Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th July 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister and other speakers for this debate, which is really important. The Minister was basically saying in her response, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this covered.” If the Government did indeed have it covered, I suggest that ripping out 40% of the 5G network at the cost of several billion pounds to the industry is a pretty poor cover. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, that it took Back- Benchers to highlight this rather than the Government was particularly apposite.

The Minister portrayed the decision to remove Huawei almost as if it was a success of the process. Will she acknowledge that these billions of pounds are growth that we will not get, that they are investment in this country that has been wasted, and that it has put the country in danger in the process? Will she further acknowledge that there might be others who are able to help in the process of avoiding a repeat of what is a huge debacle?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I tried to present the breadth and depth of approaches that the Government are taking to address this incredibly serious and complex problem. If I may borrow the word used by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we have tried to show some agility in responding to changing circumstances. The noble Lord will be aware that there were changes to the US foreign-produced direct product rules in May 2020 which changed the risk profile of our engagement with Huawei, and we acted on that, so I do not feel that I have to apologise at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Northover for this amendment, which I would have signed had she not done so already. We heard at Second Reading an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord West, explaining not only why this amendment is important but why certain figures who would normally speak in this debate are not doing so. He explained that the ISC is seeking to change its MoU. As such, he and others would not speak in this particular debate.

However, we have an analogous debate to refer to, which has already been mentioned. Those of us who are veterans of the National Security and Investment Bill have been through this already. I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is the only other person in this Room who was involved in it. I certainly spent some of my life on that Bill.

We sent back to the Commons an amended version of that Bill. Your Lordships adopted an amendment not dissimilar from the one in front of the Committee today. That decision was made, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because the BEIS Select Committee is not enabled to deal with the level of security information it needs to properly scrutinise the operation of BEIS for the National Security and Investment Act. There is exactly the same situation here. I gather, anecdotally, that the BEIS Committee is already hitting issues with getting the information it needs under that Act.

We also heard anecdotally on Tuesday of the debacle over the Newport Wafer Fab, where the BEIS Secretary of State has failed to use the power given to him by the National Security and Investment Act to do something around national security. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is no longer in her place, but once again the ministry was forced by Back-Bench action to reconsider what it was doing. This should not be how things work. It is beginning to look like these are rhetorical points, rather than actually being usable. I hope the same fate does not befall this legislation and that it actually gets used rather than shelved. But in the same way as BEIS, DCMS will have a Select Committee that cannot access the information it needs to scrutinise the activities covered in this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, notwithstanding the stifling atmosphere of this Committee Room, managed to do a very close approximation of complete incredulity over why the Government should not listen to this fantastic advice. I can say that, having gone through the last Bill and seen how resistant the Government are to advice of this sort, this is neither an accident nor a sin of omission. This is a sin of commission. The Government are very clear that they do not want proper scrutiny of what they are doing, and if this Bill remains as it is, there will not be the scrutiny that is needed. Neutering of that scrutiny is not an accident but a deliberate act of the Government.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for tabling this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for moving it. The role and remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as noble Lords have remarked, have been raised a number of times in the other place and at Second Reading of this Bill, so I welcome the opportunity to clarify how appropriate oversight of the Bill’s national security powers will be provided for in the Bill and through existing mechanisms.

Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions when such notices, or parts of them, are withheld under Section 105Z11(2) or (3) in the interests of national security. It would also require the Secretary of State to provide copies of notifications of contraventions, confirmation decisions, the reasons for giving urgent enforcement directions when withheld under Section 105Z22(5), and the reasons for confirming or modifying such directions when withheld under Section 105Z23(6).

I will try to correct the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the Government are trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on this particular point. That simply is not borne out by the way that the Bill is drafted. We are very clear about where parliamentary scrutiny should take place. I recognise the desire of your Lordships for the Intelligence and Security Committee to play a greater role in the oversight of national security decision-making across government, including in relation to this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, through the oversight of the National Cyber Security Centre, the Intelligence and Security Committee can request information around NCSC advice on, and activities relating to, high-risk vendors.

However, this amendment would extend the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in an unprecedented way. As noble Lords are aware, the activities of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are not within the ISC’s remit. That committee’s remit extends to the intelligence agencies and other activities of the Government in relation to intelligence or security matters, as they are set out in its memorandum of understanding.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what he called the “central question” of how this will work in practice in terms of security access. My understanding is that according to the Osmotherly rules detailing how the Government may share information with Select Committees, members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee are able to view and handle classified and other sensitive material, subject to agreement between the department and the chair of the committee on appropriate handling. Documents may also be shared with the chair of the DCMS Committee on Privy Council terms, subject to agreement between the committee chair and the department.

The advice of the intelligence agencies will not be the only factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding what is proportionate to include in a designated vendor direction. As well as the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, the Secretary of State will consider, among other things, the economic impact, the cost to industry and the impact on connectivity caused by the requirements in any designated vendor direction. The ISC does not have the remit to consider non-security issues such as the economic and connectivity implications of the requirements in designated vendor directions. The Digital, Culture Media and Sport Select Committee can consider those wider aspects and that is why it is the correct and appropriate body to see copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions that are not laid before Parliament. Any future changes to the ISC’s remit would be best managed through consideration of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the associated memorandum of understanding.

For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will therefore withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Once again, this is a short but important debate, and one of a continuing series. In response to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we had a short discussion that, to some extent, was crying over spilt milk about why industrial capacity in telecommunications in the United Kingdom is where it is. I think the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, largely agrees with me that it is to do with the purchasing decisions made by near-monopolistic private sector companies based on price. If that is not a lesson for the Government to take forward, we are all doomed anyway.

To turn to the detail of these two amendments, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have set out, they are about people. Without overrepeating it, I come to the point I was talking about earlier, which is that BEIS is going through a similar process. It is setting up a unit that is supposed to scan the entire industrial landscape for supposed security problems and alert the Minister to decisions that should be made about the future of those companies. These people will have many of the same skills and face many of the same issues, going forward.

First, does the Minister think there is a sufficient pool of people available to cover both these units? Is it sensible to have two units operating in parallel to, and probably in isolation from, each other, with the BEIS unit setting up a telecoms capability, which DCMS will also have? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what conversations are going on between DCMS, Ofcom and BEIS to avoid that duplication. We have already heard that there are too few people so, frankly, it does not make much sense to have two departments competing for the same people.

More broadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is completely correct that there is a huge issue with the availability of people. Unless the Government pick up major programmes to train and retrain people and look at skills that are completely necessary to move forward, we will be left high and dry without the skills we need to create the sorts of industries that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, suggested we need. That will take time, so perhaps the Minister can say what the plan is. What is the process and what discussions are going on with trainers, universities and employers to deliver the skill set we need?

Of course, we would want to review all this annually, which is why these amendments are here, so the Government necessarily come to Parliament to explain how they are getting on and what they are doing. I am sure the Government do not want us to be suspicious of what they are doing, and the best way to avoid that suspicion is to be open and transparent, rather than try to operate in a black box.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, both tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, highlight the two important issues that our short debate covered—the role of Ofcom in relation to the Bill; and skills and training, and their effect on telecoms security. I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline some of the work that has already been done in these areas, which I hope explains why we consider these amendments not to be needed.

Amendment 26 would require the Government to complete a review of, and publish a report on, the impact of levels of skills and training on the security of the telecoms network and supply chain. It would require the Government to publish the report within six months of Royal Assent.

The Government certainly agree that it is crucial that public telecoms providers and organisations such as Ofcom have access to people with the skills that they need to keep our networks safe. DCMS published research this year as part of its annual survey, Cyber Security Skills in the UK Labour Market, which found that 50% of UK businesses have a basic technical skills gap. It also found that they do not have confidence in their ability to carry out basic cybersecurity functions and do not outsource these skills.

That is why the Government have a range of programmes already in place to support the growth of cybersecurity skills. Over the past five years, work funded by DCMS has supported over 160,000 young people to forge a career in the cyber sphere. The department has also funded a range of schemes to help adults or career changers to acquire new skills, most recently through the Cyber Launchpad initiative and projects sponsored through the fast track digital workforce fund.

Clearly, there is still much more work to be done to close the cyber skills gap. However, we are making progress. When compared with the 2018 survey, Cyber Security Skills in the UK Labour Market 2021 found that organisations were less likely to report a basic cyber skills gap in areas such as firewall configuration, restricting administrator rights and patching.

Specifically on skills in the telecoms sector, we know that telecoms providers need to have access to people with the right skills to ensure that their networks and services are secure, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, rightly said. That is why we are creating a pipeline of these skills for the future, with telecoms apprenticeships currently available across the sector, and over 4,500 people starting this year alone.

The creation of the UK telecoms lab, as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place last November, will facilitate knowledge sharing and promote skills development in telecoms security. The lab will collaborate with DCMS, the National Cyber Security Centre, the newly established UK Cyber Security Council and industry. It will develop and deliver training packages and support the establishment of professional bodies and communities. I hope that these initiatives demonstrate how seriously the Government take the task of supporting telecoms skills, and cyber skills in particular, and why we feel that the review proposed in the amendment is not needed.

I will speak more broadly about our skills agenda. The Department for Education has targeted specific investment in key areas of learning, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—and technical and digital subjects, which could support careers in telecoms. That includes: £2.5 billion of investment in the national skills fund to support adults to retrain and gain the skills they need for the future; nearly £2.5 billion made available for high-quality industry-designed apprenticeships; £500 million a year towards T-levels; up to £290 million to establish institutes of technology across the country, which will be the pinnacle of technical training; and a new £18 million growth fund to support further and higher education providers to expand high-quality higher technical education.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about the impact of skills on the removal of Huawei equipment. We have no plans or intention to delay the 2027 target for the removal of Huawei equipment from 5G networks. Indeed, BT, for example, has already shared in the media that it is making good progress on removing Huawei from 5G networks, starting in Hull. We believe that we are on track.

Amendment 23 would require Ofcom to publish an additional statement as part of its annual report, under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002. This statement would contain information about the adequacy of Ofcom’s resourcing, and telecoms providers’ compliance with their security duties. It would also contain Ofcom’s assessment of any future or emerging risks to telecommunications networks, identified by interrogating telecoms providers’ asset registries.

I reassure the Committee that this amendment is also not needed. The Bill already contains a range of reporting mechanisms that will ensure that Ofcom’s role can be properly scrutinised. I will address three of these mechanisms in particular.

First, Ofcom will need regularly to report to the Secretary of State under new Section 105Z, providing information to assist him with the formulation of policy on telecommunications security. New subsection (4)(a) makes it clear that this report must include information on providers’ compliance with the duties imposed on them by the Bill.

Secondly, Ofcom will need to report on telecoms security in its annual infrastructure report. Clause 11 specifies that this should include information on the extent to which providers are complying with their security duties under new Sections 105A to 105D. Thirdly, by virtue of Clause 14, the Secretary of State will need regularly to report to Parliament on the effectiveness and impact of the new telecoms security framework.

The amendment would address three issues. I will take each in turn. The first concerns Ofcom’s resources, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, began. As my noble friend the Minister mentioned at Second Reading, Ofcom’s security budget for this financial year has been increased by £4.6 million. This funding will allow Ofcom more than to double its headcount of people working on telecoms security, ensuring it has the necessary capacity to deliver its new responsibilities under the Bill. The noble Baroness asked specifically about staffing. Ofcom will work with a recruitment partner to secure the specific cyber skills needed to implement this work. This will include seconding in technical expertise to develop its capability further.

As we discussed earlier in the Committee, Ofcom will also work closely with the NCSC, which will share its expertise to support Ofcom’s implementation of the new regime. The noble Baroness mentioned the relationship between Ofcom and the National Cyber Security Centre. As she noted, the two organisations are in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding and have published a statement summarising how they intend to work together. The three key principles set out in that statement are, first, that the NCSC will provide expert technical cybersecurity advice to Ofcom to support implementation of the new telecoms security framework; secondly, that Ofcom and the NCSC will exchange information where necessary and permitted by law; and, thirdly, that the NCSC will continue to provide incident management support during serious cybersecurity incidents to telecoms operators and to Ofcom as necessary. That statement can be found on Ofcom’s website.

The second area of the amendment is a requirement for Ofcom’s annual report to include information on providers’ compliance with their duties under new Sections 105A to 105D. This reporting would duplicate provisions elsewhere in the Bill. Ofcom is already required to report publicly on providers’ compliance with those duties in Clause 11.

The final point in the amendment is about publishing information on emerging and future security risks. This has also been accounted for in the Bill. New Section 105Z(4)(f) already requires that Ofcom report to the Secretary of State any emerging risks it becomes aware of in its annual report on security. The noble Baroness asked about informing the public. It would be at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to publish this information.

I can assure the Committee that Ofcom takes a forward-looking approach to regulation to ensure that it is robust in the face of market and technological developments. For example, its recent Technology Futures report looked at innovative technologies that will shape the communications industry, with input from the world’s leading technologists.

I hope that I have provided assurance that adequate and detailed reporting requirements for Ofcom are already outlined in the Bill. As I have set out, it already includes provision for reporting on Ofcom’s work, so additional requirements about skills and training are not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be content not to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

This is an issue of parliamentary accountability and political will. I see no reason why my noble friend the Minister would not accept this amendment. I look forward to hearing from her how the Government intend to hold their diversification targets to account.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the various noble Lords for their contributions. I will speak to Amendment 24, which bears my name, but I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, reads the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, in which he calls for a nuanced relationship with China. Failing that, she could read my speech on the first group of amendments, in which I challenged how nuanced a relationship can be with a country threatening both our security and that of its own people. At the heart of the Government’s challenge is to be all things to everyone in this argument. They are doomed to fail if they try to do that.

I turn to the amendment I am supposed to be speaking to. As we discussed at Second Reading, there are essentially three strands to the diversity strategy. The first leg is supporting incumbent suppliers. I was corrected by the Minister: this refers not to domestic suppliers but suppliers we already have, presumably— although it is not explicit—with the ones we do not want having been weeded out. The second is attracting new suppliers into the UK market, and the third is accelerating open interface solutions, which I assume helps the second of those strands in particular.

There is not a strand about growing a domestic industry; some of us—I am one of them—were confused about this. It mostly seems to be about taking advantage of other countries’ businesses that we can trust—or think we can at the moment; I refer the Committee to earlier comments by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about today’s allies not always being tomorrow’s allies—rather than massively growing our own national capability. Bearing in mind those three legs, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the improvement in the domestic share of this market is planned.

In her letter to many of us on the subject of diversification, the Minister made the point that Vodafone has already attracted six new suppliers, two of which were Samsung and NEC, into the market through the open RAN deployment. I think I asked her at Second Reading when open RAN would become a significant player in telecoms delivery in this country. If she gave an answer then I am afraid I mislaid it, so can she tell us when open RAN will become a significant player or whether it is something of a sideshow? I do not mean that in a bad way; it is a recognition of where it really is in the market at the moment.

The biggest challenge I have with this is that the Government have launched a lot of strategies. They usually come with a glossy document and a picture of a smiling Secretary of State. I can confirm that this strategy is no exception. We have a very nice picture of the Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, on page 3, but it does not come with a timeline and a delivery plan. The Government would not issue a strategy if they did not have a delivery plan, so I am sure there must be one. I think it would help us all if we understood what the delivery plan is. Perhaps the Minister could share with the Committee the timeline for the delivery of this strategy, otherwise many of us might suspect that it is something that gets only launched, not delivered. I understand that money has been put into it but, again, that does not guarantee that outcomes will be forthcoming.

This amendment has been tabled to reveal how that timeline is going and how the outcomes are being delivered. That is what it is for. It would enable the Government’s spending of taxpayers’ money on delivering this strategy to be tracked by Parliament. That seems a perfectly reasonable function for Parliament to have.

The Minister might come back and say that DCMS is being asked to lay all sorts of things before Parliament. If that is the case, I think that all of us, including me, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who spoke very capably on this, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and others are quite capable of coming up with a composite annual report that covers not just the items in Amendment 24, but those in Amendment 25 on strategy, Amendment 23 on Ofcom’s performance, and Amendment 26 on skills. Taken together, I am sure we could put together a composite annual report in the next round of discussions that would save DCMS having to make several different annual reports. I suspect that that might be a way forward and look forward to the Minister embracing this idea, because of course DCMS wants to demonstrate how it is delivering its diversification strategy.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and consideration of the Government’s ambitious diversification strategy. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, raises the important issue of diversification, which I know is of great interest to your Lordships, as it was to Members in the other place. Diversification is a key part of the Government’s broader approach to ensuring that our critical networks are healthy and resilient. That is why the Government set out their 5G diversification strategy last autumn, and we are fully committed to ensuring that this strategy comes to fruition.

Our long-term vision for the telecoms supply market is one where, first, network supply chains are disaggregated, providing network operators more choice and flexibility; secondly, open interfaces that promote interoperability are the default; thirdly, the global supply chain for components is distributed across regions, creating resilience and flexibility; fourthly, standards are set transparently and independently, promoting quality, innovation, security and interoperability; and finally, security and resilience is a priority and a key consideration in network design and operation. However, the Bill focuses on setting clear security standards for our public networks and services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out, although diversification is designed to enhance security and resilience, not all diversification activity is relevant to the security and resilience of our networks. That is why we believe the amendment would not be appropriate.

The Government have already made progress since the publication of our strategy, including the creation of the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce, which set out its recommendations in the spring. Work is already under way to implement several of those recommendations. Research and development was highlighted by the task force as a key area of focus in order to promote open-interface technologies that will establish flexibility and interchangeability in the market. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, it will also allow a range of new smaller suppliers to compete in a more diverse marketplace.

That is why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was delighted to announce the launch of the future radio access network competition on Friday 2 July. Through this, we will invest up to £30 million in open radio access network research and development projects across the UK to address barriers to high-performance open deployments. This competition is part of a wider programme of government initiatives, which includes the SmartRAN Open Network Inter- operability Centre—more friendlily known as SONIC Labs—a facility for testing interoperability and integration of open networking solutions, which opened on 24 June. A number of leading telecoms suppliers are already working together through this facility.

We welcome recent announcements from operators including Airspan, Mavenir, NEC and Vodafone to introduce open radio access networks into their infrastructure. This demonstrates that industry is working alongside us, here in the UK, to drive forward the change needed in the sector. We continue to work with mobile operators, suppliers and users on a number of other important enablers for diversification; for example, we are developing a road map for the long-term use and provision of legacy network services, including 2G and 3G. Alongside this, the Government have led efforts to engage with some of our closest international partners, including the Five Eyes, to build international consensus on this important issue.

We are also working to deliver on UK issues in standard- setting bodies, and working with industry, academia and international partners to ensure that standards are set in a way that aligns with our overall objectives. Ensuring that standards are truly open and interoperable will drive market growth and diversification. Through the UK’s G7 presidency, we took the first step in discussing the importance of secure and diverse supply chains among like-minded partners and the foundational role that telecommunications infrastructure, such as 5G, plays.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked how we were planning to spend the initial £250 million, which we announced to kick off work to deliver our key priorities. These priorities have been informed by the recommendations of the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce and include: establishing a state-of-the-art UK telecoms lab; exploring commercial incentives for new suppliers; launching test beds and trials for new technologies such as open RAN; investing in an R&D ecosystem; and seeking to lead a global coalition of like-minded partners on an international approach to diversification. In response to questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the growth of UK businesses, we have been clear that we are focused on investing in the UK and in UK businesses, but do not think that a UK-only solution is a wise or realistic option.

We are working closely with operators and suppliers to develop targeted measures that address the needs of industry to deliver our long-term vision for the market. We responded to the task force’s findings in July and outlined our next steps and the use of that initial investment. If the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has not seen the government response, I am sure he would find it interesting. It also sets out our plans to create a diversification advisory council, which will meet quarterly. I hope that responds to his question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 28, which stands in my name. It is the result of a number of recent developments, which I shall refer to. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 July the Government published their response to the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce’s report and in it announced that the taskforce was now to transition into the Telecoms Supply Chain diversification advisory council, which came up earlier today. The Minister will recall that in response to a Written Question from me she said:

“The Advisory Council will play a key role in overseeing and offering scrutiny to the delivery of the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy. We will also draw on the expertise of the Advisory Council for wider telecoms supply chain diversification issues beyond the RAN (Radio Access Network).”


That is all well and good. However—and this is the point that the amendment seeks to unravel—the Government have also announced that Mr Simon Blagden will be the new chair of this permanent council. Noble Lords will be aware that Mr Blagden was the non-executive director of Fujitsu UK during the Post Office scandal and has donated more than £215,000 to the Conservative Party.

As we have all discussed, diversification is inherently linked to security, so the new advisory council has to provide sound, expert advice that will secure our telecoms network, and we need confidence in that. The point I want to explore with the Minister, as she is already aware from Written Questions that I have submitted, is that the appointment of Mr Blagden raises a number of serious questions about the council’s independence and how the appointment will be able to benefit national security.

In addition to tabling Amendment 28, I have a number of questions to tease out all these points. It is also worth noting that in the past 24 hours there have been reports of a telecoms company, IX Wireless, having given—it has come to light through correct declarations of course—more than £20,000 to Conservative MPs, while the Secretary of State has given this same company glowing endorsement at a launch event, with a promotional film, which I have seen, showing him in his ministerial office with the executives of that company.

I should say to the Minister that it is a question not just of how things are but of how things look. Of course there will be facts on which I am sure the Minister can enlighten us. I have a number of questions in that regard for her relating to an inquiry about the appointment process that was in place for Mr Blagden. Who was involved and which Minister made the final decision? Will there be payment for Mr Blagden in his role as chair? How will the council give independent advice and what happens if Ministers reject that advice? Will there be security experts as members of the advisory council? What knowledge did Mr Blagden have of the faults with the Horizon system during his time at Fujitsu? Can the Minister confirm that Mr Blagden has no remaining financial interests in Fujitsu?

I know that the noble Baroness may not be in a position to answer those questions now. In which case, I hope that she will write to me before we go into the Summer Recess. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before I comment on that excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I want to return to the answer that the Minister gave on the Newport Wafer Fab issue, which proves the point that we were making on the need for the ISC to be involved. Regarding the ISC issue, the Government furnished themselves with the National Security and Investment Act, which was supposed to deal with issues such as this. However, the Prime Minister has chosen to refer it back not to the people running that unit but to the National Security Adviser, which proves the point that someone with access to national security information is needed to make decisions of this nature, rather than an organisation that does not have access to the information. It absolutely proves the point that our amendment on the ISC is completely appropriate, just as it was appropriate for the BEIS analogue of what is happening here.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, made an excellent speech and I am not going to attempt to adorn it either with my normal flippancy or with detail. There is just one issue that I wish to raise regarding Simon Blagden. Are there any outstanding legal liabilities from his time at Fujitsu? In other words, has his activity been fully exonerated or is there potential legal recourse? Other than that, I echo the point that perception of these issues is as important as reality. If the Government continue to operate in a black-box way, everybody will assume that things are going on that they cannot see and that should not be happening. It is therefore in the Government’s interests to be transparent about how that person in particular was appointed and how the advisory council will operate.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for tabling the amendment and for giving me an opportunity to provide an update on the work of the Diversification Taskforce and the new diversification advisory council.

The Government recently announced the council, building on the work of the Diversification Taskforce, chaired by my noble friend Lord Livingston of Parkhead. I should like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks to him and the taskforce members for volunteering their valuable time and knowledge to their excellent review. Their recommendations and expertise will remain crucial to helping us bring greater resilience and competition to our future networks as the taskforce now transitions to the new diversification advisory council.

The Government recognise that diversification is a broad and complex issue relating to matters of security and resilience, technology and geopolitics. It is for this reason that we sought the advice of the experts appointed to the diversification task force. Many of the task force members will continue to provide advice as part of the new advisory council. In appointing the membership of the advisory council, the Government have followed all standard processes. The Government have ensured that the council comprises experts from both industry and academia across a wide range of subject matters, including security, of course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

29: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner
(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.(2) After section 229(3)(j) insert—“(k) the exercise by the Secretary of State of functions under section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversight of the power given to the Secretary of State in this Bill to outlaw the use of individual vendors.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in whose name it is, who unfortunately could not come today. He figured that this would be taken on day three of the process, but we have got ahead of ourselves. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his support for this amendment when he spoke to the second group. It is appreciated. I know that he has had to leave.

As Comms Council UK has pointed out, new Clause 105E is not the only new clause to give the Secretary of State extensive powers; there are others. New Clause 105Z1, for example, gives powers to the Secretary of State to outlaw the use of individual vendors, potentially with no parliamentary oversight, if the Secretary of State considers that it would be contrary to national security.

Clause 15 creates a scheme for dealing with particularly high-risk vendors by inserting new clauses into the Communications Act 2003. These empower the Secretary of State to give designated vendor directions where they consider it

“necessary in the interests of national security”

and the requirements imposed are

“proportionate to what is sought … by the direction.”

The designated vendor direction can impose wide-ranging requirements on providers on their use of

“goods, services or facilities … made available by a designated vendor specified in the direction.”

While vendors are entitled to notice of their designation if “reasonably practicable” to do so, they are not entitled to be consulted or informed of the reasons for the designation if the Secretary of State considers it contrary to national security. Vendors are also entitled to notice when directions are imposed on providers or when a designated vendor direction is revoked, but this right does not apply if the Secretary of State considers it contrary to national security.

The effect of all this is that, while a vendor may know of its designation, the providers with which it does business can have various restrictions imposed because of their relation to the designated vendor without the vendor knowing the reasons or possibly the existence of such directions. This is complicated but serious, and in several scenarios the vendors would have no real prospect of mounting any legal challenge, even under the closed material procedures provided for in the Justice and Security Act 2013.

Cutting to the chase, this amendment would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversight of the power given to the Secretary of State in the Bill to outlaw the use of individual vendors. Without this, we are telling suppliers that they essentially have to operate without full legal protection. I cannot help thinking that this will discourage the future investment we need. I am interested to hear how the Government think they can mitigate an essentially Orwellian situation in which people find themselves in an adverse legal position but they do not know why, and sometimes they do not even know that they are there. I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment. I do not have too much to add to this brief and interesting debate, but I take the opportunity to thank the Constitution Committee for its report on the Bill.

At Second Reading the Minister said:

“Oversight of the Investigatory Powers Act regime by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is considered appropriate because of the potential intrusion into the private lives of individuals as a result of the use of covert powers. The national security powers in this Bill are very different from those in the Investigatory Powers Act”.—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 747.]


However, she did not say why it would be wrong for the commissioner’s remit to change. This is the one point I put to the Minister, and it would be helpful to have a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response—but not much. There is a tendency, which has come through in this and lots of other Bills, for representatives of Her Majesty’s Government to stand up and completely ignore important committees of this House. The Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee are not any old committees; they are very serious. The way in which their advice—or rather more than advice—has been dismissed across the board by both Ministers in this debate is a serious development. I implore representatives of Her Majesty’s Government to take those committees more seriously, because their not being observed is somewhat an abuse of process.

That said, I will read the Minister’s response in detail, with a suitably socially distanced lawyer to advise me. I do not think we have heard anything that makes this amendment less needed but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

30: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of public electronic communications network
In section 151 of the Communications Act 2003, in the definition of “public electronic communications network”, at the end insert “, including—(a) landline communications systems;(b) mobile data, audio and video networks;(c) digital surveillance networks;(d) satellite delivered networks;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of “public electronic communications network”.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

We are down to the irreducible minimum. During my Second Reading speech, I asked the Minister about the range of technologies covered by the Bill. I do not recall getting a meaningful answer, so I thought I would try again using this as a probing amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, talked about the creativity of your Lordships. I am now going to test your memory functions, which I know can sometimes be stretched in this House. I would like your Lordships to cast your minds back to 2003, the year when the Nokia 1100 mobile phone was introduced. Few noble Lords will remember the number, but most of you will remember the phone. It was an iconic phone that took over mobile telephony. For those who would like to see one, I have two and, for as long as 3G is available, they will continue to work. More than 250 million of these basic GSM phones were sold. It was the best-selling consumer electronics device in the world at that time—the state-of-the-art communications device—and was discontinued in 2009.

Meanwhile, at the same time, the Communications Act 2003 was introduced to regulate machines such as the Nokia 1100. This has not been discontinued but has enjoyed several patches along the way. As I have said, this is a probing amendment seeking to clarify the definition of “public electronic communications network” within the 2003 Act. I think you see what I have done; I have tried to illustrate that the world has changed a bit since 2003.

The amendment seeks to amend Section 151 of the Communications Act by adding a contemporary definition of the range of communication networks that increasingly have emerged since the Act was conceived, when Nokia ruled the roost. It would introduce a new clause to the Bill that would define the “public electronic communications network” as

“landline communications systems … mobile data, audio and video networks … digital surveillance networks … satellite delivered networks”.

My first question to the Minister is: in her opinion and that of the department, which of these categories is covered by the Bill and which is not? I also have some specific scenarios that I would like the Minister to consider. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will be pleased to note that they are focused on the consumer—an issue she addressed earlier in the week.

First, when broadband or 5G are delivered by satellite, whether by the BEIS-owned OneWeb or the Musk-owned SpaceX, to what extent is the satellite element covered by this legislation?

Secondly, when a facial recognition camera captures an image, sends that image to a database using a closed network and, in turn, contacts either a public sector or private sector operative via a smartphone, which part of this—if any—is covered by the legislation?

Thirdly, data is being relayed back and forth over smart speakers—Alexa and its, or her, colleagues—so do these transactions fall within the purview of the Communications Act or the Bill? For example, with smart speakers, does the Bill cover only the transmission and not the speaker itself? If that is true, what, if anything, covers the security integrity of the speaker and its software?

My fourth question concerns data travelling between smart meters, home thermostats, camera doorbells and the ever-increasing internet of things. How is their security and integrity protected by the Bill? If the answer is that they are not protected, where do these modern manifestations of communications fit in? How is the security of these things being protected for the consumers of today?

This is not just a piece of legislative housekeeping. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised other potentially risky companies in his speech on Amendment 1; at Second Reading I raised a range of other companies. I will not repeat them but they are in Hansard. These are just a few of the businesses involved in the sorts of activities that I have just outlined, so by understanding which activities are included in the Bill we may start to understand which companies and technologies it includes. It is about how satellites, cameras, smart speakers and the internet of things fit in the purview of what is now called communications. Times have changed since 2003. Can the Minister please update us? I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton, for tabling this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has set out why they believe this definition of a public electronic communications network is needed. I also appreciated his reference to the importance of consumers, who, after all, are core in all our discussions.

It is important to hear from the Minister whether she believes that this definition is limiting for security purposes and what impact it would have. Perhaps she can advise on whether she feels that anything is missing which should be in there. Would this definition inhibit the future-proofing ability of the Bill? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that that is a chink of sunshine at the end of the afternoon for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. With that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are more Bills to follow; I fear that I am being drafted into the purchasing Bill and the other Bill that the Minister just mentioned.

The Minister is wrong to conflate data protection with security—we are talking not about data protection but about security. There is a big difference between the role of the ICO and that of security. I do not think that that helps answer the questions that I was asking.

Perhaps this is for the Bills to come rather than today’s Bill, but there is something about the collective threat. If everybody’s smart meter is shut down that is a national emergency, not a personal emergency. There is a national security issue around personal data devices and somewhere, whether in this Bill or those to come, there needs to be the recognition that collective security happens when everybody’s systems are secure from threat. If I were a terrorist, it would be much easier to do those kinds of things than doing some big, national thing that is protected by the National Cyber Security Centre.

That is the point of what I am putting forward. The internet of things increases the security risk to every home all the time. Similarly, every time someone turns on their GPS locator, they are putting themselves into a system that is followed. The Minister carefully used the phrase wholly or majority use data. Increasingly with cars and satellite navigation systems, and when we move to electric and autonomous locations, all that data is becoming publicly available. In other words, my car is fed into your car, which is fed into her car to make sure that we do not run into each other. The idea that somehow you can draw these lines and say that only 10% of the data is used in a public way and 90% is not starts to become irrelevant, if it is not already. That is what I am trying to highlight.

I did not expect for a minute the Minister to say that the Government would amend Section 105 of the Act. The point was to really highlight this issue, because if the Government do not address it in this way or another then personal security on a mass level is compromised, which then becomes a national security issue. That was the point of the amendment. Having raised it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

This is an interesting debate—one that we started about a year ago. During the summer, on the then Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, many of these arguments were rehearsed. This Bill was held out, in a sense, as the carrot that would address these issues, and it has been some time coming.

To some extent, the initial issues that came up last year have been discounted, with the Government largely moving on the Huawei issue. However, as we have heard—and will hear over the course of Committee—many questions are unanswered. We should once again thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Northover for bringing forward these amendments, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will be interested to hear his perspective as, having been a Minister, he understands some of the trade-offs in decision-making—it is interesting that he chose to sign this amendment none the less.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his Second Reading speech. He could not give it to us at Second Reading, so we got it anyway. There are some issues around industrial capacity which I will come back to.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, picked up a point on which I queried the Minister and did not get a response: at what point are we examining this technology? You have systems, sub-systems, components and software. Frankly, if we are doing this, it must be done at all levels. The capacity to do that and track a chip, a piece of software or something in the software which we do not even know is supposed to be there is a huge task. Do we have the capacity in the intelligence services, and the industrial ability, to do it? It is a very important question, as there is not much point having this if we cannot actually do it.

Before speaking to Amendments 1 and 20, I will say a few words on Amendment 27, the Five Eyes element. As we know, this requires the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with companies banned by Five Eyes partners and to decide whether to take similar action on the UK’s arrangements with those companies. As I think my noble friend Lady Northover said, the Minister will no doubt say that we do this anyway. If we do this anyway then, to some extent, we should not be afraid of putting it in the Bill. It is important that we walk in as lock-step a way as we can with our Five Eyes partners, but the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is apposite; China understands that and will play the Five Eyes against each other. We must be aware of that; we must not be slavish in how we respond but canny, and work with our partners so that they understand why we are moving in the right direction.

Again, this comes down to capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked who does it. The NCSC is supposed to provide the ammunition for the Secretary of State and Ofcom to operate on. There are big questions around the interface between the NCSC and Ofcom and how they relate to each other. How, for example, does the highly secret information the NCSC is dealing with get to DCMS and Ofcom without either breaching security or eroding transparency, or both? We have big concerns about that, and obviously it will come up later.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised Newport Wafer Fab, which until recently I thought was an ice cream firm somewhere in Aberystwyth. However, now I find that, as he set out, it is our only supplier of this equipment. That is an object lesson in itself but it is also completely appropriate to this point. In its response, BEIS confuses manufacturing capacity with technical novelty and has the idea that, because this is not technically novel, that somehow stops it from being valuable to this country. However, manufacturing capacity is central to the delivery of future technical novelty, and if you want somewhere to look, look at the communications industry. We were pre-eminent global leading companies in analogue communications technology; no country could match us. We lost that manufacturing capacity and the ability to innovate in the digital space, and that is why we have the supply chain issues we have today. If the Government have not learned this lesson, and it seems that BEIS has not, we have a long way to travel yet before we get to a sensible place.

In a sense we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others about specific issues but I would like to rise up a bit and look at the bigger picture slightly. In his Mansion House speech on 1 July 2021, Rishi Sunak crystallises the challenge and perhaps the dichotomy, and points us in a number of different directions at the same time. Your Lordships must excuse me, but I will read out a fairly lengthy passage which is appropriate to this debate. He says:

“And our principles will also guide our relationship with China. Too often, the debate on China lacks nuance. Some people on both sides argue either that we should sever all ties or focus solely on commercial opportunities at the expense of our values. Neither position adequately reflects the reality of our relationship with a vast, complex country, with a long history. The truth is, China is both one of the most important economies in the world and a state with fundamentally different values to ours. We need a mature and balanced relationship. That means being eyes wide open about their increasing international influence and continuing to take a principled stand on issues we judge to contravene our values. After all, principles only matter if they extend beyond our convenience. But it also means recognising the links between our people and businesses; cooperating on global issues like health, aging, climate and biodiversity; and”—


here we come to the rub—

“realising the potential of a fast-growing financial services market with total assets worth £40 trillion”.

What does a mature, balanced relationship look like in context? How nuanced are the examples that we have just heard about the Chinese? First, we can see that because of advanced concerns around the security of at least one Chinese vendor, the UK Government are mandating equipment to be torn out of our existing infrastructure and thrown away at the cost of several billion pounds. That is not a nuance. Secondly, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this time and previously, and we have seen the evidence of malevolence within China to its own people on a scale that is, let us say, unusual even for the age in which we live. Thirdly, we can see transparently what is going on in Hong Kong. That in itself is not a nuance either. Fourthly, we have the Chancellor’s stated desire to realise the potential of a fast-growing financial services market.

All this is the context in which Amendments 1 and 20 have been tabled. This gives the chance for the Minister to explain where she and the Bill sit on that nuanced scale, as the Chancellor puts it. He clearly sets out that the Government’s principles will guide our relationship with China, so what are those principles?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is my first Grand Committee appearance, and I hope that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have been in a number of committees, but not at this end of the building. I am still getting used to some of the processes and procedures, but I am very pleased to be speaking on this Bill.

From our perspective, the Bill is very welcome. The Government are clearly addressing a very real security concern that our nation has, and, in trying to deal with it, have not just my support but that of every single Member of the House of Lords. It is our country, and we want it looked after and defended properly. Many of the amendments and the comments that have been made so far today, and which will be made throughout the Committee and no doubt at Report and beyond, are about challenging the Government, not from an oppositional point of view but from one of trying to improve the legislation. We want to ask the Government testing questions to see where their thinking is. That is what all the various speakers have done so far today.

There are a number of particular issues. As others have said, the amendments in this group, from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, deal with the international context for the security of the telecommunications sector, however you define that. This is really important, because it affects—not infects—every single part of our lives. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave the example of Hikvision and CCTV. Whether it is the hardware or the software, this demonstrates that there are examples of new technology and telecommunications which impact on all our lives but which many of us probably do not view as causing a potential security threat to our country and nation. We have only to look at where that is going—whether you look at this sphere or the defence sphere—to know that we are going to see an increase in telecommunications, and in the use of space, drones, artificial intelligence and all those sorts of aspects.

One thing that I will talk about in other debates on other amendments is how you future-proof this—and that is part of some of the later amendments. Hikvision, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised, is an interesting instance. At the nub of it is that, if our allies, who we depend on for our collective security, are banning companies such as Hikvision, as in the United States, how is it in our interests to defend our own security to not do the same? It is unfair to say that it has not been thought about, but there is something of a disjointed approach when one of our closest allies—if not our closest—has banned a tech company that we use. I am sure that there are very good reasons for it, and the Civil Service and others will no doubt tell the Minister X, Y and Z, but it defies common sense. Whatever the reality of it, it just does not appear to be a sensible option, so I very much support the example that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave. That is one of the reasons why I added my name to Amendment 27.

With regard to NATO and Five Eyes on a domestic and international level—I shall return to this point on Amendments 18 and 25—who actually holds the ring? Who is the person or what is the department that co-ordinates all this activity across government? Who holds the ring across government? You could say that it is the Prime Minister, but the Minister will know what I mean. Out of all the various aspects of government, who actually in the end decides? And if there is a conflict of interest between them, who then is the judge of that and how does that work on an international level? But as I say, that is more to do with Amendments 18 and 25.

Amendment 27 in particular, as I said, ensures a review of telecoms companies when a Five Eyes partner bans the operation of a vendor of goods or services to public telecommunications providers in its country on security grounds. That is eminently sensible. It a review. The amendment is, essentially, testing the Government by asking, “Why wouldn’t you have a review?” Why would you not—to use a security term—keep that under surveillance?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Barran scale of nuance, which will no doubt become a classic in future. She did not address the issue of componentry, if you follow my drift. It seems to me, in analysis, that what tipped the balance in the sense of Huawei was the absence of American-made chips. Were that not to have happened, the NCSC would not have recommended the widescale removal that we have seen. That appears to be the implication. There seems to be an element of component monitoring going on, although in this case the monitoring appears to have been done more by the Americans than by the United Kingdom. It comes back to that fundamental point: at what level is the Bill going to be applied? Will it be applied on the overall capability of the system? In other words, is it a systems capability issue? Is it a subsystem operational outcome view, the individual pieces that go to make those subsystems, or the software that drives the overall system? How will the Bill actually be put into process?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I may need to write to the noble Lord about the technical details he has set out. I think for the approach to be effective it needs to incorporate all elements of that. An overall system cannot be a capable system if the subsystem is not. There needs to be coherence across the equipment that is supplied and our understanding of how it operates in practice and the component parts to inform the judgment about its security or not. I am happy to follow up in writing if he is agreeable.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this matter. The Bill is meant to be about security, not about “anything”. I have seen this happen with other legislation—that it suddenly becomes convenient to take something never intended for another purpose and, because it is very broadly worded, use it to beat some company or someone over the head over something completely unrelated. I am afraid that I agree that the Bill needs to be tightened up and brought down to security issues, not just “anything”.

For starters, a powerful, predominant supplier of routing equipment in the IP network would be a security risk. If anyone relies too much on one supplier—and they may unfortunately be pushed in that direction—it becomes a security risk, and we may have to close down some providers: “Oh dear, that’s our network finished”. That would be stupid. We are going to be anti certain companies. Companies get based or controlled elsewhere as takeovers happen internationally, so I see a certain amount of difficulty with this if it is very wide.

I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. The reason we lost our manufacturing, of course, was that BT selected Huawei as the preferred supplier of the 21st-century network rewrite in 2005. That is the point at which we closed down our capability, effectively being blackmailed by America to get rid of Huawei while potentially blackmailed by Huawei, which could get too much control. We need to look at these strategic decisions where private companies that used to be government suddenly make companies that affect UK security. I have never been happy about that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I say that it is also a huge issue when you have, essentially, a near-monopolistic private sector supplier, which makes any decision completely catastrophic for the under-bidder. I am speaking not to that but to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out, bear my name. He set out a very clear rationale for these amendments, which back up the concerns of the Constitution Committee and, indeed, some suppliers. Rather than reiterate those, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence to illustrate the point, inviting them to join me in a thought experiment. They need not worry—it is not going to hurt and I will not be pushing them into a Petri dish or anything like that. I simply ask your Lordships to imagine things the other way around: imagine that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill did indeed include the words currently proposed by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and myself, words that clearly identify that the focus of the Bill should be on the security of telecoms.

I ask noble Lords to continue to use their imagination that it was my noble friend and I who were proposing changes to include the words that are currently there; in other words, imagine that we were proposing to take the word “security” from this imaginary Bill and turn it into “anything”. Broadening the cover, as we have heard, would broaden the problem around any interruption very widely. I do not know but I dare say that, if we tried to do that, the Public Bill Office would have something to say, pointing to the Long Title of the Bill, which is:

“To make provision about the security of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services”


—in other words, security. Were we to try to take that word out and put in “anything”, I dare say the PBO would not allow us to do so.

If we did however slip it past the PBO, I guarantee that the Minister of the day would tell us that this would subvert the Bill’s intention and would take away the Bill’s focus from security to some of the imaginary things that the noble Lord opposite suggested—or, indeed, a digger backing into a green box somewhere in Kent. This is not the “Telecoms (Mishaps) Bill” but the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. These simple and modest amendments focus the Bill on its stated objective.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a really important discussion. I do not want to speak for too long but the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was right to say that the Bill is about security and not just “anything”. None of us on the Committee wants to compromise the nation’s security or compromise the ability of our military personnel to conduct necessary operations. However, sometimes in legislation words really matter—they are the law of the land. That is why scrutiny of legislation in Committee like this is so important, word by word and line by line, otherwise—and I will have a series of questions for the Minister on this—down the line in one, two, three or five years, something will happen and everybody will go, “How was the word ‘anything’ included?” The unintended consequence of legislation is something that we need to consider, or people will ask how something happened—how that word was allowed.

With that in mind, it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee how this definition is arrived at. The starting point would be to ask her to explain the differences between having the word “anything” and having the phrase “security issue”. Can she give examples of how the Bill would be weakened by having that term rather than “anything”, and what “anything” means—apart from saying that it means “anything”? What does it actually mean, given that the Bill is supposed to be about security issues, as the noble Earl said?

The Government argue that the duty on providers is appropriate and proportionate to ensure that the effects of compromise are limited and to act to remedy the impacts. I understand why Ministers are keen to keep the definition wide, but on its own it is not good enough. For example, can the Minister explain whether there are any thresholds to what amounts to a security compromise, or is it “anything”, and what does that mean to an individual who might stray into territory that they are not sure about? How was the Bill’s definition arrived at? Who came up with it and what advice did they receive? Were alternatives suggested to it, what did security experts say to the Minister was necessary, and were there dissenting voices?

In seeking clarification, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the definition does not include, as I understand it, the presence of supply chain components, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned on the earlier group of amendments, if they represent a security threat. Maybe it does—but could the Minister clarify that? We need to know that to understand the diversification of the supply chain and how effectively or not it is proceeding. It is important to consider the components of the supply chain, particularly when identifying where they are a threat to our national security. As I see it, that is not included in Clause 1, but perhaps the Minister can tell me that it is and that I have not read the clause correctly. If so, where is it?

I go back to where I started. These amendments are important in testing how the Government have arrived at this use of “anything”. I know it sounds like semantics —what does “anything” mean?—but the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is crucial. The Bill is a security Bill. That being so, why does “anything” appear and why is “security issue” not the appropriate way to describe this? Why is it not included in the Bill? It is necessary for the Committee to understand the Government’s thinking on this for us to consider whether we need to bring back this matter on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The Minister brought up the review, which was very clear that there are huge potential market failures within the security and resilience telecoms market, the reason being that security is not valued by the networks. It is other things, such as network connectivity and price, which are of maximum importance to those networks—things that might come under the word “anything”, for example.

Let us be clear about the four reasons given by the review that security is undervalued by networks: insufficient clarity on cyber standards and practices; insufficient incentives to internalise the costs and benefits of security; lack of commercial drivers, because consumers of telecoms services do not tend to place a high value on security; and the complexity of delivering, monitoring and enforcing contractual arrangements in relation to security. All four of those issues, which I think are driving the purpose of this Bill, involve the word “security”. Far from these amendments watering down the intent of the Bill, the Minister is watering it down herself by including the word “anything” and ignoring the word “security”. I do not expect her to accept these amendments now, but I would like the department to go away and think about this very carefully, because a catch-all Bill catches nothing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. We will of course take back his comments and reflect on them again. However, I know that officials working on this Bill have considered these points in enormous detail and would be happy to meet the noble Lord and discuss them, if that would be helpful. We believe that our framework does not water down but balances future-proofing with the precision and specificity that the noble Lord seeks. I hope we can follow up on that in a separate meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I can see that it might be useful to avoid scrutiny sometimes when we have to finesse difficult issues—say, balancing effectiveness and public perception of certain other issues, or whatever. We can also end up with an awful lot of SIs in front of both Houses and everyone feeling rather swamped and bored by them and no one really doing anything about them. The trouble is that we get more and more wide-ranging powers in Bills, and this is a particular example of it. The more we do that, the more careful we have to be about the secondary legislation, because that is where the devil resides and that is where the real control is. We have just passed something that enables a takeover by the Executive. In some cases that may be a good thing; in others it could be very dangerous. To be honest, because of the huge, general issues in these Bills, I now come down in favour of the affirmative procedure. We are going to have to scrutinise it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, harmony is breaking out across the Room, with the possible exception of the Minister. I will not reiterate my noble friend’s well-put argument but I refer the Minister—I am sure she has already read it—to the impact assessment. I am increasingly of the opinion that the single most useful document that comes with the publishing of a Bill is not the Explanatory Notes but the impact assessment. The department is to be congratulated on the quality of the one produced in this case.

Page 30 of the impact assessment covers the monetised and non-monetised costs of this. At the front of the assessment there is a number. However, point 6.1 says:

“This impact assessment makes an estimation of the costs and benefits of the options”.


It says it brings together “a number of sources” and notes that there are “limitations to the analysis”. The first is the

“lack of robust and specific data”—

that is a fairly serious limitation—

“for example on UK telecoms market size and the size of specific sub-markets”.

Therefore, the number on the front is based simply on—obviously, well-intentioned—estimates of the telecoms market. Furthermore, the costs are quantified based on equipment costs. They are not based on the friction of running a network under the constraints of this Bill, which is itself a glaring error in how one looks at the cost of this Bill in terms of impact.

It is not just about the cost and replacement of equipment—it is about the draft regulations to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred. They cover all aspects of the operation of the networks in this country. We are looking at a situation in which, if the Minister so chose, the regulations could be made and implemented such that the Minister ran the networks by remote control from the department. That is why these safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny and the affirmative process are an important safeguard to prevent attention—not, I am sure, from this Minister or this Secretary of State, who I am sure can be trusted with these regulations, but we do not know who will follow or what their intentions will be.

As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, wisely said, to hand over these powers without simultaneously taking significant powers of scrutiny of the statutory instruments that will inevitably follow is the wrong way in which to pass a Bill in your Lordships’ House. For these reasons, along with the huge uncertainty of the cost of what we are doing here, I commend my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 11 in my name and welcome Amendments 7 and 12 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to a chorus of agreement, which I certainly heard ringing out, expressing concerns about the role that Parliament should have in scrutinising on codes of practice that this Bill currently does not provide for. To me, the codes remind us that the Bill can provide us only with something of a framework, and for many areas there is a wait for the details to be filled in later. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, the devil, as always, is in the detail.

Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to issue new telecom security codes of practice that will set out to providers the details of specific security measures that they should take. As we have heard referred to, the impact assessment states that these codes are the way in which the DCMS seeks to demonstrate what good security practices look like. However, I note that Ministers are proposing only to demonstrate but not actually to secure good practice, which I am sure is the real intent—and it would be very helpful if, through this debate, we could get to that place.

I am interested also to note and draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Government have said that these codes will be based on National Cyber Security Centre best practice security guidance. The Government have said that they will consult publicly, including with Ofcom and the industry, as we read in the Minister’s letter following Second Reading. That public consultation will be on implementation and revision. However, it strikes me as very strange that the National Cyber Security Centre is not a statutory consultee; can the Minister say why it is not?

I particularly make the point that, as the codes of practice will be admissible in legal proceedings, they have to be drafted accurately and we have to ensure that security input and expertise is fed into them. The National Cyber Security Centre, which is described as a bridge between industry and government and is, indeed, an organisation of the Government, would seem to be a body that should be, in a statutory sense, invited to make the input and offer its expertise, along with other departments and agencies. After all, we can see, when reading about the centre, that its whole reason for being is that it provides widespread support for the most critical organisations in the United Kingdom as well as the general public, and they are absolutely key when incidents, regrettably, occur. We are trying to address those incidents in respect of this Bill.

As we have heard from all noble Lords who spoke in this section of the debate today, the input needs to come from Parliament, which is why I tabled Amendment 11. As the Bill is drafted, the current reading is that a code of practice must be published and laid before Parliament, but there is no scrutiny procedure. I put it to the Minister that if codes have legal weight, why is Parliament being denied the chance to scrutinise them? We seem to have a complete mismatch there. I was taken by the words in the Delegated Powers Committee report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his introduction, which stated that this way of being was “unacceptable” and called for the negative procedure for codes. That is what Amendment 11 does. Can the Minister address specifically the words of that committee report? I refer her to paragraph 27, which says:

“In our view, the Department’s reasons are unconvincing … the fact that codes of practice would be produced after consultation with interested parties cannot be a reason for denying Parliament any scrutiny role; and … the Department appears not to have recognised the significance of the statutory effects of the codes of practice”,


as has been highlighted today. I therefore hope that the Minister will both comment on the report and seek to make what is a very important and significant change in this regard.

I will pick up on one additional point. The impact assessment also says that the codes of practice will have a tiering system for different-sized operators. The initial code will apply to tier 1, which serves the majority of businesses of critical importance to the United Kingdom. This will also apply to tier 2 medium-sized operators but with lighter oversight by Ofcom and longer timetables. Can the Minister offer a draft list of the operators in tiers 1 and 2, and can it be shared with noble Lords? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister has any concerns that tier 2 operators will somehow be worse at compliance. If she has those concerns, what support will be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises? I look forward to her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In quick response to, or doubling up on, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my understanding is that the code is enforceable by law. If it is not, perhaps the Minister can explain how the operators are expected to deliver.

This is relatively simple. The Minister has asserted that this is a technical issue. She has asserted that it is too technical for Parliament to be able to manage, but at the same time, as it is currently structured, there will be a self-referential group of people. If the Covid crisis has told us anything, it is that a self-referential group of people is not good at horizon-scanning. Security is a great big horizon scan. You normally know you have not got security only when you lose it and it is essential to take advantage of the diversity of technical opinion that exists in this country and elsewhere. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the sum of human knowledge is contained in one department, and probably one subsection of one department.

For those reasons alone, a technical advisory board is vital to secure the future of this country. That seems to me self-evident, but clearly it is not, so perhaps the Minister can explain. Was this discussed, when was it discussed and why was it dismissed as an option?

Both these amendments have very cunningly taken advantage of existing structures; they have looked at the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and read across, with ready-made structures that can deliver both the technical advisory board and the benefits that I have just set out and a judicial commissioner to make sure that there is sufficient proportionality and appropriateness in those measures. It seems to me that it is for the Minister to explain, if this was good enough for the 2016 Act, why it is not appropriate to put it in this Bill for these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I emailed the clerk, asking to speak after the Minister.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—sorry.

[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.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

First, if I may, I will take back the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about new Section 105H under Clause 3; I will write to him to, I hope, alleviate any concerns and confusion. There are certain legal effects set out; I will write to him to clarify the point about legal enforceability.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his appreciation. Part of the confusion here may be that two technical advisory boards are mentioned in these groups of amendments. As I think he noted, the one set up under RIPA has a different function, but we are certainly not being dismissive of the points that have been raised. Indeed, as I said, we have spoken to the industry and received helpful feedback from telecoms providers on the illustrative draft measures that were published in January. We will also be glad to look at the information that he mentioned—the views that have come his way—to make sure that these are reconciled; if he is happy to share them, we will look at them and come back him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words on this because the key words “undue burden” stand out. It is very important that we do not put too many burdens, particularly unnecessary ones, on companies. In particular—and this is something that I have often looked at because I have done a lot of work with innovative and growing companies—you must not let large corporations stifle innovation. There is an attitude among them that regulations are for your enemies; they are a very good way of stopping up-and-coming competition. I have also noticed that departments tend to consult the companies which have significant market presence already and see them as being the people who know all about it. However, that does not take account of what is up and coming. The other thing is that they often have people on secondment from them or people who have retired from the companies and gone into the departments, so there can be some interesting biases within. With those few warnings, I think the whole undue burden issue is more important than people might think.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The undue burden point touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is really important. On a previous group I spoke about regulatory friction and the fact that this has not been costed into the impact assessment. Clearly, regulatory friction is harder for smaller companies to deal with than larger companies. I think that is the point that the noble Earl was making. It is one that I would also join up.

We should also not confuse lots of regulations with security. The whole point about people who wish to subvert security is that they understand the regulations and go round them. Indeed, sometimes regulations are a guidebook for security, in a sense, because they show the map around which you seek to find the chinks.

The point in the impact assessment about making the networks value security is right. On that, I completely agree with the Government. I am not sure that some of the measures in the Bill actually do that; what they do is create a regulatory load without necessarily adding value. Some of the measures that we spoke of in the last group of amendments, as well as in this, are about stripping this down to where value is added rather than simply more regulation being loaded up.

One of the great pleasures of speaking after my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is that he normally says everything better than I would. He simply asked the Minister to repeat what was in the letter and to endorse the 2003 Act. I hope that he is able to grant his wish.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for these amendments. As before, it is a pleasure to follow their contributions and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

On the codes of practice and Amendment 10, I understand the importance of not wanting to put undue burdens on businesses. We should make particular reference to the exceptionally difficult and testing times that businesses and the economy have had to suffer over the past year due to the pandemic. Obviously, a balance needs to be considered. We have to ensure that if the codes are going to be used, they are the most effective way of implementing security measures. How will the Government consider the impact of codes on businesses? For example, will there be specific consultation about undue costs in respect of businesses?

The concerns that we have heard in this debate give a further nod to concerns about lack of parliamentary oversight, which is missing from the codes. I again say gently to the Minister that by giving parliamentarians the opportunity to provide scrutiny there might also be the ability to review the impact on businesses.

Amendments 16, 17 and 21 would ensure that Ofcom’s new powers in the Bill were subject to requirements in Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 3 focuses on the general duties of Ofcom, while Section 6 focuses on reviewing regulatory burdens. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Bill has been deliberately drafted for the new powers to fall out of scope of those sections in the Communications Act and, if so, why.

What review process will be faced in respect of Ofcom’s new powers? It is very important that, when new powers are given, there is an opportunity to review, reflect and amend, and to keep a close eye on whether those new powers are doing the job intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I put my name down to speak to this because the problem with putting a fixed time period on having to report security breaches is that it very much depends on what the breach is. We mentioned patches earlier. If it is a vulnerability in the software—or it may be the hardware—which requires a patch to be released, you must have the time to produce it and test it as fully as possible. You do not want the hackers out there to know what the vulnerability is until you can roll out the answer to it. That is what zero-day attacks are based on. Equally—the noble Baroness is absolutely correct here—you do not want this stuff swept under a carpet to sit there unused for years. Could our technical advisory board give advice at an incident level, or something like that?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting and nuanced—to coin a word we used earlier—debate. I am probably the only person here who has had to deal with a national security issue that impacted a consumer brand in real time on television. I must say that 30 days was not an option—30 minutes was not an option. Picking up on the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the time is entirely dependent on the nature of the crisis or security breach. My fear is that 30 days becomes a target rather than an injunction.

I think the point here is “no burial”. I assure colleagues and others in this Room that our amendments do not intend to bury the issue either, but to introduce some equivocation in the event that not announcing something makes things more secure than announcing them. The point of this is not to protect the reputation or otherwise of the network, but to protect consumers and the integrity and security of the network. That is the decision Ofcom would need to make. That would be its call. Its default position would be that it needs to be communicated to consumers as quickly as is sensible, unless there is a reason not to communicate it, and it would be up to the network providers to put their position forward. However, there are definitely times when it should not be communicated. At the moment the Bill seems rather unequivocal in its approach.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Sorry, I have not quite finished.

I would call Amendment 15 a “good manners” amendment. If Ofcom possesses information that the network provider does not, it simply calls for that network to be brought into the loop before the rest of us are. That seems good manners to me—you do not necessarily have to legislate for that, but these days it always helps. I have now finished.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling these amendments to Clause 4 and for their considered remarks. As we have heard, these amendments speak to reporting requirements placed on industry in the event of a significant risk of a security compromise and the powers bestowed on Ofcom in the event of a compromise or the risk thereof.

Amendments 13 and 14 amend new Section 105J. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, summarised, new Section 105J is designed to give users of telecoms networks and services relevant information when there is a significant risk of a security compromise, including the steps that they should take to prevent such a compromise adversely affecting them. Giving users this information will help ensure that, where possible, they can take swift action to protect themselves. It will also contribute to greater awareness of security issues, supporting users to make more informed choices about their telecoms provider.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I saw this and thought that I really did not understand why the Government were doing it. I saw what the Constitution Committee had said and realised that it did not understand why it was needed. I cannot believe that you can have a proper appeal if you ignore the merits of the case. I probably have an overdeveloped sense of justice and I think that to have an appeal where you are not allowed to present half the case or whatever is not a proper appeal. In fact, what you find is that the system can use procedural things to run rings around people who have a very justifiable complaint about something. I did not like the look of it and I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to attempt to outlawyer my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I may not be a lawyer, but I am suspicious or, indeed, perhaps ultra-suspicious. What is the department seeking to avoid by removing what would seem to be natural justice from this process? What are the Government seeking to protect themselves from in advance? Who are they frightened of?

I do not think I know the answers to these questions, but I know that there is someone or something there that the department is seeking to avoid in advance. For those reasons, we should be extraordinarily suspicious, just as suspicious as I am. I ask the Minister: what is the justification? What are the Government scared of?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been very interested to hear the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his opening remarks, concern about oversight is driving this section of the debate. As we know, Clause 13 ensures that when deciding an appeal against certain security-related decisions made by Ofcom, the tribunal is to apply judicial review principles without taking any special account of the merits of the case.

I understand that this does not apply to appeals against Ofcom’s enforcement decisions and that the Government have said that this ensures that it is clear that the tribunal is able to adapt its approach as necessary to ensure compatibility with Article 6, the right to a fair trial. My questions to the Minister are about the legal advice that the Government have received on this clause. What legal advice has been received? Is this external legal advice as well as internal legal advice?

The clause states that

“the Tribunal is to apply those principles without taking any special account of the merits of the case.”

Can the Minister explain what “special account” is expected to mean?

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear exposition of the purposes and modus operandi of this Bill. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord West—Admiral West—and I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who is on the Front Bench.

During late summer last year, we debated the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act, when this security Bill was held out as a carrot, largely to try to curtail discussions of a Chinese nature. It did not work, of course, and we had those discussions, but here we are at last with this Bill. As we have heard, it provides the Government with considerable new national security powers to issue directions to privately-held public telecommunications providers, primarily with the aim of managing issues arising from high-risk vendors. As such, the Minister will acquire wide and sweeping powers.

The Bill also gives Ofcom wide duties and legal powers to monitor and assess the security of telecoms providers. For teeth, as we have heard from the Minister, companies that continue to use high-risk vendors could or will face very heavy fines. Perhaps the Bill’s headline outcome is the new controls on the use of Huawei 5G equipment, including a ban on the purchase of new Huawei equipment from the end of 2021 and a commitment to remove all Huawei equipment from 5G networks by 2027.

How will these Benches respond? First, I am happy to confirm that Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of having secure telecommunications networks. I am sure the Minister is relieved to hear that. Secondly, Liberal Democrats want to see Huawei technology removed as quickly and expediently as possible. However, I note, as the Minister hinted at but did not detail, that the issue is with more than one supplier and more than one country. I add that the issue of the treatment of Muslim Uighurs does not stop with this Bill. The genocide going on there creates much wider implications for our relationship with China than the issue of which technology makes our phones work. These implications are very important, but I understand that they are beyond the scope of this Bill.

Thirdly, Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the Government must now invest in developing telecommunications technology in the UK. We want to see an increase in the diversity of the UK’s telecoms supply chain. We also believe that a strong relationship with the European Union and the intelligence alliance Five Eyes will help us to ensure that security risks are dealt with quickly. Finally, Lib Dems want to see stronger protections for the privacy of people in the UK.

What we will be testing in Committee is threefold. First, does the Bill effectively shut out the technology it is meant to shut out? The trick to making communications secure will be the nuts and bolts of the Bill. Secondly, do the Minister and Ofcom have the right powers, and the necessary checks and balances, to make this Bill work? Thirdly, when it comes to supply chain diversification, can we actually shut out Huawei et al and have an effective communications network?

One at a time, first let us look at the prime intent of the Bill: to keep our networks secure. On the face of it, this is another skeleton Bill. With the presentation of a few statutory instruments here and there, the Government should theoretically be able to react swiftly, but are the Minister and Ofcom placed to pre-empt issues, rather than react to them? There is a technical difficulty here: in 5G particularly, the distinction between the core and edge of networks is blurred. With technology moving faster than government can, that distinction is almost meaningless and the threats will change from week to week. So can the Minister explain how Ofcom can ever successfully be ahead of the game and not chasing issues?

As we know, plans for removing Huawei have been announced, but this does not stop with Huawei. For example, legislation in the US is considerably broader. It identifies specific companies, including Huawei, but also ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation Limited, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Limited and Dahua Technology Co. Limited. Also, US legislation covers telecommunications and video surveillance and services. Given the news this weekend, the Minister might like to review where we source CCTV cameras from in this country—I note that that was discussed in a previous debate. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that this legislation will cover the full range of security threats that we need to cover or will we see another Bill to broaden it yet further into surveillance and surveillance services?

Turning to the powers granted by this Bill, it gives wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State and next to no oversight to Parliament. Included are sweeping powers to address matters of national security and it is not clear, although the Minister has hinted, how Ofcom will really interact with the intelligence community. Furthermore, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord West, the committee, which has express oversight of national security, has been excluded from scrutinising how this legislation will operate. I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord West. In addition, there is no dedicated role for judicial or technical oversight. This is very different from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, in which such provision exists. I expect my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to comment more on this issue.

The Bill also gives sweeping powers to Ofcom. We heard from the Minister how Ofcom will be co-operating with the intelligence services, but this creates a conflict of culture within Ofcom and will inevitably lead to more opaque operations which will, in turn, create issues elsewhere. I am still not clear how that interface will work. It will be useful to investigate that in Committee.

Finally, I turn to supply chain diversity. The Minister in the Commons said:

“We must never find ourselves in this position again. Over the last few decades, countless countries across the world have become over-reliant on too few vendors”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 75.]


Fine words, I am sure, but they come from a Government whose Chancellor and Secretary of State for BEIS have cancelled the industrial strategy and disbanded the Industrial Strategy Council. Undaunted, alongside the Bill the DCMS has published a diversification strategy. I suggest that Oliver Dowden, who adorns that document, is rowing somewhat in the opposite direction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Assuming that this strategy makes some headway against a running tide within government, it has three legs: “supporting incumbent suppliers”, “attracting new suppliers” and accelerating “open-interface solutions”.

I will take those legs one at a time, beginning with “supporting incumbent suppliers”. I am bemused by the term “incumbent”. I think it means domestic suppliers, because Huawei is an incumbent supplier and we have heard that it will not be getting support. Assuming domestic suppliers is what is meant—there are world trade rules that make it difficult to preferably treat domestic suppliers, but assuming these can be surmounted —can the Minister give us the current estimate of how many incumbent domestic suppliers are in our network and what percentage, in terms of value, they represent?

To fill that gap, we are going to need pretty rapid innovation. Innovation is not easy and the speedy innovation we have just seen with the Covid vaccine, for example, was helped by two important conditions: first, a very strong existing R&D base in this country and secondly, a guaranteed private sector market for the vaccine. I do not think these conditions exist for telecoms technology. So, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of telecoms research and development in the UK? How will the private networks be encouraged to guarantee a market for any UK-based and UK-developed products that emerge?

The second strategic leg is “attracting new suppliers”. I suspect this is going to be an easier job than building an industry from scratch in this country. Will the Minister confirm how the vetting process will work? I assume this will be in the code of conduct. Will the networks have to be externally cleared? Will they be subsequently audited, and how deep does approval go? Does every component of every sub-assembly need to go through a process, and how will this all unfold in building the networks? It begins to sound quite cumbersome if there is going to be a nuts and bolts check of the technology.

The third leg is accelerating “open-interface solutions”. The Government are moving ahead at speed with open-access radio networks and open RAN piloting, and should be congratulated. If it goes to plan, when will we start to see this becoming significant? How will the Government get the existing vendors to increase the scope of their interoperability? What, in a sense, is in it for them?

We overwhelmingly support the objectives of this Bill. There are serious issues, particularly in the absence of detail and scrutiny. The regulations remain a mystery until they are published, and the process is potentially pretty bureaucratic. I think the Government have recognised that there are issues, which probably reflects why there are four days in Committee ahead of us. We may need all four of those days.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough review of both the amendments, and of the scene.

The Bill seems to have been around almost as long as the Covid pandemic. I am almost minded to call it the “lockdown Bill”, because it surfaced from time to time and then disappeared from time to time. Looking forward, I hope that future Bills which may or may not emerge from consultations will perhaps have a rather more impelling momentum than this one, which seems to have been rather caught in the backwash of legislation.

It has been a Bill of essentially two debates. One was the huge concern that your Lordships demonstrated about the nature of the digital communications supply chain; the Minister may be pleased to know that I will not go back into that. The other debate—the Minister may not agree—has exposed the paucity of ambition in the Bill and, therefore, by extension, in Her Majesty’s Government. On the Minister’s own admission, it is a narrow Bill; I would say it is just about as narrow as the Government’s USO, which I remind your Lordships is just 10 megabits a second. Both the Government and the industry should be seeking to increase that.

When it comes to the digital communications supply chain, there is one thing that I should like to talk about. Much work is to be done in the sector as it comes to terms with the future absence of Huawei. Since we last considered the Bill, some of us have received letters from the Minister setting out plans for supply chain diversity. I hope that that letter is in the Library; if not, it would be appreciated if the Minister made sure that it was. Government support for the NEC open RAN trial is good and we welcome that. I remind the Minister that the Government’s stated aim is to have 5G open RAN up and running this year. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister were able in her closing words to let us know whether that is on track. I should point out in referring to the technical consultation being due in the spring that the first day of spring was Monday, so we are, as it were, already sprung.

I turn to the items on the Marshalled List. When addressing the amendment on leasehold status in the Commons, the Minister of State Matt Warman MP recognised the plight of people living in flats and apartments, which was welcome. He and the Minister enumerated about 10 million people as potentially benefiting from being able to seek better broadband in their homes. That point was thoroughly made by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The purpose of his amendment on Report was to clarify, as the Minister said, that people who rent their flat can make use of the changes in the Bill. It is gratifying that the Government have retained the spirit of that Amendment 1 in offering Amendments 1A and 1B instead. I am sure that my noble friend will have more to say on that.

Turning to Lords Amendment 3, the Government’s response is not supportive and that is disappointing. That amendment would have added a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of the Bill on the Electronic Communications Code. It seems to me that in her rebuttal of that amendment the Minister enumerated the considerable weaknesses of the code and set out some areas of concern. Amendment 3 would have included an assessment of whether the code was sufficient to support 1 gigabit broadband rollout in every premises by 2025. In her rebuttal, she said that the code was not competent to do that. Given that so much weight has been put, not least by the Government, on that target, that would seem to be a serious issue. As the Minister set out, it would have required separate assessments to be made, as well as addressing the issue around utilities—that was well rehearsed on Report and I do not propose to do so again.

However, I am tempted to ask what the Government are scared of in terms of allowing that review to happen. They seem to be nervous about their ability to deliver on that 1 gigabit target. It was therefore not surprising that Matt Warman MP would politely denounce that amendment, as the Minister has done today. Both focused on the assertion that elements of the amendment fall outside the scope of the Bill. It is not beyond understanding that if that were the case the Government could have come back with an amendment that retained or created a review but also satisfied the need for the amendment to sit inside the Bill. Once again, we have fallen foul of the narrowness of the Bill.

It is partly surprising and perhaps gratifying that the Government have realised how narrow the Bill is, and it was almost remarkable that before the ink was dry on it, the next consultation came fluttering through the letterbox. Perhaps the Minister has, in a sense, already confirmed the recognition that the Bill was insufficient in the first place. It has taken us a long time for us to get not very far and now we have to start again.

On many occasions, the Minister has reminded us that the code is technology-neutral. I think we know and understand that. Therefore, the review has to grasp that within the context of how the code in future deals with the key issue: are people getting the connectivity they need, can we measure it, and can we make it quicker and better as well as cheaper? I hope that that goes beyond simply talking about access to land and that kind of issue. Let us get through this consultation as quickly and thoroughly as we can. Let us get another Bill so that we can create a code that does what it needs to do and is fit for purpose because, let us face it, the Government have an interest in delivering the gigabit target from their manifesto but the country has much higher stakes in this. We need it as soon as possible.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that this amendment would empower the Government to deny infrastructure access to operators whom, they believed, were abusing human rights. This is part of an important conversation about how modern slavery legislation might apply to the digital economy and especially its supply chain.

Since Report, this argument has been rehearsed on a number of occasions in other places. That reflects the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his colleagues. Each time the argument is repeated, it is no less powerful, horrifying or revolting to hear what is happening.

As we heard from the noble Lord, the Trade Bill has been one focus for this discussion. The Government spurned a real opportunity when they whipped Conservative MPs to vote against the so-called genocide amendment earlier this month. That amendment reflected the discussions during the passage of the Trade Bill in your Lordships’ House. It sought to introduce a mechanism to allow British courts to determine whether a foreign country had committed genocide. The amendment was introduced in your Lordships’ House to deal not just with the Uighurs but with other human rights issues as well. I hope that your Lordships will listen sympathetically next Tuesday when the amendment is reintroduced.

I, too, thank the Minister both for her comments and for her detailed letter, which showed empathy on this issue and explained why her department had been unable to bring forward the amendment previously promised. My admiration for the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others has increased. They have managed to table this amendment to a Bill that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, correctly characterised it, is intended to help tenants obtain broadband.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, also implied that the issue had, as a result of these discussions, somehow been dealt with. Although there has been welcome movement on the Government’s part over Huawei, it would be wrong to say that the issue has been dealt with. I asked the House of Lords Library whether a law exists that prevents telecommunications operators from using their infrastructure to breach human rights. I thank the Library for its thorough work, but it was unable to find evidence of legislation preventing telecoms operators from using tele- communications infrastructure to breach human rights. In other words, there is no such legislation. The Library asked Ofcom whether it was aware of any such requirement in legislation; Ofcom said that it was not. Legal experts were also unaware of anything in telecoms legislation. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the signatories to this amendment have identified a gap in the legislation.

The Human Rights Act applies only to public authorities and other bodies—public or private—that perform public functions. There is no general requirement on companies to comply with human rights obligations, although that has sometimes been applied to the relationship between companies and private individuals. As others have said, there are UN guiding principles on human rights and business. The Companies Act 2006, the EU non-financial reporting directive 2014 and the Modern Slavery Act all contain commentary on human rights but none deals with this particular issue.

It is a shame that we have had to have this debate almost by proxy. Even the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would admit that this Bill was not designed to address this issue. Such a Bill is needed so that we can have this discussion in a discrete environment. I understand that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was promised that there would be a communications security Bill. I assume that the National Security and Investment Bill is what that has metamorphosised into—perhaps the Minister could confirm that. As my noble friend Lady Northover suggested, this issue could be discussed in that context. I am working on that Bill, but it seems to me to have to been drawn very narrowly. Given this legislative absence, it is appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have brought forward this amendment now. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to push it to a vote, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support it. If he does not, we shall support an amendment to the Trade Bill. Even if the noble Lord decides not to push for a vote today, the Government can be sure that this issue is not done with and will not go away.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rehearsed the background to his Report stage amendment and explained the reasons for bringing it back to your Lordships’ House today. We simply cannot turn a blind eye. Standing aside or ignoring what is happening in China is tantamount to condoning the appalling actions described by the noble Lord in his powerful and moving speech.

A lot has changed since June. I am sure that the Minister will update us on subsequent government action, particularly in relation to Huawei equipment. As a number of noble Lords have said, other legislation—including the Trade Bill, before your Lordships’ House again next Tuesday—has amendments bearing on this issue. The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is unanswerable, as I have made clear. However, tabling this amendment to this Bill is perhaps not the best way of achieving his wider objectives. It might, I suppose, adversely affect the chances of the big win that we hope to achieve on Tuesday with his amendment to the Trade Bill.

Everyone who has spoken today has supported the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and paid tribute to his campaigning and his ceaseless tenacity on this cause. If he chooses to divide the House, we will support him, but I hope that he will feel able to accept the Government’s position on this narrowly focused Bill and that it would be better to defer the decision to Tuesday’s debate on the Trade Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment, which we welcome, brings us into the territory of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, if she is still in her virtual seat, will be sitting more easily in this part of the discussion.

When speaking previously to an amendment brought by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, supported by myself and others, the Minister agreed that we should aim to simplify the lives of consumers. To that end, she said that the Government would be willing to table an amendment at Third Reading. My understanding is that this amendment honours that statement. The Minister said that Her Majesty’s Government consider it fair to amend the Bill in this way and that the aim is to include measures to ensure that an operator must not install their equipment in any such anti-competitive way. Therefore, the test of the amendment is whether it reaches that objective.

I shall discuss two aspects of the amendment’s wording. First, the words,

“nothing done by the operator”,

seem to imply more than just technology, because there are other things that an operator could do. Perhaps the Minister can explain “nothing”. It could refer to a contractual matter or all sorts of other areas, including service as well as the purely technological. Secondly, there is the phrase, “unnecessarily prevents”. What is a necessary prevention? In other words, how will the regulations deal with those two areas—“nothing” and “unnecessary”?

I had the opportunity to virtually bump into the Minister this morning—obviously with at least two metres between us—and give her some warning of my concerns. Regarding the practical way this matter will work, let us imagine that I am a tenant in a new property. I move in, wish to switch my operator and start to encounter technological problems with the process. What do I do next? How does the amendment help me to deliver on that?

Quickly in conclusion, none of this means anything if we do not have great connectivity. I could not, therefore, pass this opportunity by without asking the Minister where we are on that. The delivery of ultrafast broadband was a subject for discussion in Committee and on Report, as was the creation of an open source network. It is safe to say that some time has passed since we last discussed that issue. As the Minister stated, some technological developments have included, not least, the gradual removal of Huawei from the supply chain. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has made several statements about the bandwidth that will be provided and its extent—statements at odds with what network providers have said is possible. Where are we on the Prime Minister’s gigabit connectivity being available to everyone? Where are we on the development of open source networks? If the Minister can answer those questions, I am sure that we will support the amendment.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I was not a Member of this House when the Bill was debated at Second Reading or on Report. Therefore, I begin by saying how much I welcome it. In my experience as the Minister responsible for rural broadband rollout between 2010 and 2016, I soon came to realise that planning is the biggest obstacle that prevents the rapid deployment of the broadband that this country desperately needs. The planning system is hopelessly complex and time-consuming, and imposes enormous costs on operators. Anything that can make their lives easier has to be welcomed. Multi-dwelling units contain dozens of potential recipients of ultrafast broadband. If we can make it easier and simpler for operators to deploy their technology, that is to be welcomed.

I was also delighted that the Government yesterday published a consultation on reforming the Electronic Communications Code. Again, I was the Minister who had a first stab at that, which was obviously not good enough, and that is why we need a second bite at the cherry. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the foreword to that consultation document contains some heartening statistics on the deployment of gigabit broadband. From memory—I read it only this morning, but I am getting older—some 30% of homes can now potentially receive gigabit broadband. It is good to see the Government pressing ahead on another front.

I should say on operators entering multi-dwelling units that one of the Government’s commitments during the passage of the Bill was to publish a consultation on the code of practice and then a code following Royal Assent. Given that the Bill imposes obligations on landlords and effectively interferes with their property rights, it is vital that landlords are reassured that the operators will adhere to the highest possible standards. The code of practice is also important for some of the smaller operators. There is some nervousness among them. If landlords are worried about operators’ standards when deploying the technology, they will simply take refuge by dealing only with the biggest operators and not allow insurgents, as it were, or start-ups to fibre-up their buildings. I hope that when she responds the Minister can give some reassurance that the code of practice consultation will be issued imminently.

I should also point out that the Bill does not yet cover the issue of shared freeholds, and I hope that the consultation on the Electronic Communications Code, which I am not covers this issue, could be used as a vehicle for looking at how operators can enter buildings where there is a shared freehold—the typical building being a Victorian house that has been split into flats. Some 5 million premises fall within that category and there needs to be some way forward to allow operators to access shared freehold premises.

I am not sure whether the amendment is necessary in practice, but I understand the Government’s motivation to reassure Members of both Houses that the Bill will not inadvertently create monopolies in multi-dwelling units. I should also ask the Minister to respond, either now or in writing, to the concern of some operators about the Government and Ofcom’s ongoing intentions to impose wholesale access on operators. It is one thing to say that an operator should not do anything, intentionally or inadvertently, to prevent a competitor supplying technology to multi-dwelling units, but it is quite another to impose on a company the obligation to allow others to use the infrastructure it has invested in and paid for. What is the direction of travel of the Government and Ofcom, because I know that they have previously thought about imposing wholesale obligations on operators in multi-dwelling units?

However, as I say, I welcome the amendment. My understanding is that any attempt to physically impede competitors from entering a multi-dwelling unit would fall foul of the ATI regulations and, indeed, the EU’s Electronic Communications Code, so I am not entirely certain that the amendment is necessary. However, in the sense of providing statutory reassurance that a much- needed piece of legislation will open up access to ultrafast broadband to many millions of people living in multi-dwelling units the amendment has to be welcomed.

Telecommunications Legislation: Human Rights

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

We have been very clear about the level of concern about human rights abuses of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province. We have recently announced important new moves on extradition and arms sales in relation to Hong Kong, and we continue to be at the forefront of raising these issues in multilateral organisations, including the UN Human Rights Council, most recently at the end of June.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when the Secretary of State announced a change in Huawei’s status last week he also said that full-fibre and older networks will be treated differently from 5G in terms of their technology, security and vendors. Will the Minister expand on the remit and timetable of the consultation that the Secretary of State announced? Will she undertake to ensure that vendors’ human rights positions will be part of that consultation?

[Baroness Barran]

The remit of the full-fibre broadband operators to which the noble Lord refers has been defined as a short technical consultation to understand what alternatives there are in the supply chain to balance the risk of delay and an unwise reliance on a single provider.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, does not wish to speak, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I appreciate the way that the House authorities and all Benches have worked to enable us to challenge the Government safely, and am glad to conduct our business from the safety of isolation.

I support this amendment introduced by the powerful speeches of those sponsoring it and that of my noble friend Lady O’Loan. She described the horrors, yet many more as yet undescribed are happening. We are horrified at home by even small acts of violence towards people whose characteristics are protected in our laws, so how can we ignore gross violations elsewhere, turn a blind eye and pretend all is well out of convenience to ourselves?

History repeats itself. In the Second World War, in the early 1940s, concentration camp victims were used as workers by Siemens and many others. Now, we have ever-growing evidence of gross abuses of human rights in China. The chilling evidence from the independent tribunal of Geoffrey Nice QC found overwhelming evidence of forced organ harvesting. Yet we fail to act on its findings. We need legislative teeth, not sympathetic noises and wringing of hands. Professor Zenz’s report, published today, reveals the forced sterilisation of Uighur women in Xinjiang and the high internment rate of women in retraining camps. His supplementary paper on the relationship with Huawei, also published today, finishes:

“We must conclude that Huawei is directly implicated in Beijing police state and related human rights violations in Xinjiang, and that it has lied to the public about this fact on at least two different occasions.”


We must not be actors in history repeating itself because anything looks convenient or a bargain. We must not become complicit in human rights abuses on a massive scale. I will borrow the words of Andrew Griffiths, the then honourable Member for Burton, in a debate last March on forced organ harvesting:

“we have seen this before ... If we look at history, we see that there were opportunities for Governments to intervene and act, but they did not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/19; col. 46WH.]

Now is the time to say “This must stop” and to uphold our values in all our commercial dealings. We must develop other supply chains. We must produce our own consumables, PPE and hospital equipment, not only telecoms equipment. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we must start somewhere. If my noble friends, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, test the opinion of the House, I will vote “Content” with them. If not, we must hold the Government to account to bring forward proper protection of human rights, and it will be to our shame if we do not act.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to promise to be brief but, after the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, I am not quite going to match his brevity. We have heard some very powerful speeches and some very broad speeches today, and noble Lords are to be commended for that. However, there is one group of people who have not yet been mentioned, and that is the management and the directors of the companies potentially sourcing equipment to deliver the infrastructure in this country. Every company, in any business sector, has the potential to impact a range of human rights issues, and it is up to the board of that company to understand the impact it is having and to deal with it. This amendment, powerfully spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, sends an important signal to businesses in this sector.

In her speech, I think I heard the Minister say that the impact was transferred from the equipment suppliers to the operators. Well, the operators are the people who source this equipment. Their boards have a responsibility to their shareholders and wider society to make sure that they do the right thing. It is clear that more boards are taking these issues more seriously, and this debate and subsequent changes should provide more emphasis for future boards and those future discussions. It has also permeated into the fund management world. Increasingly, investors look to invest in companies that act ethically and do the right thing.

This has been a huge debate but, narrowly speaking, we should expect our companies in this country to act ethically, and we should, as legislators, give companies as much guidance as we can regarding what that means in principle. That has been the nature of this debate.

Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to press this vote, we will support this amendment from these Benches, as we have said. If, however, he chooses to discuss with the Minister bringing something back on Third Reading, we would also support that—but what is brought back has to be substantive; it has to be real. I do not think the mood of the House can be satisfied by something that seems to push this into the long grass.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, I am glad to follow my colleague, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment is largely built on Amendment 21 from Committee. During the response to that amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, described the Bill as

“one discrete instrument in the Government’s overall strategy for speeding up the deployment of gigabit broadband.”—[Official Report, 2/6/20; col. 1331.]

What are the other discrete elements of this strategy? What other legislative elements are there? My understanding is that this is the only legislative element currently available—leaving aside the security Bill, which is entirely different and not focused on the delivery of gigabit speeds—which is why I, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others seek to use this as an opportunity for the Government to reaffirm their commitment to one gigabit by 2025. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked, is 2025 still serious, when the Minister is now using the language of “as soon as possible”, which of course means many things to many people?

This amendment calls for a review of the impact of this Act on the Electronic Communications Code, focusing in particular on progress towards that one-gigabit target by 2025 and looking at whether we should grant rights of access to telecom operators akin to those enjoyed by other utilities. The review would also make recommendations for future amendments and legislation.

As I said in Committee, there is an urgent need to inject some adrenaline into the Bill, as we have seen in other areas, in delivering the 2025 target. Proposed new subsection (1) of the new clause envisioned by this amendment causes Her Majesty’s Government to review the impact of this Bill on the delivery of one-gigabit broadband to every home and business by 2025. As my noble friend pointed out, this is not an unreasonable target, given that it is the Prime Minister’s stated aim and therefore the stated aim of Her Majesty’s Government. We feel that this will be helpful to the department and the Government.

The second proposed new subsection backs this up by requiring the Government to look at what is needed to deliver sufficient support. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones just pointed out, there has been significant dialogue around the meaning of “utility”. I too appreciate the response from the Minister and the department. The gist of that response is that there is no single definition of what a utility has or is. I am sure that they are right, because the needs of electricity are different from the needs of water. The industries and their histories are different. Therefore, one would not expect a consistent picture, given how British law is constructed.

However, there is one overriding similarity: the complete assumption that every dwelling and business should have access to electricity, water and so on. These utilities come with a sense of assurance, a halo of necessity, and the legislation around them delivers on that. For all the assurances we have had from the Minister and the Government, this and previous Bills do not give that similar assurance for telecoms infra- structure enjoyed by those other things we call utilities. That is why this amendment is important; it promotes the cause of telecoms infrastructure as a modern-day necessity. If we ever needed evidence of that, this crisis has delivered it. Every day we see in the House of Lords the huge variation and poverty of connection that even your Lordships enjoy, never mind people across the rest of this country. That is why it is important and why the spirit of treating it like a utility is central to this amendment.

Subsection (3) calls for widespread consultation and sensible measures to ensure that both tenants and landowners are listened to. The Minister talked about maintaining the balance between landowners, tenants and property owners; subsection (3) allows that balance to be continued. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) ensure that the review is laid before Parliament within a year and looks at the scope of the code.

At its core, I really do not see why this is objectionable to the Minister or the Government. Indeed, as I have said, it is helpful in that it codifies the Prime Minister’s words into something tangible. That is why we on these Benches and Liberal Democrat Peers attending virtually will support the amendment if it goes to a vote.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for tabling this amendment, which I note is a revised version of the amendment tabled in Committee. I very much appreciate the spirit of this amendment, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It is designed to be supportive of gigabit broadband deployment and to ensure that the legislative and regulatory environments support that deployment.

As we have discussed on several occasions this afternoon, this Bill has been introduced to address a specific issue. It is not, and has never been intended as, a panacea for the rollout of gigabit connectivity; it is one element of a multifaceted approach to improving the nation’s connectivity. In a moment I will try to set out some more elements of that approach.

I remind noble Lords that we are also bringing forward legislation to ensure that gigabit connectivity is provided to all new-build developments; working to improve the street works regime so that it works better for broadband deployment; and investing £5 billion in areas the market alone is unlikely to reach—which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, quite rightly highlighted.

This measure was designed from the outset to be a precision instrument that supports the 10 million people living in apartment blocks in the UK to access better broadband. It is on this point—the idea of better broadband—that I feel I should begin. We are confident that Part 4A orders will be used by operators predominantly to deliver gigabit-capable connections, as we discussed in Committee, but the Bill does not mention gigabit-capable networks. For that matter, it does not mention broadband, 5G or any type of connection. As noble Lords know, 1 gigabit connectivity is not tech-neutral; not all forms of broadband can deliver 1 gigabit per second of connectivity. For example, copper-based superfast connections would not be able to do that.

The Electronic Communications Code, of which the Bill will form a constituent part, does not mention broadband; nor does it mention any connection speed or anything about the technology installed. The Bill and the code are technology-neutral; I believe there was some confusion on this in Committee. To put that another way: the code deals with the how, where and when of deployment, not about what is installed. I am making this point again because technological neutrality is important, as it allows a consumer to get the connectivity they need from the operator they want at the best price.

None of this is to detract from noble Lords’ appetite to ensure that the Government are on track to deliver gigabit-capable connections, which is entirely understandable and reasonable. Many noble Lords will know that there are already ways in which some or all of the amendment’s effects can be achieved without the need for the amendment. I will give three examples.

First, Ofcom publishes its annual Connected Nations report, which it updates two further times each year. It provides a clear assessment of the progress that the country is making in providing connectivity, both fixed and mobile. I hope your Lordships would agree that the regulator, which is independent of government, is well placed to provide information on the progress of gigabit-capable broadband.

Secondly, the Government continue to answer questions and provide clarity on any aspects of its work in this area, in both this House and the other place. Noble Lords are familiar with asking questions and I endeavour, as always, to answer them.

Thirdly, in this House and in the other place there are established means of scrutiny through Select Committees. Indeed, the DCMS Select Committee in the other place has already launched an inquiry into the Government’s gigabit broadband ambitions. That committee has made it clear that it will

“focus on how realistic the ambition is, what is needed to achieve it, and what the Government’s target will mean for businesses and consumers.”

I hope that that goes to the heart of the spirit of the amendment.

The amendment also asks us to reconsider giving telecoms operators similar rights to access land as those enjoyed by gas, water and electricity operators. This is entirely understandable: the coronavirus pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the increased need for fast, reliable and resilient networks. Indeed, the argument was well made in Committee and I have had further conversations on the issue since then.

It is important to be specific when talking about operators’ access to land. The Electronic Communications Code provides a degree of operational flexibility to telecoms operators. The amendment talks of rights of access “akin” to those of gas, water and electricity. I would be interested to understand precisely where noble Lords think telecoms operators might be disadvantaged. Indeed, the Bill gives them a simple way to apply for rights to gain access to land where there is an unresponsive landlord. It is already giving them more.

That said, I will concede that the rights of telecoms operators are not identical to those of gas, water or electricity operators, but nor do they need to be; they are comparable in many important ways. The code gives operators a framework that incentivises them and landowners to reach a duly negotiated agreement. If, for whatever reason, an agreement is unable to be reached, it allows an application to be made with the court to have rights imposed. Also, Schedule 4 to the Communications Act 2003 makes provision for them to compulsorily purchase land. I hope noble Lords agree that these are quite significant powers. To be clear, there are differences, but I think we would all recognise that certain rights of entry and access are to be expected due to the nature of the gas, water and electricity networks, not least given the potential threat to life that even a minor fault could cause.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why we had gone back on our assertion in the future telecoms infrastructure review about giving operators similar powers to utilities. I wonder whether some of the issues around that come from that statement in the infrastructure review.

As I tried to point out in Committee, the consultation for the Bill explored the possibility of giving telecoms operators a warrant of entry through the magistrates’ court, similar to the process for operators of other utilities. However, the responses to the consultation made it clear that warrants of entry were not suited to the problem faced by telecoms operators here; they are used largely for single access, for example to remove existing equipment. That is why we consulted on this and the judiciary agreed that it should instead be either the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber or First-tier Tribunal granting interim rights codes to operators. I hope that I have alighted on the right issue that has given rise to this element of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Lord Fox]

The issue of 2025 was raised by both of us, so could the Minister clarify that?

[Baroness Barran]

It is still the Government’s intention to deliver gigabit-capable connections to every home and business in the UK as soon as possible. We seek to do that by 2025. The noble Lord will remember that we talked in Committee about the impact of Covid on the rollout; I think that I clarified that we know that there is a short-term impact and we are doing everything we can to try to work through it—but, obviously, none of us can predict the future.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

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?

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Am I coming through loud and clear? I suddenly have the Throne as my picture on the screen. Should I be worried?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

21: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of this Act's impact on 1 gigabit broadband accessibility
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on the Government’s progress towards achieving access to 1 gigabit per second broadband in every premises in the United Kingdom by 2025.(2) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation to achieve access to 1 gigabit per second broadband in every premises in the United Kingdom by 2025 in light of the findings of the review.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a further review in the same terms as subsection (1) every 12 months after the initial review has been laid.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the impact of this Bill in achieving access to 1 gigabit per second broadband in every premises in the UK by 2025.

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, given the peculiar nature of this debate, I have not made a Second Reading speech. Much of what I wanted to say at Second Reading coincides with what I wish to say on Amendment 21, so I decided to save your Lordships from a double helping. I propose to make a couple of short Second Reading-type comments, and then I will turn to Amendment 21 and refer to Amendment 22.

Before ever the Bill reached our end, like other noble Lords I received a letter from the Minister. It spelled out that the Bill has a specific and relatively narrow purpose and we should not be tempted to open it out. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, introduced amendments that sought to open things out. I do not propose to repeat their arguments here although, looking at the speakers’ list, there may be some who do. However, since that first day in Committee, the Government seem to have changed their position on technology. Can the Minister update us on what security reviews are now under way within Her Majesty’s Government? When will your Lordships’ House be presented with the result of those security reviews? To that end, when will the telecoms security Bill be introduced?

On the first day in Committee there were a number of speeches from all sides of the House about the need for an industrial strategy, and I associate myself with them. Her Majesty’s Government have considerable leverage, given their huge investment in this endeavour, and they should use that leverage to help develop indigenous capability and capacity in a similar way to how my right honourable friend Sir Edward Davey, when he was Energy Secretary, leveraged the development of offshore wind technology to create an industry, particularly in the north of England. We should ensure that operators and tier-one suppliers develop significant UK-based technology and manufacturing. It seems that there are talks along these lines going on within government, so can the Minister clarify who the Government are speaking with about telecoms technology and industrial strategy and how this will be presented to Parliament?

In short, we need a Bill that brings back all these issues—security, human rights, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and industrial strategy—because for the UK to get the connectivity it deserves and needs, the decision must be made now and quickly. This is not a matter of mild curiosity for Members; it is vital information for security providers. They need to know where they are before they can get on with connecting the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

As no further Members have indicated that they wish to speak, I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response, which I will come to in a minute. I also thank all noble Lords for their response to the debate; it has been an interesting one, which has very much given evidence of the fact that we need a much wider Bill and a much wider level of discussion across the piece, whether we agree or otherwise.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing at the beginning the lies and sleights of advertising. To be clear, if someone is offering 1 gigabit and you are getting only 750 megabits down the line, that is a lot better than what I am getting now. To some extent, the bigger the target, the closer we get to what we need.

There is another issue, to do with empowerment, which none of us talked about: upload speeds. Noble Lords did talk about issues in rural areas, however. We heard voices from west Cumbria, Wales and Northern Ireland—and here I will of course play my Herefordshire card. For businesses to be empowered, and to plug into the recovery of our economy, they need to be able to upload, because that is how they sell things to other people and make money.

As the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Bhatia and Lord Liddle, said, this is about equality and fairness. As a Parliament, we must stand up for the people who have the very worst delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, introduced the idea of the USO, and the Minister responded. We have a USO of 10 megabits, but compare that to the postal service. We have only a first and second-class postal system, but a fifth-class stamp would be needed to reproduce the levels of service in some parts of the areas I have just described. So I say yes to a USO, but it has to be a USO that really delivers.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also introduced some industrial nostalgia, which I sign up to. But in this context, I add Plessey, GEC and Marconi. Where are they when we need them? The answer is that we did not have an industrial strategy when we needed it. We have to recover ground on some of those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, seemed to sign up to the Government’s target of 2025 but then pushed out for six months, on the basis that it was too soon. The longer she leaves it, the more it becomes a self-defeating exercise, because 2025 is coming over the hill. We talked about rural, but it is not just rural. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others raised the issue of multioccupancy and the large proportion of the urban poor who need access to get the equality referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bhatia.

I have one response to the Minister’s overall Second Reading comments. I am pleased that he reaffirmed 2025 and talked about the £5 billion investment programme. That underlines the Government’s leverage in this area, which should be used to the overall advantage of the United Kingdom and not sold off to the cheapest bidders. We have to look at that.

In his response to Amendment 21, the Minister said that it addressed a specific issue. It is so narrow in its ambition that it actually addresses a specific issue within a specific issue. The point made forcefully and helpfully by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—for which I thank him—is that the operators are not dancing down the street in response to this measure. They are all saying that it misses a trick; it misses an opportunity. Between now and Report, if the Government have a chance to go back and talk to those operators and listen, as they say they are doing, they will hear that there is a lot more to do. The Minister seems to be hiding behind Ofcom. It is the Government’s job to lead—to direct and point the direction of this policy. This point was made forcefully and ably by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. My argument is not with Ofcom: it is with the Government’s lack of leadership. To push Ofcom in front of the Government is to use it as something of a human shield, whereas it is the Government who have to push this and deliver it. I am sure Ofcom would be fully able to support that.

My final point is about inconsistencies. This seems incredibly well confected. Well done to the Government, because my amendment says “access”. It does not say that there has to be a pipe and it does not say that there cannot be 5G. “Access” is a technology-neutral word. If the Minister has a problem with that and wants to use a word that the department feels is more consistent with existing legislation, I am sure we are all big enough to take that on. On Amendment 22, does it seem so scary for the Government to switch to the affirmative approach? I shall leave that where it lies.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for introducing the idea of the Government’s planned “raft” of legislation. At best, this is a plank, and these amendments seek to varnish it a bit. We need a lot more evidence of the Government’s legislative determination to deliver on their goal. We will look closely at the Government’s response on Report. Listening to other Members and the outside world, I think it is clear that the Government have got the tone of the Bill wrong. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

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.

[Lord Haselhurst]

I should say—by the way, my internet connection is unstable—that I did not mean to make a speech on this amendment nor indeed on the other one that bears my name. I was able to cover the issue in my earlier speech, which was more broad-ranging than on just that particular amendment. All I will add now that you have been good enough to call me, Deputy Chairman, is that the Secretary of State has been left with very wide regulatory powers. This was considered by the Delegated Powers Committee and quite deliberately left in a wide form. I therefore hope that this addition can be made in the fairly near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

I thank noble Lords for their brevity in outlining the purpose of this probing amendment. I shall try to be similarly brief in response.

I certainly welcome the intention behind this amendment—namely, to clarify which premises other than multiple-dwelling buildings such as blocks of flats might be in scope of the Bill and why. The decision initially to include only multiple-dwelling buildings is deliberate. It was informed by careful consideration of the evidence that was made available to us, not least through the consultation that was held before the Bill was drawn up and introduced. That evidence indicated that specifically this type of premises—multiple-dwelling buildings—most needed the sort of targeted intervention that is proposed in the Bill. We were not, by contrast, presented with compelling evidence for other types of property at this stage and certainly not enough to justify legislating at this point. However, we recognise that such evidence might emerge in time and we are mindful that office blocks or business parks, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, mentioned, could face similar issues. We continue to engage with providers and others about this.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked how far our ambition stretches: as far as the evidence suggests. This is why we have included a clear power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations, should they be needed, to widen the scope of the Bill and make it apply to other premises of a specified description. That will allow the Secretary of State to legislate in a flexible and proportionate way, led by the evidence. This approach will allow the Government to continue to engage with interested parties, as well as to consider and balance the evidence that becomes available to us. Crucially, it will also help to guard against any unintended consequences that could arise from widening the scope of the Bill too quickly, before there is sufficient evidence to support doing so.

The noble Lord raised a point about new-build developments. The Government have set out plans to ensure that new-build homes in England are built with gigabit broadband by amending the 2010 building regulations to require developers of new-builds to install the infrastructure necessary to make them gigabit-capable. As we set out in our consultation response published on 17 March this year, the Building Act 1984 contains the necessary primary powers that would mandate the installation of gigabit broadband in new build developments. To include the new-build developments in the Bill in the way proposed by this amendment is therefore unnecessary, and could hamper the simple and proportionate approach we have set out in the consultation response.

I should add that, as housing is a devolved matter, the Government are also working closely with the devolved Administrations on this. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that we have firm proposals in place to address the issues raised, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for his response. I shall be brief. The Minister talked about the absence of overwhelming evidence and said that, if this evidence were to come to light, we would be treated to a statutory instrument in order to implement or extend this Bill. What in the Government’s view is overwhelming evidence? What actually constitutes evidence that people require this? It is quite clear that people living in the wider group of residences as set out by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones want access, so what do they have to do to overwhelm the Government in order to bring forth one of their statutory instruments?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

My Lords, we have tried to strike a balance in the Bill so far between the requirements and the desires of providers and of course the rights of those owning property. At the moment, the evidence suggests that there is a distinction between multiple residential dwellings––where the owner of the building is perhaps not as easily contactable or is not responding––and business parks, for instance, whose owners seem to be more alert to requests from providers and are therefore responding in a more timely fashion to requests. However, if the evidence suggests that they are not, then the secondary power proposed in the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to make provisions and bring forward some statutory instrument to extend the Bill in this way, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has indicated that he wishes to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for her anatomical explanation of the situation. Large lumps of Victorian and Georgian cityscapes have been converted into a multiplicity of dwellings and flats, many of which are going to find themselves unable, within the definitions of limbs (a) and (b) and the rules set out in the Bill, to request access. Is that correct? There is obviously complicated ownership in all such places: perhaps the need to go through one flat to get to another; there may be leaseholds and freeholds muddled up. However, the point of the Bill should be to get gigabit broadband capacity to as many people as possible, rather than rule out everybody except a very pure clay of candidates. Perhaps the Minister is grasping—albeit eloquently—at the wrong end of this stick.

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for pressing this point. I cannot comment on the specifics of different layouts. As he noted, this is a very complicated area. We have tried to listen to operators on the issue of unresponsive landowners more widely and they have highlighted difficulties where there are owners of third-party land which the operator needs to cross in order to deploy their equipment.

As I said, we are very concerned that the risk of a non-responsive landlord and the operator then getting code rights would be disproportionate and would unbalance the Bill. However, the noble Lord makes a fair point about the spirit of the Bill being to open up access. We certainly share that goal and I will take his points back and consider them further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

I agree with the two previous speakers. The Bill would mean that a landlord could be considered responsive simply by acknowledging the request notice in writing without taking the engagement further. In fact, it is pure territory for what I would call passive-aggressive obfuscation—a serious of meaningless letters going back and forth but leading, in the end, to absolutely nothing. It would mean, in the end, the operator being unable to meet the needs of the potential customer. Frankly, the operators have so many other options at the moment that they would simply walk away and go where it is easier to install, leaving yet another person disfranchised from the digital economy. We have heard from operators that they are identifying landlords who will potentially act in this way.

Again, this is a proving amendment; I thank the noble Lord for moving it. What constitutes a meaningful response that moves this forward? Put simply, a passive-aggressive, obfuscatory approach will mean that, in the end, a bad landlord or a landlord who really does not want to enfranchise their tenants will win.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments, which would require a landlord to respond to the substantive point of the notice—that is, providing access. The amendments seek to examine our thinking on allowing a landlord to remove themselves from the scope of Part 4A simply by responding to the operator’s notice. The Government understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but there is the potential for unintended consequences, if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will forgive me for saying so.

The Bill was created to address the specific problem of the repeatedly unresponsive landlord. That is what telecoms operators have told us is one of the biggest issues they face when it comes to rolling out networks. The Bill was not intended to offer a solution to instances where a landlord may take longer than the operator would like to agree to the terms proposed in their request notices. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, gave the example of the passive-aggressive landlord, but there could be absolutely fair instances where a landlord sends a holding response because they are seeking legal advice. The Bill gives flexibility for that, but its real focus is on incentivising landlords and operators to engage with each other in the first place. We believe that the Bill, as drafted, reflects that crucial distinction.

As was discussed in the debate on previous amendments, we are aware of the challenges that some operators face in reaching agreements with landlords. We have held numerous discussions with a wide range of stakeholders since the implementation of the reforms to the Electronic Communications Code in December 2017, and we continue to do so, but we do not think that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for addressing the wider range of ongoing access issues. Any broader changes to the code would need to be carefully considered and consulted on, but if we saw sufficient evidence that there is a problem, we would of course consider what intervention to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Apologies for skipping over you, Lord Stevenson. We will try the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, again. He is not there. Lord Liddle? We go then to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for introducing this, because it throws up a sort of paradox—although the noble Lord did not mention it—and I am interested to know the Government’s view on it. In certain categories of installation government money is going across either directly or through local authorities into investment in installation and hardware. Are the Government suggesting that state-subsidised and state-supported hardware would not be mandatorily interchangeable?

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Griffiths and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling Amendments 15 and 16. As I have said several times in Committee, the aim of the Bill is to support lessees in occupation to access the services they request from the providers they want. As drafted, we believe the Bill already ensures that they are not locked into services provided by a single provider. Nothing in this Bill prevents a person with an existing gigabit-capable—or indeed any—connection from requesting another service from another network provider. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a provider from requesting code rights from a landlord. If the landlord repeatedly refuses to engage with that provider, then, as we discussed earlier, that provider could apply for a Part 4A order of their own to deliver the service.

I understand that operators may be concerned that certain of their competitors may install their digital infrastructure in such a way as to physically prevent others installing their own. However, we consider that this issue could be better dealt with through the terms of an agreement imposed by a Part 4A order. Those terms are to be specified in regulations made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Noble Lords will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recently considered the Bill and concluded that there was nothing in it to which it wished to draw the House’s attention. Noble Lords may also be aware that that particular regulation-making power is subject to a consultation requirement that is expressly set out in the Bill. This reflects our concern and commitment to get this crucial aspect of the Bill’s practical operation right. The Bill therefore already envisages that the views of interested parties will be invited before the regulations are made.

With each operator undertaking works in a slightly different manner and there being a number of differences between network infrastructures, it is exceptionally difficult to place into primary legislation a requirement for operators to undertake works in a specific way or in a way that cannot easily be circumvented, for example by an operator stating that it was not “reasonably practicable” to select and install apparatus. Furthermore, far from improving competition and access to gigabit services, the amendment may have the unintended consequence of doing the opposite.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the words of my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure in the other place, when he said that much of the cost to operators of connecting premises is in the initial installation. The noble Lord challenged whether this was an anti-competitive statement, if I followed his comments accurately.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

Amendment 17 seeks to remove the 18-month time limit, while Amendment 19 seeks a mechanism that would extend it. Both amendments are guided by the same curiosity. In a sense, what was driving the Government’s objective in including the limit of 18 months? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked, why was the period of 18 months chosen? Why not 20, 16 or 28? What was the economic analysis that arrived at 18 months? In consulting with operators, what was it that any operator said that encouraged the Government to put this clause in? I cannot imagine it was anything, so I can conclude only that it was about what grant is set. We are back on the same balance of the equation in terms of where the Bill balances itself between the granters and the operators, who are essentially the champions of the consumer in this process.

Can the Minister explain what it was that the granters, landlords and owners put to the Government that pushed them into putting in this 18-month time limit? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it will seriously compromise the investment prospects for operators, particularly in difficult or harder-to-reach areas––possibly places like where I come from in Herefordshire. Why would an operator invest huge sums of money without any security, knowing that in 18 months’ time that investment could be written down to zero? These amendments together are all part of the same spirit of inquiry. What was the Government’s thinking when this was included in the Bill?

[Baroness Barran]

I thank noble Lords for tabling Amendments 17 and 18. I will do my best to address the very valid points raised.

I will clarify the intention of the amendments. Amendment 17 seeks to examine the rationale for placing a maximum time period of 18 months for the interim code rights granted under a Part 4A order in the Bill. Amendment 18 would require the Government to consult on the maximum time period for which the interim code rights should last. I want to highlight, in response particularly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that the Government have already consulted on the principle that there should be a period during which code rights arising from this Bill should last.

In the original consultation for this policy in October 2018, we proposed that these rights should be enjoyed until an agreement was reached with a landowner. A number of responses to that consultation made compelling arguments that we should consider imposing a maximum time limit. This was to ensure that operators continued to engage with landowners to try to reach a permanent agreement, and to ensure that the important balance of rights was maintained. I hope noble Lords agree that an indefinite time period could risk being open to abuse, deliberate or otherwise, and importantly potentially leave both landowners and operators with great uncertainty.

It was never the intention that this process should replace the existing process under the code, by which an operator can apply to the court to have permanent code rights imposed. That process requires the judiciary to carefully consider the merits of the case before it, and to make a judgment on which rights should be imposed, and potentially any compensation or consideration to be paid. The process envisaged under a Part 4A order requires the judiciary––in this case, the First-tier Tribunal––to be satisfied that the evidential requirements laid out in the Bill have been met.

This leads us to the maximum 18-month time limit that we have settled on. Following consultation and subsequent stakeholder engagement with representatives of operators and landowners, they informed us that, in practice, when a landowner does not respond to requests for access, if an operator continues to make attempts to engage, the majority of landowners will eventually respond within approximately 12 months. Setting a slightly longer time period gives the operator a degree of flexibility. Another reason for the decision to set the time limit for the Part 4A interim code rights at 18 months was to provide certainty to consumers. Most consumer broadband contracts last for either 12, 18 or 24 months. Placing the time limit at 18 months, depending on the speed with which the operator can enter the property after a successful application, will allow consumers to enter into a standard contract for either 12 or 18 months, enjoy the special discounts offered by retail broadband providers for those taking out such fixed-term deals, and be confident that their service will be uninterrupted for its full duration.

I ask your Lordships to note that the Bill contains a clear power to make regulations to specify the period for which code rights arising from the making of a Part 4A order are to last. New paragraph 27G(3) of the code, as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill, makes clear that the specified period is to be no more than 18 months, and it will be for the regulations made under that power to specify the period itself.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this demonstrates that we have thought carefully and listened hard to all stakeholders about how long interim code rights should be imposed for, and that it was our consultation in the first place that informed our current position. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for her answer; I felt the language was revealing. Perhaps I am confused and the legislation has confused me, but the way in which she described the process was as if she was trying to calm down someone who did not want this to happen, rather than encourage someone who did. “No more than”, “a maximum of”—this is language that I would use if I were trying to pacify someone who did not want this to happen, which perhaps is what is happening. She mentioned that there had been a number of responses that led to the 18-month period being adopted. Perhaps she could indicate, without revealing exactly who those responses were from, which sector they came from—was it the operators, or was it landowners and potential granters of this technology?

I think that to use legislative nit-picking, if the Minister will excuse the phrase, to unseat probing amendments such as Amendment 19 is a little below the belt. The idea is not to complete a work of drafting genius; it is to get the Government to commit time to produce something that instils some flexibility into the Bill and provides an opportunity to extend things when they need to be extended and puts the courts and due process, if noble Lords will excuse the phrase, in place in order for that to happen.

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. Just to clarify, I am sorry if the language sounded pacifying. The noble Lord will remember that in an earlier amendment I talked about the spirit of the Bill being about incentivising communication between landowners and operators. The aim of this is to bring clarity and certainty to all involved, including consumers.

In the consultation we had responses from landowners and local authorities. The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that some who responded thought this was too short a period and some that it was too long, so this feels like a bit of a Goldilocks moment. There is a balance to be struck between the flexibility that the noble Lord rightly points to and clarity and certainty. Based on the consultation responses that we received, we hope that we have achieved that balance.

Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The Government are developing a measurement framework. There have been two approaches. Most local government procurement uses a form of financial metric. Central government procurement, in consultation with the voluntary and community sectors, uses a more qualitative approach. My colleague the Crown rep for the voluntary and community sectors is working very hard to make sure that this is embedded effectively.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, further to that question, the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Young, five years ago specifically highlighted measurement, the need for a methodology, and the need to set standards and to propagate those across the sector. The Government have had five years, so when will we have a rigorous system for measurement that everybody understands? It is very important to measure the value of what we are doing.

[Baroness Barran]

We will implement the system this year. We are keen to be able to measure the distance travelled for individual departments and for procurement overall. Training is being rolled out to 4,000 procurement officers, and is available to strategic suppliers as well as to smaller voluntary and community sector suppliers.