a huge amount of television coverage, because some incredibly serious issues have been discussed, but in the spirit of true debate, rather than simply the slanging matches that occur on the Floor of the House. With those remarks, I say a fond farewell to all my friends here.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I want to say some things about substance and some things about style—as Gramsci said, by the way, those two things are inseparable.

On substance, it is right to say that this Committee has been serious but good humoured. Is it not odd how often people outside the House—constituents and friends—ask how legislation is formed? It is surprising that people ask that question, given that these Committees, after all, are held in public; none the less, they do. They will know if they watch the proceedings of the Committee or if they read the record of it in Hansard that legislation is formed on the basis of a proper discourse—a discourse that helps Government to hone their thinking through the argument that originates in these Committees. That is precisely what has happened on this occasion. There are matters to take further, and I have committed to do so, before and on Report. That is thanks to the contribution of Members across the Committee, and I am grateful to them for that.

On style, that has been defined by many people—by you, Sir Roger, and Mr Hood. You have exercised your immense power over us with a delicacy and generosity for which you are well known. The civil servants, the staff of the House and the staff of Members have provided and equipped us with the good arguments that we have imperfectly articulated. The members of the Committee have come here diligently, often to listen to me for immense lengths of time, which I regard as a pleasure, although they may not, and I am big enough to know that. There was a moment when my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry described me as precious, but, disappointingly—as I had hoped he would describe me as a shining and smooth pearl—he said that I was a rough gem. I had always thought I was so smooth, but now I know that I am really just rough.

I know the shadow Ministers well and offer them thanks, because they have been immensely diligent in their scrutiny of the Bill—as, by the way, I anticipated they would be, as I have known them all for a number of years. I offer thanks to my colleagues on the Government Benches, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West and for Hastings and Rye, who shared the burden of representing the Government’s interests with immense style. I thank the Whips, to whom, rather like God, we are in the end all answerable, for their smooth and sophisticated—[Interruption.] What people forget is that when I was a Whip I used to pass these notes. Let me just tear it up. [Laughter.] There.

And finally, I want to draw on three literary sources, or one political and two literary. I spend a good deal of my life late at night either listening to Miles Davies, as I did last night, or reading Proust, as I did afterwards. Proust said:

“We must never be afraid to go too far, for truth lies beyond.”

The Government’s job is to push forward, and to bring to the House legislation that makes a difference. That is what we have tried to do with this Bill.

Members will not be surprised that next I am going to quote Disraeli, who said that

“all power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise; that from the people and for the people all springs, and all must exist.”

Challenged to do so by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, I end with the bard himself—I offer thanks for this to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who provided it to me just a few moments ago. Let us go from this place in this spirit. See me, but imagine, if you will, Olivier:

“God, if thy will be so.

Enrich the time to come with…smiling plenty and fair prosperous days!”

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

On the issue of further discussion, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that that is entirely a matter for the usual channels, not for the Chair—indeed, neither was anything that has been said, all of which has been completely out of order. Nevertheless, as we are all completely out of order, it strikes me that one day someone will make a movie called “The Scourge of the Killer Shrimps”. I am sorry that the red squirrel did not appear to make it into Hansard on this occasion, but I am delighted that St Augustine found a proper place in the Committee, because he landed in the beautiful Isle of Thanet.

I say, wholly genuinely, to my friend the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that I am sure everyone on the Committee will wish him a long, active and happy retirement. It has been a pleasure to enjoy his friendship for a very long time.

An observation was made about the good humour of the Committee. I am sure that Mr Hood would join me in congratulating both sides of the Committee on the conduct and spirit in which its discussions have taken place. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will recall a transport Bill in the dim and distant past that he and I had the joy of sharing together, and it was in a similar spirit. I do not think there has been a Bill Committee since that I have felt was quite as good humoured as this one. I congratulate all Members on that conduct. I only wish that people outside this place saw rather more of what happens on a consensual basis in Committee.

With all that, I add my thanks to you all, particularly the Officers of the House, without whom we simply could not do our job. We appreciate them and the work that they do hugely, and that, in this difficult time and climate, the fact that they do their best to keep us safe.