Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Report stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. My noble friend Lord Fox will speak to Amendment 3 in the same group. First, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to his new role in DCMS and join others in that welcome. I am sure he has already found the company of those who speak on DCMS matters very congenial, but he will also note that there are a number of all-purpose vehicles here, so he has probably met quite a number of us already.

In Committee, we called for the three security requirements to be set out expressly in Part 1 of the Bill. At the moment they are promised in secondary legislation without any draft being available, as is, I am afraid, the Government’s consistently bad habit. Customers need absolute clarity on the support period that manufacturers will offer so that they are able to make more informed purchasing decisions. I cannot understand why the Minister’s predecessor insisted in Committee that the minimum security requirements should be stated in secondary, not primary, legislation. He said it was important that technology regulation enables the Government to respond to changes in threat and technology and to the regulatory landscape; surely, these are security principles which should endure.

As for mandating minimum security updates for periods for connectable products, the Minister said that there is no consensus among industry experts on how long security updates ought to last. This is foggy thinking—how can the Government not have taken a view? Contrast the approach of the European Union, which has recently published its own equivalent Cyber Resilience Act. Crucially, the EU has imposed a five-year mandatory minimum period in which products must receive security updates. A rigid five-year period is not necessarily desirable, but the commitment to set out in legislation a mandated period in which products receive security support is very welcome. Before Third Reading the Government really should undertake to look closely at the EU proposals and tighten up the Bill. Why should EU consumers get a better deal than UK ones?

As regards Amendment 13, on computer misuse, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, introduced this amendment in Committee and this one is exactly the same. Under regulations that will be introduced following the passage of the Bill, manufacturers will be required to provide a public point of contact to report vulnerabilities. However, without a statutory defence in the Computer Misuse Act, it is clear that cybersecurity researchers can still face spurious legal action for reporting a vulnerability to a company which can decide on a whim to ignore its vulnerability disclosure policy—a practice known as “liability dumping”. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that cybersecurity professionals who act in the public interest in relation to testing relevant connectable products can defend themselves from prosecution by the state and from unjust civil litigation.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed to say conflicting things. He said that the key thing is to set professional standards to measure the competence and capability of security testers, and that that is why the Government set up the UK Cyber Security Council last year. On the one hand, he said:

“We should be encouraging this rather than creating a route to allow people to sidestep these important issues.”


On the other, he said that the Government are listening to the concerns expressed by the CyberUp campaign and that the Home Secretary had announced a review of the Computer Misuse Act. The Minister said:

“The evidence which is being submitted to the review is being assessed and considered carefully by the Home Office.”—[Official Report, 21/6/22; col. 212.]


Are the Government positive or negative on this? What approach are they taking? We are past the summer now, in any event. Is there any prospect of change to the Act? I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new role. I think DCMS will be at least as busy as his previous engagements, so we look forward to seeing him on his feet at the Dispatch Box quite a lot.

The unifying feature of these three amendments, which in policy terms are different, is that we are seeking some clarity. So, I support my noble friend in Amendments 1 and 13, and I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name. Given that online marketplaces represent the single most popular point of sale for connected products, these platforms should have responsibilities for the security of the products they are selling. That is what we are seeking clarity on today. If online marketplaces are not held responsible under the Bill, these insecure products will continue to be sold and, in all likelihood, their sale would become more prolific.

One of the last things the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did as Minister was to dispatch a letter to me in response to queries such as this raised in Committee about the status of online marketplaces—the fear being that channels such as listings platforms and auction sites such as eBay, Amazon Marketplace and AliExpress might present a loophole. The problem is the lack of clear definition for the various players that are part of the internet value chain and the fact that these players have different degrees of insight or control over what is happening online.

As the Minister will see from his predecessor’s letter, dated 21 September 2022, the department’s stated position for online marketplaces is that,

“businesses need to comply with the security requirements of the product security regime in relation to all new consumer connectable products offered to customers in the UK, including those sold through online marketplaces”.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm this from the Dispatch Box. It is paramount that online marketplaces are given this obligation in the Bill to ensure this security, regardless of whether the seller is a third party. It would help very much if the Minister set out what the Government’s definition of an online marketplace is.

How does the Minister’s department plan to deal with the retailers, which are far away, possibly with their real identity obscured on the online marketplaces? Will the department go to the online marketplace first and how will that process be marshalled? In other words, when a customer has a problem, who do they contact?

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the Minister’s response. The argument on the technical advisory board seems to be, “Oh, we’ve got enough technical advice, so we don’t need one”—but, clearly, it seems that there is a need for this. I quoted providers—I can go into the papers that we have received from them—as saying that real issues arise out of the regulations. These are technical and relate to things such as patches and audit and monitoring issues. There is a feeling that the department is just not listening on those issues, and what is needed is someone who is rather more dispassionate and can advise on the technical issues that are arising—perhaps, if it is seen as a conflict, someone like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who can genuinely advise on this kind of thing. It seems to me to be extraordinarily dismissive to say, “We’ve got enough advice. We don’t need a board of this kind”.

In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, there is a very useful technical advisory board—it is not usable for this purpose because its function is rather different under that Act. When the Minister comes to the point about the judicial commissioners, saying, “Oh, no, they are for an entirely different purpose”, I say that, actually, if you read their function, it is four square with the kind of thing that would be useful under this Bill. They are talking about not technical issues but proportionality, appropriateness and so on—very much the kind of thing that they are dealing with under the 2016 Act.

So I am afraid that I do not buy what the Minister has to say, sadly; I just think that it is pushback based on the thinking that, “Well, the Bill’s the Bill and it’s all drafted, so we don’t really want to do very much with it by way of amendment”. That is the time-honoured government response to this kind of suggested amendment, but I believe that, constructively, both these aspects—a judicial commissioner and a technical advisory board—would make a great difference to the functioning of the Bill and would lead to much better regulations and codes of guidance at the end of the day.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Deputy Chairman and apologise for speaking across him. I am a bit intrigued by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on the subject of legal enforceability. He is correct to say that, as new Section 105H states, the

“provision of a code of practice does not of itself make the provider liable to legal proceedings”

—but it would not be liable only when the provision was not in force in time or when it was not legal. However, you would not bring a legal case anyway when it was not relevant or in force, so, to all intents and purposes, where the code is in force and relevant, it is legally enforceable. Therefore, it is legally enforceable.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am again very fortunate in following the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I have signed Amendment 18 and my noble friend Lord Fox has signed Amendments 15 and 16. I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said about the lack of clarity and the important implications of this clause.

In our clause stand part debate in Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, described the clause as “tightly drawn”. Today, he has talked about strong checks on the power, but I would have thought that it is now abundantly clear from the debates we have had, not only on the previous group of amendments but particularly on this group, that there is insufficient clarity about the operation of the clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described the clause as extraordinarily wide, in particular in terms of transparency, the reporting requirement, an inadequate and arbitrary cut-off point, the nature of affected parties who could be compensated, the lack of alternatives to compensation, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, such as taking an equity stake, and the lack of a specific reference to public interest and national security in the clause. It seems we have to rely on the threat of judicial review rather than the wording of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the compensation is “necessary and proportionate”.

The Minister assured us that the power would be used only “responsibly and respectively”—I am not quite sure what “respectively” means in that context—but that the circumstances were hard to predict. Nothing that has been said so far today has dispelled the opacity, which I know the noble Lord intended to do. It is still extremely cloudy, and that was illustrated by both who have spoken. All this argues for a much tighter framework, such as suggested and probed by these amendments. I hope that the Minister will either take that on board or give pretty clear, detailed assurances about the workings of the clause or, probably even better, separate guidance. I understand from the Minister that that will not be provided, which seems highly regrettable. I hope that the Minister can give much greater detail about the operation of this clause, as required by these amendments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is arriving back in his place, as I am not intending to speak for very long, so he had better get there swiftly.

This seems to be the other half of the amendments that went with the previous debate, and the group, with the exception of the noble Lord, is mutually exclusive, but it is still around subsidy payment money and what it is. The central question about Clause 30 is: what was in the Government’s mind when it was drafted? What is it for? The longer the Minister refuses to be specific in answering that question, the more I am drawn to the supposition that the Government do not know what it is for and that it has been put there as an insurance measure, just in case. Frankly, that is typical of the way this Bill has been written. It has been written as widely as possible to give the department as much leeway as possible in the event of stuff happening, stuff which is as yet undefined or is perhaps undefinable. That is not a good example of what Governments should be bringing to your Lordships’ House for approval.

The questions that have been asked very clearly by the previous speakers are important. If the Minister wants to prove that there is some guiding force behind Clause 30, and not just “We’ll put it in just in case we need it”, which is what it looks like to me, I look forward to hearing his comments.

In speaking to the previous group, the Minister implied that the fact that the Treasury would have a hand on the tiller should give us comfort. If the only comfort we have is that the Treasury will be looking over your shoulder, it does not sound very comfortable. The department should know what this money is for, why it is there and what it is going to be used for. We should not have to rely on the good offices of Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a mixed pleasure to be back in the Chamber. In her speech in Committee on 19 May, the Minister said in response to my amendment:

“I believe that the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment are seeking to ensure that tenants are covered by the Bill. If noble Lords are indeed seeking clarification on that point, I am able to confirm that as currently drafted, the provisions in this Bill can be used by people who rent their homes.”


She went on to say:

“This includes people with assured shorthold tenancy or assured tenancy agreements which, as many noble Lords will be aware, are the most common forms of tenancy agreement.”—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1030.]


In her subsequent letter, the Minister said:

“As drafted, this Bill allows a lessee in occupation—i.e. someone who has a leasehold agreement with a person able to confer on an operator or otherwise be bound by a code right—to request that an operator provide an electronic communications service to the premises so occupied. It is that which is the trigger for the whole process set out in the Bill. It is for that reason that the Bill does not use the language of landlord and tenant law, which was one of the—entirely understandable—points made during the first Committee session.”


The Minister then referred to the definition of lease set out in Street v Mountford cited at [1985] UKHL 4:

“An agreement is a lease if it provides for (i) exclusive possession, (ii) of defined premises, (iii) for a fixed or periodic term and (iv) at a rent.”


She said:

“The distinguishing feature of a lease, as opposed to a licence, is that the tenant has exclusive possession of the let property.”


The letter continued:

“My understanding is that a tenant at will could be a person able to make a request that would trigger the Part 4A process… If an agreement for occupation constitutes a lease, then the fact that it is renewable does not change the Government’s intended approach. As I mentioned at the first Committee session ... My understanding is that the impact of that would therefore be that so long as a renewable tenancy has the hallmarks of a lease then it would not fall outside the scope of this Bill. I must stress again, though, that this will be both a matter of substance that will turn on the facts of each case and ultimately, the interpretation of the law will be a matter for the courts.”


All this added some clarity but, in the view of my noble friends and I, not enough. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said quite rightly in Committee:

“Leasehold properties are a very grey and disaffected area of property rights.”—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1025.]


I agree with the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to his concern for

“young people, including students, living in short-term lets in multi-occupier buildings—for instance, in old council blocks where someone has bought a flat to rent it out and their main occupiers are students on short-term tenancies.”—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1032.]

This amendment is designed, as crisply as possible, to dispel any lack of clarity or misapprehension to ensure that we have as inclusive as possible a definition of those who could be regarded as tenants, without straying into the territory of licensees or licences, which do not grant exclusive possession. If there is exclusive possession, even if the language of “a licence” is used, the occupier will be covered by the code. I am concerned to ensure that all tenancies are included, even if not, strictly speaking, leases.

Tenancies in the public sector are of a particular nature, and we need to make sure that they are clearly covered. For instance, the amendment would make sure that introductory or probationary tenancies in local authority housing, flexible or joint tenancies, and what are called demoted tenancies are all covered, as well as tenancies by succession and starter tenancies from housing associations. It would include written or verbal agreements. The position of a tenant at will or renewable tenancy, if there is such a residential status, may also demonstrate the need for this clarification. All these tenancies will have exclusive possession and it needs to be made clear that they qualify, for the purposes of the code.

What could an objection to any of these examples be? If the amendment is unnecessary or tautologous, it is innocuous. If I am right, however, and clarification is needed for a number of ordinary tenancies to be covered, the case is made for its inclusion. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

There is nothing I can add to the comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I shall sit on my hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, this amendment addresses a real issue. We have seen in the past that control of the final few yards into a house or the ownership of a switch in a box on a street has prevented the smooth changing of vendors and complicated the lives of consumers. We should not be replicating this control as we go forward, so the amendment deserves a positive response from Her Majesty’s Government. I am sure that in future there will be examples where the cost of initial installation causes operators to want contracts in excess of 18 months, but that should always be covered by commercial concerns, not locked in by technology. So we on these Benches are interested to hear whether the Government have sympathy with the amendment and, if they do, how that sympathy will be manifested.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

As ever, my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Stevenson, have put their finger on the issues. I was going to ask the Minister how she thought the question of open radio access networks fitted into this picture, but I will not.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I hope that the Minister will understand entirely the reason for this probing amendment. It arises from the way in which the compensation clause—new paragraph 27H—is worded. It seems to give enormous licence to award compensation under the terms of the Electronic Communications Code where a court has made a Part 4A order. That has been imposed, of course, but new paragraph 27H(2) states that:

“The court may, on the application of the required grantor, order the operator to pay compensation to the required grantor for any loss or damage that has been sustained or will be sustained by the required grantor as a result of the exercise by the operator of the Part 4A code right.”


I am concerned that these compensation requirements are drawn so widely so they could be a disincentive to an operator to lay fibre to a home or MDU as envisaged by this new section of the Electronic Communications Code.

What kind of compensation is contemplated in these circumstances? I have inserted “direct” because in law it is perfectly respectable to claim damages for foreseeable loss. That could mean economic loss—for instance, where a Part 4A agreement has been imposed and somebody loses two days’ worth of business or finds that they have to close unexpectedly a particular facility that is part of the building to which the order relates. Then there is ancillary land, where the landlord has some other kind of business next door to the MDU and it is necessary for the fibre to cross it or be laid across it by the operator, meaning closure and so on. What is contemplated? It seems extraordinarily wide-ranging. Of course, it provides for arbitration and agreement to be reached, but I want very much to hear from the Minister exactly what is contemplated by this clause. As I say, it is so widely drawn that it could be seen as a disincentive to the operators, which we all wish to see move pretty swiftly to ensure that the Government’s target for full fibre rollout is met. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Clement- Jones for setting out this amendment so effectively. He promised to be brief; I will be even briefer. Is this not symptomatic of the whole Bill, where the balance is against things happening rather than for making things happen? What was in the Government’s mind when they wrote this clause and put this Bill together? Is this an enabling Bill or a sort of grudging Bill that somehow lets a few things happen but ends up stopping a lot of other things? Why did the Government take this kind of attitude, which is symptomatic of the whole Bill?

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

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

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief, because I believe Amendment 10 is fairly self-explanatory. It includes many of the other premises that operators would like to see included in the Bill. For instance, legislation on gigabit broadband infrastructure for new-build properties was promised in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, yet we have seen no evidence of it.

What is the difference between blocks and, say, a purpose-built retirement development that needs access to full-fibre broadband? This has been brought home to us more than ever in the past few weeks. Take business premises, such as business parks. Those kinds of development are absolutely crying out for the kind of operator access provided for by this Bill.

The purpose of this—clearly a probing—amendment is to see how far the Government’s ambition stretches. I have criticised this Bill on the grounds of lack of ambition to date, but it would be nice to hear from the Minister that the Government’s ambitions stretch rather further. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. This is a simple amendment, but if the Government are sincere in their ambition to roll out broadband to the widest possible number of people —in fact to everyone—it has to be grasped. It is all very well taking about a limited set of multi-occupancy buildings, but without this amendment that set is very limited. In brief, I support this amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why this was not in the Bill in the first place and perhaps an undertaking to solve that in time for Report.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

If the noble Lord reviews what I said in Hansard, he will see that I talked about two particular issues highlighted by the Migration Advisory Committee.

In addition to listening for the reaction of the Labour Front Bench in this House, from the Government I am listening for the Minister to publicly acknowledge the benefits that EEA migrants have brought to the lives of all of us in the UK. More than that, I hope to hear the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government understand that trade is intrinsically about people, whether working alone or in companies and organisations, and—as previous speakers have brought out—that this is even more important in an economy centred on services, such as ours. Therefore, the more they can move and trade, the better it is for the United Kingdom’s economy. I wish to hear that the Government understand that to restrain the trade of EEA nationals in the UK will not only forfeit the benefits they bring but materially restrain hundreds of thousands—if not more—UK people trading in the EU 27. I would like the Minister to rule out the use of this as a bargaining chip in negotiations. That is why I would like to write this into the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fox has introduced his amendment extremely eloquently and convincingly. In supporting it, I highlight the fact that without the right deal on movement of talent and skills, our creative industries will face major challenges. Some 5.7% of the UK workforce is made up of EU 27 nationals. However, 6.1% of the creative industries workforce is made up of EU 27 nationals. More than that, 10% of the design, publishing and advertising workforce are EU 27 nationals. Some 25% of our visual effects in film—VFX—workforce is from the EU, and that rises to 30% in gaming. We are highly dependent, in those areas of the creative industries, on EU 27 nationals.

Take the music industry, for example. Some £2.5 billion was generated by music in export revenue. Germany, France and Sweden are among our top export markets, and are major destinations for our musicians. In the recent ISM survey of musicians, 39% said that they travel to the EU more than five times a year; 12% travel to the EU more than 20 times a year. More than one in eight performers had fewer than seven days’ notice between being offered work and having to take it, and more than a third of musicians said they received at least half their income from working in the EU 27. There are warnings from these musicians from their experience with the rest of the world. More than a third of musicians had experienced difficulties with visas when travelling outside the EU. In fact, of those experiencing difficulties, 79% identified visas as the source of those difficulties. Musicians in particular rely on being able to work and tour in Europe freely, easily and often with little notice.

It is equally important that the other people vital to touring, such as roadies and technical staff, are able to travel on the same basis. It is also vital that instruments and equipment can be moved around easily, and this must be a reciprocal arrangement. On touring, the Government have said that the UK will look to reach an agreement allowing musicians and museums to tour major events with their equipment and goods. What is considered a major event is not clarified and there are few details on what an agreement would look like.

The Government propose that the new immigration system will preserve the current rules for employing non-visa nationals for short-term work to join a UK production. This allows them to work for up to three months without a visa, requiring only a certificate of sponsorship from their employer, which is cheaper and easier to obtain. For periods longer than three months, the Government are reaffirming that the current tier 5 creative and sporting route, which caters for creative workers such as musicians, actors or artists who are working and touring in the UK, will continue. This is welcome but, again, without the right reciprocal provisions, Brexit is likely to make touring much more difficult for musicians and crews to move across Europe. Increased red tape will make it harder to promote music overseas.

Then, if the withdrawal agreement is agreed, from January 2021 non-visa nationals looking to take up permanent employment in the UK, such as VFX workers, will need to obtain a tier 2 visa. This requires sponsorship from an employer, which must pay a skills charge to make the recruitment. Workers must meet a minimum salary requirement to be eligible for a tier 2 visa. Like my noble friend, I welcome that the Government now plan to consult on the appropriate level for this requirement in the coming year, but the Migration Advisory Committee—MAC—has recommended that it stays at £30,000. There will need to be considerable changes to these proposals if the Government are to ensure that sectors such as the creative industries continue to thrive post Brexit. As the Creative Industries Federation has said,

“high skills do not always command a high salary”.

There is still a huge lack of clarity. The UK Screen Alliance has criticised the plans for a post-Brexit visa system. It says the Bill’s proposed visa system will “severely limit” the VFX and animation industries’ access to international talent. It also says that expensive new EU visas will add significantly to operating costs and impact on the sector’s competitiveness in the global market. Alan Bishop, the chief executive of the Creative Industries Federation, said about the White Paper:

“Unfortunately there is very little in this white paper which will give creative businesses and freelancers in the UK any confidence for the future … government has failed to recognise the challenges freelancers face within the current immigration system—a significant challenge for the Creative Industries Federation where 35% of creative workers are self-employed. Freedom of movement has given British businesses access to the best and brightest freelancers from the EU, presenting those businesses with opportunities to grow and contribute to the continuing health of the UK economy. For international non-EEA freelancers however, the current immigration system provides no long-term route. This is why the Federation has called for the introduction of a freelance visa”.


Those are the words of two significant organisations in this field.

The Government have had plenty of time to consider all these issues and have had plenty of sound advice, not least from quarters such as the July report of the House of Lords European Union Committee, Brexit: Movement of People in the Cultural Sector. That is why this amendment is so important, and I very much hope that the Minister will reflect in his response that the Government fully understand the needs of the creative sector.