Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and John Hayes

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

As my right hon. Friend knows, it is not only the Committee on which he and I serve that has highlighted that point; other Committees of this House have, too, and the Government themselves have acknowledged it. We really need to look at how, having accepted the thrust of his argument, the Government intend to respond. What is the action plan? I know that the Minister will have much to say about this, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

This is part of a wider problem of the concentration of power in the hands of what I described earlier as a handful of unaccountable corporate monopolies. There is a curious assumption that somehow those organisations will be intrinsically virtuous, but that is simply not the case. Commercial organisations are just that: they are interested in commerce. They are not there to do what Governments and this Parliament exist for, which is protecting the interests of the whole of the people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

One thing that worries me a little is that Huawei is Chinese-owned. Nokia and Ericsson are not, but they get a lot of their kit from China, so they are not pure either. That is a worry for diversification.

[Sir John Hayes]

It is. I referred a moment or two ago to the provisions of the Bill that extend existing powers to take account of supply chains, so the point is acknowledged in the legislation. It brings me neatly—it was not scripted, I hasten to add—to the next part of my speech, because in that process much powerful regulation is put into the hands of Ofcom. I have questions about that for the Minister as this is not territory that traditionally Ofcom has navigated. It will require a step change in Ofcom’s capability and approach to manage the additional responsibilities.

Ofcom was previously responsible solely for assuring the resilience of networks. No list of mandatory standards has previously existed and historically Ofcom produced guidance that merely directed communication service providers towards the main source of advice and best practice. The responsibilities to ensure that providers comply with the new security duties will, as I said, require a step change in what Ofcom does, given that it will now have the authority to practically assess the security practices of large telecom providers, take action where security is at risk of being compromised, and make information available to the Government and provide annual security reports to Ministers.

That brings me to the issue of scrutiny, which has been addressed with by various contributors to the debate so far. Given Ofcom’s new powers, the means by which it can be held to account becomes salient. Of course, Ofcom is accountable to Ministers, but we need Ministers to be accountable, in an effective way, to this House. There is a long debate to be had about the role of various Select Committees in that regard, and it is a debate to which I have contributed previously and the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), has already spoken eloquently. I simply say to the Minister that there needs to be a well-established and rigorous process by which the new powers can be assessed and checked not only by Ministers of the Crown but by those to whom Ministers of the Crown are accountable. Confusing accountability and scrutiny risks weakening both by obscuring the first and diluting the second.

I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to conclude any speech without some literary reference. C. S. Lewis said: “Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.” The experience that I have had over 25 years in the House—of being a shadow Minister trying to hold Ministers to account, a Minister being held to account and now a Back Bencher trying hold both to account—is that unless the process is right, scrutiny simply will not be effective.

I have talked about vulnerability and the recognition of the need for greater regulation. By the way, if anything, the Bill does too little. It is a good Bill and it does a great deal that I welcome, but over time we probably need to go further. I have previously drawn the House’s attention to the history of legislation affecting security here: it has typically been periodic with few big Bills having been brought to the House that became Acts concerning matters of security. But I repeat what I have said before: I suspect that over the coming years we will have more and more legislation to ensure that our country remains secure, given the dynamism and character of the threats we now face.

I end simply with this. The Bill is good work, but it is—if I might put it as generously as I possibly can to the Minister—work in progress, and I hope that during that progress we see further attention given to the issues of both diversity in the marketplace and scrutiny by this House. A fundamental requirement of Government is to protect our infrastructure and economy and, by doing so, protect our people, for in doing that we protect all our futures.

[Bob Stewart]

It is a real pleasure to follow some of the speeches we have heard, particularly those from the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

I rise to support the Government, but I do so with some reservations, which largely reflect concerns that I still have as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am concerned about oversight and the scrutiny of decisions made by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that will have an impact on national security. The issue is growing as commercial companies get more and more involved in such matters. The Government’s current view is that DCMS, Ofcom and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee could probably watch over these matters. Yes, they probably can, but I am not so sure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

Good. When my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Chingford and Woodford Green start talking, I know I am in trouble.

So we on the ISC are subject to section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and, whatever side of the House we sit on, we have all been appointed to the Committee by the Prime Minister with that in mind. However, not every Member of Parliament or Clerk has signed the Official Secrets Act—some have, but many have not. Obviously, I am not being personal about colleagues because a lot of them can keep secrets far better than I can: as my wife says, I have a big mouth. Okay—but I do keep secrets of the state, Minister.

ISC Clerks have something called developed vetting security clearances, but not all DCMS Committee Clerks would. Developed vetting security clearances require the individual concerned to undergo a lengthy and somewhat intrusive investigation—some of the questions are appalling. Assuming that DCMS Clerks were to have such developed credentials and were able to handle top secret material in hard copy, such as documents that need to be secured in security-accredited lockable cabinets within a security- accredited office, anything with a top secret grading on it or an IT system with such grading would need to be accredited and checked out very carefully.

May I also raise the matter of meetings where top secret material is discussed? I may be wrong, but I do not think there is such a meeting room in the Palace or in Norman Shaw—[Interruption.] Sorry, I meant Portcullis House—I have only been here 11 years. A room with clearance would be required even for us to be able to look these documents, store them or discuss them. I do not think it is a secret that the ISC cannot meet here—we have to meet somewhere else. We go to a place that is accredited and checked, where documents can be stored and to which our Clerks have ready and easy access. All discussions concerning such a level of security take place in that room. We are not allowed to write something down and walk it out—everything has to be left there, unless it is specifically on a certain kind of paper and we are informed of that very strictly.

The product of ISC investigations can be laid before Parliament only after a redaction process with the intelligence agencies and confirmation from the Prime Minister that nothing in them might breach national security, so I think it would be rather difficult for the DCMS, Ofcom or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to be able to oversee top secret material produced by the Department and still obey national security rules. In short, we parliamentarians might not have oversight of some key decisions made by Ofcom and DCMS. That can work—I have no doubt the Minister will say that—but we could be blindsided. The Government think otherwise at this stage, and I am prepared to accept that promise, but this might quickly run into difficulties when classified material has to be examined by people from Parliament who are specially selected to do it.

In summary, I repeat that I will be supporting the Minister—of course I will, as I am loyal, just like a dog—but it does not stop me raising a flag of concern. There will always be problems around these matters. I hope that that will not be the case but I would not be surprised if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said, we are only at the start of a process and we have to revisit this shortly.

Finally, may I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not feel great and I am a bit dizzy, so my voice is not the usual? I am going to sit down now.

National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and John Hayes

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This Bill is welcome, necessary, important and, it has to be said, overdue. In making a few remarks about it, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Chairman of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), is not able to be with us and sends his apology. I will make a number of points from the Committee on his behalf and that of other Committee members.

The first is that this Bill is stimulated, at least in part, by the ISC report from 2013. That report, “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”, made the case that new legislation was required. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has already made that point emphatically, but the Minister does need to explain what might have happened differently had this legislation been in place seven years earlier, because some of these powers are clearly retrospective but they do not stretch back into the mists of time.

The Bill is important, not least because the Government have acknowledged that the UK faces continued and broad-ranging hostile activity from foreign intelligence agencies, hostile state actors and others. Novel means of undermining UK national security include investments that can be structured to obscure the real actors behind them. This is not a straightforward matter of takeovers that are directly linked to defence or critical national infrastructure; it is subtler than that, as the Bill acknowledges and as the Government have said. I want to dig a little further into that during my extensive, but not tediously so, contribution.

The Bill’s importance is also reflected in the dynamism of the threat that we face, which is metamorphosing, as I implied a moment ago. Those who seek to undermine our national security are becoming increasingly clever at doing so and the Bill will need to exercise all the flexibility that its provisions permit. But it may be that, as well as that, we need to return to these matters time and again. In a recent debate, I emphasised that traditionally legislation coming before this House pertaining to security has been spasmodic—it has been periodic. Legislation has stood the test of time but, as the increasing dynamism of the threats we face obliges Government to think again about means of countering them, it may be that we see more legislation than we have hitherto in this area. I happily give way to my hon. Friend, a fellow member of the ISC

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for giving way. It seems to me that, if we define national security closely, we will not keep up with the speed at which it changes. So I am against the idea of having a definition of what national security is. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and John Hayes

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Hayes]

I only wish to speak briefly. The Minister and the shadow Minister are right that the Bill has improved during its passage. That is in part due to the spirit in which we have conducted ourselves and scrutinised this legislation.

I think there is general agreement across the House that this is the right legislation at the right time, but it is difficult to try to envisage what a future might look like of which we cannot be certain. The technology will move on apace. It is not clear what people will be driving in one, two or three decades’ time, so making these decisions about infrastructure is challenging.

None the less, it seems to me that three things are clear, and these amendments give us a chance to rehearse them once again, albeit briefly. The first is that the charging infrastructure is a critical element in getting people to accept electric vehicles. If people are confident about the ability to charge conveniently, reasonably quickly and, I hope, inexpensively, they are more likely to embark upon the journey that is the acquisition of an electric vehicle. When people are surveyed about why they do not buy electric vehicles, charging infrastructure and the fear that they will run out of charge is often cited as one reason.

Having accepted that axiomatic argument, the second point is that there is a perfectly proper case to be made for what the infrastructure needs to look like. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is right—I rarely agree with him, but on this occasion I cannot help but do so—that on-street charging is critical. Many people live in flats, particularly in cities, and they do not have easy and convenient points at which they can charge their vehicle. The work of local authorities will therefore be critical, in terms both of new housing developments and of existing settlements.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are two charging points close to my house, and the thing that causes problems is that the same cars are there permanently. In terms of infrastructure, we will need more charging points, because people will not use electric cars unless they can charge them quickly if they run out. At the moment, I see those two charging points permanently occupied by two cars.

[Mr Hayes]

With characteristic insight mixed with perspicacity, my hon. Friend has anticipated my next point, which is that once one has made the decision about the need to put into place charging infrastructure, it needs to be sufficiently plentiful and recognisable. Moreover, there has to be universality about it: the method of payment has to be common and the way in which one engages with the charging point needs to be common too. The last thing we want is for electric users to arrive at a charging point to find that they do not have the means to pay—it might be a pre-paid device, for example—or cannot plug their vehicle in at all because it is a proprietary charging point. Universality, recognisability and affordability are fundamental.

Education Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and John Hayes

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Hayes]

On the point of ugly ubiquity, I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart]

In my constituency we have Bromley college, and I have been speaking to people there. Will these changes allow Bromley college to control more properly the fees that it has to charge? At the moment, it is affiliated to Greenwich university and is being forced to charge fees that it does not want to charge, which is very much against the spirit of what we are trying to do. Can it have the freedom to seek other partnerships in the way that we have been discussing—for ordinary degrees, for example? There must be some way in which colleges, which we all want to charge the minimum fees, can actually charge those minimum fees rather than be forced to raise them.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is the very antithesis of both ugliness and ubiquity; indeed, he is known for his integrity and truthfulness. As Keats understood, and Shaftesbury in the other place later, truth and beauty are intrinsically linked, and so my hon. Friend’s truthfulness has an aesthetic all of its own. On the specific point that he raises, the way in which colleges have, over time, been dictated to and controlled from the centre has largely been about funding mechanisms. Colleges have danced to a tune set around funding. He is absolutely right to say that greater freedom means being more flexible about funding. It means allowing colleges to devise the kind of offer that is right for their locality in the kinds of partnerships that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, and funding needs to reflect that.

We are on a journey, and not all of it can be done overnight. When I came into the job, I was able to put in place a number of important changes that stripped away some of the central control. Since that time, we have done more, and these amendments go a step further. But this is not the end of the journey. The destination we seek is what I began to describe a moment ago—a more eclectic, more responsive and more dynamic system. I am not, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one to overstate my virtues, but I would go so far as to say that what we are doing in further education is a model of public service reform: a deregulated system that is free to respond to local circumstances; dynamic and innovative; flexible and, in my judgment, imaginative—I make no apology for using that word—about exactly what it does and how it does it; and uses funding to feed that kind of new beginning. As I said, though, I do not want to overstate the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Another bit of good news when we saw the figures from the statistical release was the substantial growth in manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships; the number of starts was 47,000, which was an increase of 20% on the 2009-10 figure. So we had very strong growth in the very apprenticeships that my hon. Friend rightly identifies as crucial to our future prospects. Interestingly, the figures clearly show that there is growth across the system. Again rather counter-intuitively from the perspective of the critics, there has been growth in sectors where employment more generally has either slowed or declined. So apprenticeships seem to be bucking the trend in areas such as manufacturing and engineering. Even in construction, where there has been a very sharp decline in employment, apprenticeship numbers have held up. That suggests that businesses are investing in training and in their future, and that apprenticeships are succeeding. This is a flagship policy, devised in opposition and delivered in government.

[Bob Stewart]

Has the Minister considered—I am sure that he has—the thought that a great number of high-quality individuals have had considerable technical training in the armed forces? Could they come in at level 2, with this possibly leading on to level 3? Is that part of the system he envisages?

[Mr Hayes]

This weekend, I was looking at a submission that suggested that we might ask the National Apprenticeship Service to look specifically at people who have left the armed forces. I am particularly concerned about those who have left the armed forces with a disability. One of the challenges that the previous Government faced and that we face too is in ensuring that the apprenticeship system is accessible to as many people as possible, and I do not think we do well enough by disabled potential apprentices. I asked, at the very early stages of my distinguished ministerial career, for the NAS to examine that area closely, but I want it to re-examine it. I particularly want the NAS to examine what we can do for disabled ex-servicemen.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these things.

[Bob Stewart]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, because he has almost made the point I was going to make, which is that we could involve disabled ex-servicemen as part of this system. That would be a superb way of helping them to get into decent employment in civilian life.

[Mr Hayes]

I am glad that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s point. Foresight is not essential for a Minister, but it is a great advantage, particularly when it can be displayed on the Floor of the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned growth and others have talked about progression, so in dealing with the remark made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about happiness, I wish to draw his attention to Yeats. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the shadow Minister sitting next to him, is a fan of Yeats. Lord Layard did such good work on this particular amendment, so I shall cite the following from Yeats:

“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing nor that but simply growth, We are happy when we are growing.”

When apprenticeships are growing, I am particularly happy because it is testament to the success of our policies.