Security of Government Devices

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did ask someone earlier what TikTok is—I thought I was a modern person, but clearly not.

Can the Minister tell us whether this sort of interpretation is going to involve a change in the Ministerial Code? A Minister may not think sharing a draft Written Ministerial Statement on personal email qualifies either as substantive business or as a security risk, but the Home Secretary was of course temporarily forced out after sending such material to the wrong people. Oliver Dowden also talked about the granting of exemptions for operational reasons. Can the Minister provide an example of why a banned app may be deemed necessary? If she cannot today, could she write with such an example?

This debate takes place in the context of wider concerns about some forms of Chinese-made technology, including CCTV camera systems. On 2 February, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton asked when the Government would commence important product security provisions under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act, which is intended to protect users of smart products such as CCTV doorbells. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, was unable to provide any date. I hope the Minister can do so today. The Government said they intended to bring the first half of that Act into force as soon as practicable, so why are we still waiting?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as a long-standing deputy chair of the all-party China group, I welcomed the proportionate approach taken in the Government’s statements in the integrated review refresh about relations with China. In the face of the current human rights position in Xinjiang and the situation in Hong Kong, however, this should not change any time soon.

On these Benches, we are in strong agreement with those who consider that the Government could and should have been a great deal more strategic about relationships with sensitive Chinese suppliers—whether internet or data based, hardware or software related—in the run-up to this Statement. This is a one-off Statement about TikTok, a social media company. It would be good to see the assessment and the evidence of potential cybersecurity issues which the Government have not yet—as far as I know—produced.

However, when it comes to makers of surveillance cameras, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, the Government appear far more reluctant to act. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, has been very clear in his warnings, in particular about Hikvision and Dahua cameras, which, as far as we know, are used extensively in Xinjiang for surveillance purposes and pose security risks here, even when live facial recognition is not enabled.

Just last week, we saw Tesco lead the way in the private sector and order the removal of these cameras from its stores. The Government have simply ceased to install them. Why are they not directing their removal, particularly in police forces? Have they mapped exactly where on the government estate and in other spaces these cameras remain?

Regarding TikTok, why act so late when the EU and US, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, acted earlier? Presumably they have the same security information. When did the evidence emerge that has led to this ban? Will the Government publish the review by cybersecurity experts which assesses the risks posed by these third-party apps on government devices?

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also mentioned, why are private devices used by government Ministers not covered? I note that Oliver Dowden repeated that position last week. After all, we know there has been extensive use of private devices by Ministers, particularly —dare I say—among former Health Ministers. What assessment of this aspect has been made? Which government departments and public bodies are actually covered? What is the process for drawing up the promised approved list of apps? What criteria will be used?

As many said in the Commons, this looks like whack-a-mole; the Statement is no substitute for a coherent cross-government strategy. Why do the Government not now move, for instance, to include the capture of biometric data in the definition of “critical national infrastructure”? Questions have been raised recently about Chinese cellular internet of things modules—CIMs—which are imbedded in many devices. What is the Government’s approach to this? Are they even aware of what CIMs are?

Finally, if the Government are concerned about information being harvested by social media and other apps, why is the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, now before the Commons, widening the circumstances in which research data can be used for commercial purposes? Is this not a typical example of this Government’s incoherence and lack of co-ordination on issues such as this?

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will want to give a more substantive response since this was fundamentally an opposition amendment, but it was supported strongly on these Benches. I accept that the Minister has tried to incorporate the spirit of the original amendment in this amendment coming from the Commons. He made a number of detailed points about objections to the drafting of the original amendment, but there is one thundering great hole in the amendment as brought forward by him, which is that there is no obligation on providers to comply with the code of practice once it comes into force. It is nakedly a voluntary code rather than any code that is able to be enforced by the Secretary of State. That is the major difference between the amendment that this House passed and that which has now come forward.

The Minister mentioned the internet safety strategy and the work being done on it. Many of us are convinced that when the work on that is done the need for an enforcement power in such a code of conduct will become clear. Will the Minister assure us that enforcement will be considered as part of the internet safety strategy and that, if the overwhelming body of evidence is that such a form of compliance is needed, the Government will come forward with amendments?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not delay the House but I want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said because the point about no enforcement and no sanctions is important. I recognise the words of the Minister in terms of reflecting the spirit and intent of our original amendment, and I think that that is what the government Motion now seeks to do. It will give notice to the social networks that failure to comply will result in further government action. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively, in particular on the internet strategy review.

In conclusion, our examination of these issues has been extremely good in the Lords both in Committee and on Report. We now have a clear policy which gives notice to the social networks that we want to ensure that proper standards are maintained and that action will be taken when evidence of abuse is found. It should not be a matter of days or weeks, which has been the case, before offensive material is taken down. We have seen evidence of the horrendous things that have been put up on social networks in the US and Thailand, so we want to ensure that the networks understand fully the gravity of the situation.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to Amendment 10. This amendment may not be the full loaf, but it certainly is three-quarters of a loaf in terms of an assurance on the two matters which gave us concern, the first of which was the extent to which the charges might exceed the costs incurred by the ICO. The Minister’s assurance is very helpful in terms of the operation of Clause 113, as is his assurance on mission creep, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was particularly concerned about. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his two assurances.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given us and I thank the Delegated Powers Committee for its excellent report which drew specific attention to this issue. The committee’s concern was not without evidence and it gave an example in relation to probate—I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is in his place—so it is an issue that was very much in people’s minds when considering this part of the Bill. However, the assurances given by the Minister are clear and concise. We have protections in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, in particular in relation to the element of function creep where there is a requirement for primary legislation. I welcome and support the amendment.

Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am conscious of the time, and we must allow the Minister time to respond. I simply indicate the support of these Benches for the proposals. We have had many knowledgeable contributions from around the House, most of which I support. We do not support the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his amendment to the Motion, but I thank him for the courtesy of providing a copy of the legal advice. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, had to say on that score. It seems to me to be pretty thin, but there is always an arguable case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. That does not seem to me to be a barrier to the adoption of this excellent scheme.

As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, outlined, it has been quite a saga. It is now since 2005 that the very existence of the levy has been up for grabs, so to speak. Then we had the discussion about racing rights, and so on. I think we have come to the right place. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that Tracey Crouch has grasped the nettle in the right way. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had no great things to say about the scheme. We very much welcome the £500,000 threshold. Some questions have been raised about why it is the Gambling Commission and why seven years, but I am sure that the Minister will answer them.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall try to be brief, but the Minister and I will not have any sort of dinner break if we are to go straight to the next group of amendments to the Bill.

I welcome the Government’s initiative in bringing this forward. It reflects the amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and I submitted three years ago. Last April, we had a lengthy debate initiated by the noble Viscount about this precise issue. So it is not that Parliament has not had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the principle. Unlike my noble friend, I support the principle. I know what the levy can do for rural industry. I know that it is not simply about rewarding rich horse trainers or owners: it is also about providing a system of support for education and training; ensuring that the industry is in a strong, healthy position; and, as noble Lords have pointed out, ensuring that it is a clean industry in which people can have faith when gambling.

That is the point I want to come to. I firmly believe that the people who profit from gambling should pay. Of course, it is not the punter who profits, it is always the bookmaker. I am not pro gambling, but I do not think that you can ever stop people gambling. I think we should create a situation in which people can have faith and confidence in what they are gambling on, and this is one way of doing it.

State intervention and state gambling provides the biggest support in this country to sport through the National Lottery, something that I firmly believe in and support. Since 2005, we have had debate after debate about the alternatives. The alternatives to the levy were proposed because of the changes to the way in which people gambled and how they could support the industries which they were gambling on. I see today’s statutory instrument as a natural progression of the debate. I would have liked to have seen alternatives to the levy; I would have liked to have seen that sporting right. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, knows that when we talked about offshore during the passage of the Gambling Act, we were faced with the Treasury saying, “We want to bring offshore gambling onshore”. It was nothing to do with the levy. The Government did not want the levy—it was to do with the Treasury wanting to capture that income. It was the pressure in this Chamber that forced the Government to consider the continuation of the levy. I hope that in the next seven years we will see that matter progress.

From these Benches, I would like to see the betting right cover more sports so that, when people gamble on football, grass-roots football benefits and when they are gambling on other sports, grass-roots sports benefit. That is not what tonight is about—and I welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend. I welcome the fact that he has tried to avoid having a wide debate about the principle. He has raised important issues about legality, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to those points but, as a point of principle, this side strongly welcomes the continuation of the levy.

Broadband

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

Medicines Act 1968 (Pharmacy) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Collins of Highbury

Monday 17th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

As the noble Earl stated, a lot has changed since the derogation in the directive was put in place. Much has changed in pharmacy arrangements in other EU member states and in the evolution of domestic policy. The reasons, as the Minister stated, were commercial.

In England, for example, there has been a welcome change over the past few years making it easier for people to get to a chemist, given that there are new pharmacies with longer opening hours. Clearly, such market restrictions are not appropriate today, and their removal will assist by increasing the pool of available pharmacists and ensure improved continuity of service delivery. I note that the change has also been welcomed by the key representative bodies of pharmacies.

I of course recognise that the restriction affects a relatively small number of pharmacies—just over 10 per cent, and just over 5 per cent of all pharmacists registered to practise in Great Britain. I also understand and accept the reasons for the change in the Explanatory Memorandum. However, these changes in the legislation raise broader issues relating to the competencies of the pharmacist and the person’s ability to manage a pharmacy. For example, the report on the consultation noted that concerns were expressed by respondents on competency in English. The Department of Health in its response stated that in the UK a check on the language knowledge of a pharmacist from outside the UK who is seeking work within the NHS is applied by the prospective employer, but that there is no check made at the point of registration.

This leads to three specific questions to the Minister. First, are there plans to introduce a standardised competency test to ensure that any pharmacists from the countries mentioned in the order who are in charge of a new pharmacy have all the required skills and competences? Secondly, are there plans to ensure that those in charge of a pharmacy will have a sufficiently high standard of English to avoid all risk of a patient misunderstanding any advice given? Thirdly, how can an employer determine whether the pharmacist in question is qualified in their own country and has no pending fitness-to-practise cases to answer?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the council of the School of Pharmacy of the University of London. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for a crystal clear explanation. I suppose, perforce, it had to be crystal clear to clear up some confusion arising from the Explanatory Memorandum. This is precisely the kind of uncontroversial deregulation that is important in the context. From both professional and consumer perspectives one could say that it is a perfectly formed small regulation. It affects a limited number of people who could not be responsible pharmacists in certain circumstances, but will now be able to be so where there are no significant safety implications from deregulating in the way that this order does.

I want to raise the issue of reciprocity. The noble Earl mentioned that the reason for deregulation is that circumstances have changed. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred to that. I am sure that in broad terms that is the case, but I should be extremely grateful to hear what the noble Earl believes the level of that deregulation would be. I remember doing a study of several EU countries, looking into what was permissible in pharmacy ownership and the level of regulation. That was about five years ago, when the level of regulation was extremely high—not just pharmacy regulation but the kind of licensing required to run a retail outlet, and so on. We have some extremely well run chains in this country, which would like to expand their offer in the EU more broadly. They have been largely frustrated from doing so by some of the regulation that applies. Therefore, reciprocity in these circumstances is extremely important. I am interested to hear just what the Minister believes to be the level of significant deregulation that has taken place.