Article 50

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

None of us wants to see xenophobic behaviour from people here in the United Kingdom. We have welcomed EU citizens, they have worked alongside us and lived alongside us, and they contribute to our economy and our society. Looking ahead, I want to ensure that we get a reciprocal agreement for EU citizens living here and for UK citizens—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We have a duty to have a care for UK citizens.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister’s commitment to get the best possible deal for the UK offers little reassurance to those in rural Scotland, because their experience, from the allocation of convergence farm payments to Scottish fishing being expendable, shows where they are in the Conservative Government’s priority list. We understand the need for UK frameworks, but will she offer those in rural Scotland reassurance today by confirming that powers over Scottish agriculture and Scottish fishing will go to the Scottish Parliament and that Scottish officials will represent Scottish interests in negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear about the process that we will be undertaking for the repatriation of powers. We want to ensure that we have a continuing single market within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman speaks up for Scottish fishing and, of course, a number of my hon. Friends have spoken up for the fishing industry in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that agriculture and fishing will be taken into account, as we recognise their importance for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

2. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the Scottish agriculture sector.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of matters. I recently met the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a number of issues relating to the Scottish agriculture sector, and will continue to do so.

[Calum Kerr]

Last year, the farming Minister told us that there would be an £18 billion Brexit dividend. He said that farmers would continue to get

“as much support—or perhaps even more”

after Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unacceptable if funding to Scottish agriculture was cut after 2020?

[David Mundell]

There is no suggestion that funding to Scottish agriculture will be cut, but there is the opportunity to move forward from the constraints of the common agricultural policy, which farmers throughout Scotland have often complained about. We need to seize this opportunity to reshape the support for farming to make it more effective, but to continue to sustain those areas of Scottish farming that need sustaining.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we will provide an update on the review of CAP allocations before the end of this year. I add that the context has changed fundamentally, following the decision to leave the EU. Some argue that the area-based payments as required under the CAP have never suited Scotland very well. Indeed, NFU Scotland has previously raised concerns about the level of payments going to very large landowners, arguing that we should instead direct support to farmers and producers through livestock payments. We now have an opportunity to look at all of these issues, and I shall work closely on that with NFU Scotland and its talented team of officials.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

What we really seek in Scottish questions is the confirmation that the Secretary of State for Scotland backs Scottish farmers and will get this promised money delivered. It is fantastic that we have the Minister with responsibility for farming here, but all we have heard so far is no detail and “just warm words”, to quote the Secretary of State. Can we have the detail put in place and give Scottish farmers what they deserve?

[George Eustice]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, the Secretary of State for Scotland discusses this issue with me regularly. I am passionate about Scotland, and I have discussed this issue with NFU Scotland from January onwards. We are working on joint proposals and joint agreements as regards post-Brexit agricultural policy.

Digital Economy Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support the new clause and to pay tribute to my good friend and fellow Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty, who has form on campaigning in this area. He is known as a music fan, and the new clause is the culmination of a long campaign on behalf of music fans everywhere.

Moreover, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will damage the credibility of Green Day, because he has a track record of supporting live music—this is certainly nothing like David Cameron suggesting that he was a Smiths fan and having Johnny Marr tweeting him to back off. While I am on the subject, I remind the Committee that I was at the last concert of The Smiths, which was in Brixton Academy, probably in December 1986 or ’87.

In those days, ticket touts were blokes in long macs shouting, “Any spare tickets?”, which was a problem, but manageable. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty has been outlining industrial-scale, mechanical touting, which is way beyond my experience of those days 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. The problem absolutely needs to be addressed and the new clause does so. I am pleased to support it and, if the Minister is planning to accept it in principle, I suggest that he could do worse than recognise the work of the hon. Gentleman, give him the credit for the new clause, along with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the chance he so richly deserves to make a mark.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I could not possibly be as glowing about the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty as the hon. Member for City of Chester has been. There is a love-in across the Benches this morning.

I, too, rise briefly to support the new clause. To paraphrase a well-known quote by Eric Hoffer, the American moral philosopher, every good idea begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket. That is what we have here. Online sales and fan-to-fan ticket sites are fantastic at enabling people to get access to the music events they want to go to, but because of the evolution of technology, software and bots, we now have a distorted market, about which we absolutely need to do something.

I want the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty to be able to go to see his favourite band, Green Day—as he was mentioning them, it occurred to me that one of their songs, and the name of their 2004 album, seemed appropriate for a gentleman who might yet end up in the White House. I must also add that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) suggests that MP4 tickets are very easy to get hold of—he is determined that they are stopped from selling below ticket value.

I commend the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty on his new clause and I am happy to support it.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West and I were proud to put our names to it. I commend the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty for bravely revealing his devotion to Green Day. I stand in solidarity with him—I, too, am a big fan.

This issue has been a problem for too long for fans of musicians of all descriptions. It prices people out of access to their favourite bands and acts and thereby entrenches a class barrier to culture, which cannot be allowed to continue. For as long as there have been ticketed events, there have been people making money out of the fact that demand for live sports or music outstrips supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester pointed out, the development of technology has escalated the problem. Punters simply do not stand a chance against digital ticket purchasing software. The new clause would kick away one of the legs that ticket touts rely on.

The current legislation contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is extremely patchy. It can compel ticket resale sites to publish information such as seat number and face value, but it is not enforced sufficiently and tickets are routinely sold at a high mark-up. Unless Parliament gets tough now, resale sites will continue brazenly to flout the law. It is high time that Parliament closed the legal loophole. That is what the industry, musicians and fans are calling for. I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has been calling for this change for some time. We wholeheartedly support new clause 13.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

The Minister is dead right. We would like some more consultation on the review, not least because nearly all of the Government’s consultees are unhappy with the proposals in the Bill.

I hope that we have thrashed out many of the part 5 issues and that the Government will act and amend the provisions in the other place. If that does not happen, we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave with withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

OFCOM power to enforce structural separation of BT Openreach

‘After section 49C of the Communications Act 2003 insert—

“(49D) OFCOM has the power to enforce the structural separation of BT Openreach, should OFCOM consider this necessary.”’—(Calum Kerr.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Calum Kerr]

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

I will outline the rationale and seek reassurances as to how the Government intend to deal with this matter. We propose that the Bill be amended to ensure that Ofcom has the strongest legal basis to deliver all the options highlighted in its digital communications review. Ofcom is consulting at the moment on how it could introduce legal separation for Openreach within the BT group, but structural separation remains an option.

[Drew Hendry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current structure is insufficient to provide an incentive to effectively invest in the network that is required? Ofcom has itself said that the existing ownership allows it to discriminate against competitors.

[Calum Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. At the crux of the debate as to where we go in terms of connectivity is BT, which has a case to answer regarding its investment. Ofcom has a case to answer on being technology agnostic. We have to be bolder and push more ambitiously for fibre. The Minister has told us “fibre means fibre”, so we look forward to seeing progress. Sometimes I think the Government have consumed too much fibre.

It is essential that Ofcom is confident it can enforce separation of Openreach should it conclude it is necessary. It is important to understand the position today. Ofcom considers that it does have the power under the EU framework directive to impose structural separation. The problem with that approach is that Brexit means Brexit. Should Ofcom decide that separation is the right approach, would it take its case to the EU Commission at the time of Brexit? That would be fraught with difficulty, not least as BT might appeal and we would have a long drawn-out process.

It is also worth noting that the telecoms framework under which Ofcom regulates the UK is EU legislation. We need to consider that BT has stated publicly that it believes there is no mechanism for structural separation even within the EU. We are trying to flush out some of the Government’s thinking. The new clause is designed to avoid the potential uncertainty and paralysis should Ofcom want to go down this route. Even if Ofcom does not use this power, having it there will have the added benefit of strengthening its hand in negotiation and enforcement as we all try to improve UK infrastructure.

The SNP’s position is that the digital communications review is following the right lines. Structural separation at this stage is the right approach, but we need to ensure that the final option is available. Given the change in relation to the EU, I would welcome the Government’s comments on how they propose to ensure that is an option.

[Matt Hancock]

We have made it clear that the UK needs a competitive and effective market in telecoms, and I have made it clear that fibre is the future. Fibre means fibre. The amendment seeks to ensure Ofcom has the power to impose structural separation on BT Openreach if Ofcom considers it necessary. There is already a process available to Ofcom to pursue structural separation should it be considered necessary. The Committee knows that Ofcom is currently considering how Openreach should be structured. We have made it clear that Ofcom should take whatever action it considers necessary and that structural separation remains an option.

Of course, in a rapidly moving sector such as communications, circumstances can change. We regularly review whether Ofcom has the right powers. We will need to do that in the context of our exit from the European Union, but at present Ofcom has the appropriate powers that it needs and it will continue to have them. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Calum Kerr]

I thank the Minister for his comments, but the position in relation to having the powers is a weak answer. If there were a separation, we would enter into uncertainty without explicit powers. I will not press the motion to a vote, but I encourage the Government, as the picture on the EU evolves, to be clearer, and if they think it necessary to introduce something specific, so that we have a measure available.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Bill caps for all mobile phone contracts

‘(1) A telecommunications service provider supplying a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone must, at the time of entering into such a contract, allow the end-user the opportunity to place a financial cap on the monthly bill under that contract.

(2) A telecommunications service provider under subsection (1) must not begin to supply a contracted service to an end-user unless the end-user has either—

(a) requested the monthly cap be put in place and agreed the amount of that cap, or

(b) decided, on a durable medium, not to put a monthly cap in place.

(3) The end-user should bear no cost for the supply of any service above the cap if the provider has—

(a) failed to impose a cap agreed under subsection (2)(a),

(b) introduce, or amend, a cap following the end-user’s instructions under subsection (2)(b), or

(c) removed the cap without the end-user’s instructions or has removed it without obtaining the consumer’s express consent on a durable medium under subsection (2).’—(Louise Haigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Digital Economy Bill (Ninth sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Haigh]

The point is vital and it is the point that was made earlier in our proceedings. Unless we get this right at this stage, it will become a scandal that the Government will then have to deal with and it will hold back progress on sharing data, as we saw with the care.data scandal. We do not want to see the Government embroiled in another scandal like that and we hope that they heed our warnings in order to avoid one in the future.

The objective behind the register is that it could be considered an amnesty for all existing data-sharing projects, with the disclosure assisting understanding of the problem and improving public trust. Let us not kid ourselves that the Bill covers the only data sharing that happens across Government. In a recent interview with Computer Weekly, the new director of the Government Digital Service, Kevin Cunnington, said:

“The real work is going on in”

places such as “Leeds and Manchester”—I would disagree with him on that point for a start, because we are not fans of Leeds in Sheffield—

“as well as London. We need to be part of that. The example I use is where DWP now runs a whole set of disability benefits. It would be incredibly helpful if DWP had selected and consensual access to some of”—

those people’s—

“medical data. Right now, NHS Digital and DWP are having that conversation in Leeds and we’re not in the conversation. Why wouldn’t GDS be in a conversation like that? If we’re going to be, we’ve got to be in Leeds—we can’t do that from here.”

We know that that conversation is happening between the DWP and the NHS—despite assurances that sharing of health and social care information is not happening across Government—only because a random official mentioned it in a random interview, so I ask this question again: does the Minister have an audit of data-sharing agreements and arrangements across Government, or is it the case, as I fear it is, that not only do the public not know which data are shared across Government, for what purpose and how they are stored, but Ministers do not know either?

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. What this cuts back to is the underlying theme of transparency. Rather than the Government acting in a paternal way—“We’ll do what is best for the citizens”—they should be transparent and make it clear to citizens why and where data are being used.

[Louise Haigh]

That is exactly the kind of attitude that underpins these elements of the Bill: “Trust us. We’ll sort it out. Give us your data. No problem. We’re going to share them freely and fairly.” The Government may well do. The problem is that the public do not have that trust in them. As I said on Tuesday, this is not a party political point. The previous Labour Government were not up to scratch in handling data either. This is not a party political attack at all. It is a genuine attempt to get these proposals in the best shape possible, to aid Government digitisation and deliver efficient public services.

Just as the Government give taxpayers a summary of how their tax money has been spent so they should give citizens information on how they have used data on them. If there is transparency through a register, there can be an informed conversation about whether a data disclosure will solve the problems that it claims to. There has been data sharing to prevent fraud for decades and a complete absence of audited and accurate results from that work. Arguing that current data sharing has not prevented fraud and so there should be more data sharing equates to doing the same thing over and again and expecting a different result.

The amendment is vital to restore and build on public trust in the Government handling of data. It is not in my nature to call on my constituents to trust this Government, but if they enacted the amendment, I absolutely would. I would be able to tell my constituents in good faith that they were right to trust their data to this or any future Government, because they and the data community could see exactly how and why their data were being used and exert some control over it. If the Government do not heed this lesson now, I am afraid that they will learn the hard way when things go the way of care.data or worse, as they inevitably will.

Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

The clause will create a clear, permissive power for public authorities to disclose information that they hold for the purpose of research in the public interest. It will ensure that any personal information is processed before it is disclosed and that a person’s identity is not specified in the information, so that a person’s identity cannot be deduced from that information. It will establish a set of conditions to ensure that any processing of personal information is undertaken in a way that protects the privacy of individuals.

To maintain a truly innovative and competitive economy and to ensure that decisions taken on a range of economic and social issues are informed by the best possible evidence base, it is essential that we maximise the use of rich and varied sources of administrative information that is held across public data.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I am not sure whether the Minister is aware, but Scottish universities share all their research on the internet for the public to read, ensuring world-class Scottish research can help the world. Do the Government agree that such rules should apply to all publications resulting from the research and statistics chapters of the Bill?

[Chris Skidmore]

I think that it is up to each university to have a policy on what research should be published and when. There is a particular situation in Scotland, but other universities may decide that their research may be used for purposes that remain confidential. Publication is up to the universities and academic bodies to decide.

[Calum Kerr]

The Minister is absolutely right—perhaps I rushed my question. I was trying to emphasise the point that, when data are shared, will he match that transparency, so that citizens can see what public benefit has been drawn from the use of their data?

[Chris Skidmore]

I shall come in a moment to the UK Statistics Authority’s position on the use of national statistics; it would benefit enormously from these measures. The potential benefits from increased access to information extend far beyond the research community. It is generally accepted that increased research and development leads to improved productivity and therefore increased economic growth. Information is increasingly a key raw material.

The research community has for some time been prevented from making better use of information held by the public sector, due to a complex legal landscape that has evolved over time. As a result, public authorities are often uncertain about their powers to share information, leading to delays, in some cases lasting years. In the meantime, projects become obsolete or are abandoned.

The Administrative Data Taskforce warned in its 2012 report that the UK was lagging behind other countries in its approach to this issue. It called for a generic legal power to allow public authorities to provide information for research purposes. As well as providing that power, which will remove the uncertainty that has frustrated the research community, the clause will provide a set of conditions that must be complied with if personal information is to be shared.

The conditions can be summarised as the sharing and use only of information that has been de-identified to industry standards to remove information that would identify, or is reasonably likely to identify, an individual, and the requirements that those who process information that identifies a person take reasonable steps to minimise accidental disclosure and prevent deliberate disclosure of such information, that all those who process personal information or receive or use processed personal information are subject to an accreditation process overseen by the UKSA, whether they are researchers, technicians or those who provide secure environments for linking and accessing data, that research for the purposes of which the information is disclosed is accredited and that all those involved in the exercise of the power adhere to a code of practice that is produced and maintained by the UKSA.

The UKSA is the designated accredited body with a duty to maintain and publish registers of all those accredited for any purpose under the power. That includes all those who may be involved in preparing personal information for disclosure to researchers and the research project itself. The results or outcomes of the research project must be publicly available, to demonstrate that the research is for the public good. The UKSA has a duty to maintain and publish the criteria for accreditation, and all activity under the power will be subject to a code of practice issued by the UKSA. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Turning to the willingness for this to happen, the clause represents an important step forward for research in the UK. It will allow greater opportunities to produce high-quality research, which, in the words of the Economic and Social Research Council, can place

“the UK at the forefront of the international scientific landscape.”

It will allow greater opportunities to improve our understanding of our economy and society.

I would like to put on record the comments of Sir Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UKSA:

“The Digital Economy Bill, currently before the House of Commons Public Bill Committee, represents a unique opportunity to deliver the transformation of UK statistics. The existing legal framework governing access to data for official statistics is complex and time-consuming. The proposals in the Bill, by making use of data already held across Government and beyond, would deliver better access to administrative data and for the purposes of statistics and research, delivering significant efficiencies and savings for individuals, households and businesses. Decision-makers need accurate and timely data to make informed decisions, in particular about the allocation of public resource. This Bill will deliver better statistics and statistical research that help Britain make better decisions.”

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Provisions supplementary to section 56

Amendments made: 150, in clause 57, page 53, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) In its application to a public authority with functions relating to the provision of health services or adult social care, section 56 does not authorise the disclosure of information held by the authority in connection with such functions.”

This amendment and amendments 168 to 170 ensure that Chapter 5 of Part 5 applies to a public authority with functions relating to the provision of health services or adult social care and other functions, but that in such a case the powers to disclose in the Chapter only apply to information held in connection with the other functions.

Amendment 151, in clause 57, page 53, line 28, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)”.—(Chris Skidmore.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Bar on further disclosure of personal information

Amendments made: 152, in clause 58, page 53, line 38, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 153, in clause 58, page 54, line 2, at end insert “(including section56(3B))”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 154, in clause 58, page 54, line 6, at end insert—

“(da) which is made for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”.

This amendment and amendment 157 create a further exception to the bar on the further disclosure of information which is disclosed under clause 56 (so that it can be processed for disclosure under that section), allowing disclosure for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.

Amendment 155, in clause 58, page 54, line 7, leave out

“(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.

This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 58(3) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.

Amendment 156, in clause 58, page 54, line 10, leave out

“and whether or not in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 58(3) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.

Amendment 157, in clause 58, page 54, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) In subsection (3)(da) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 154.

Amendment 158, in clause 58, page 54, line 21, leave out subsections (5) and (6) insert—

‘( ) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person discloses personal information in contravention of subsection (2), and

(b) at the time that the person makes the disclosure, the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether the disclosure does so.

This amendment applies to the disclosure of personal information in contravention of subsection (2) of clause 58. It has the effect that it is an offence to do so only if the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether it does so.

Amendment 159, in clause 58, page 54, line 39, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”. —(Chris Skidmore.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs

Amendment made: 160, in clause 59, page 54, line 43, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”.—(Chris Skidmore.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Code of practice

Amendments made: 161, in clause 60, page 55, line 19, at end insert—

‘( ) The code of practice must be consistent with the code of practice issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as altered or replaced from time to time).”.

This amendment requires a code of practice issued under clause 60 by the relevant Minister and relating to the disclosure of information under clause 56 to be consistent with the data-sharing code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Amendment 162, in clause 60, page 55, line 24, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)” —(Chris Skidmore.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Accreditation for the purposes of this Chapter

Amendments made: 163, in clause 61, page 56, line 7, leave out “56” and insert

“subsection (1) of section 56”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 164, in clause 61, page 56, line 9, leave out “section” and insert “subsection”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 165, in clause 61, page 56, line 11, leave out “section” and insert “subsection”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 166, in clause 61, page 56, line 23, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.

Amendment 167, in clause 61, page 56, line 38, at end insert—

‘(6A) The Statistics Board—

(a) may from time to time revise conditions or grounds published under this section, and

(b) if it does so, must publish the conditions or grounds as revised.

(6B) Subsection (6) applies in relation to the publication of conditions or grounds under subsection (6A) as it applies in relation to the publication of conditions or grounds under subsection (2).”—(Chris Skidmore.)

This amendment enables the Statistics Board to revise the conditions and grounds it establishes for the accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of people and research for the purposes of information sharing under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Bill.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Interpretation of this Chapter

Amendments made: 168, in clause 63, page 57, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) A person is not a public authority for the purposes of this Chapter if the person—

(a) only has functions relating to the provision of health services,

(b) only has functions relating to the provision of adult social care, or

(c) only has functions within paragraph (a) and paragraph (b).

(2A) The following are to be disregarded in determining whether subsection (2) applies to a person—

(a) any power (however expressed) to do things which are incidental to the carrying out of another function of that person;

(b) any function which the person exercises or may exercise on behalf of another person.”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.

Amendment 169, in clause 63, page 57, line 21, leave out “subsection (2)(a)” and insert “this Chapter”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.

Amendment 170, in clause 63, page 57, line 30, leave out “subsection (2)(b)” and insert “this Chapter”.—(Chris Skidmore.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Disclosure of non-identifying information by HMRC

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

The clause will reform the appeals process against Ofcom decisions, speeding up the process and ensuring that consumers’ interests are better prioritised. The Communications Act 2003 states clearly that Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, but clearly there are issues with how the current appeals process works.

The current process is that Ofcom makes a decision following full consultation with the industry and the public; under the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules, an affected body can then appeal against the decision. Ofcom has six weeks to lodge its defence, and a month later substantive appeals are considered in a court case management conference, at which procedural and substantive points are raised. Third parties can then intervene, after which the appellant can lodge a reply. About a month before the hearing, the parties can lodge skeleton arguments. The hearing then takes place, and judgment is usually reserved. That judgment can take anything from weeks to up to a year. Parties then have about three weeks to decide whether they want to go to the Court of Appeal.

Not only is that process incredibly cumbersome, but it allows for considerable new evidence and new parties to the appeal, of which Ofcom had no knowledge at the consultation phase, to be brought forward mid-process. Under the new system, both the process of gathering evidence, including for the cross-examination of witnesses and experts, and the general treatment of that evidence are designed to be slimmed down. The system will still allow for an appeal, of course—that is only right for the sake of justice—but it will ensure that the appeals process does not unduly benefit those who can afford to litigate. It is alleged that it is currently those with the deepest pockets who bring forward the greatest number of appeals; indeed, most appellants have far deeper pockets than Ofcom has to defend itself with.

I have heard the concerns of some within the industry about the changes, as I am sure the Minister has. Although we are in favour of the Government’s proposals, I would appreciate the Minister’s response to some of those concerns. In a submission to the Committee, a group of the largest communications providers has claimed that the current appeals regime works well for consumers and has delivered consumer benefits to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

[Calum Kerr]

I understand the rationale behind trying to split up the powers that Ofcom has been given and make the process slimmer, but it is quite an achievement to get BT, Sky, Virgin Media, Vodafone and O2 in agreement. I share the hon. Lady’s concern and look forward to the Minister’s response, which I hope will help to allay it.

[Louise Haigh]

I agree, and although I support the Government’s objective, it is of concern that such a wide range of communications providers—the biggest investors in communications infrastructure in the UK—are so vehemently opposed to the changes. This is exactly what the Committee stage of any Bill is designed for: to test out arguments and make sure that the right thing is being done. Will the Minister confirm what impact assessment of the proposals has been made, and what benefit he anticipates the changes will bring to consumers?

The submission that I mentioned claims that if the proposed regime had been in place, the mobile call termination case in 2007 would have led to a £265 million loss to consumers over the two-year period from 2010 to 2012. It states that

“in each of the cases cited, the Tribunal’s decision was that Ofcom’s decision had not gone far enough in consumers’ favour. The quantifiable financial impact of these appeals totalled a net benefit to consumers of around £350-400m.”

It says that the merits review

“enabled these errors to be corrected, the finding of the Government’s 2013 research was that on a JR”—

judicial review—

“standard, each of these decisions would have stood unadjusted.”

No one is saying that Ofcom will get things right 100% of the time—clearly, it will not. The new appeals process is not saying that either, but it will substantially raise the bar for appeals by allowing only regulated bodies to contest how a decision was made. Is the Minister confident that the decisions cited in the evidence from BT and the other providers would still be corrected under the new regime? The providers claim that they would not.

We have heard mixed messages about whether the proposals will bring the communications regulator in line with other utilities regulators. Ofcom told us in evidence that they would do just that, but is it not the case that the price control decisions of both Ofgem and Ofwat are subject to merits review by the Competition and Markets Authority? Will the Minister confirm why that is the case for other industries but not for communications?

On SMEs, techUK is particularly concerned that the higher bar of judicial review will have a disproportionate impact on smaller providers, which brought 17% of appeals between 2010 and 2015. I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that his Department has fully considered the impact these changes will have on SMEs, and particularly on new entrants to the market.

I understand that there will always be winners and losers in any regulatory change. The Minister will no doubt enjoy basking under the adoring gaze of TalkTalk and Three, but he will have to live with the fact that he is in BT’s and Virgin’s bad books for now. What is also clear is that for most people this appeals regime is far from well understood, as the industry claims. In fact, they would find it very difficult to understand why changes that could benefit them are being held up, sometimes for years on end, and why big communications providers are spending millions of pounds on litigation when they should be ploughing that money into helping their customers.

That is no basis on which to continue an appeals regime that leads to excessive litigation and smothers changes that may help—indeed, in some cases, may transform—consumers’ relationships with their communications providers. Clearly, during the exercise of that duty, Ofcom will be required to intervene and make a ruling, which sometimes the industry may not like.

If the broad contention on this side is that Ofcom should be given further powers to ensure that the industry acts in the best interests of consumers, there is little point in allowing an appeals process to continue that is so lengthy that it can render any changes useless. One particularly compelling example given in the evidence session was about the need for far greater switching for consumers. The chief executive of Three remarked that we are at the bottom of the class in terms of switching, and that despite nearly a decade of campaigning little has been done to get rid of provider-led switching. That was because when Ofcom tried to legislate on it, to enable consumers to switch, one of the major mobile providers was able to litigate and push the matter into the long grass, from where it has not emerged until today.

With all that in mind, and pending answers to the questions that I have put to the Minister, we are happy to support the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Kerr]

The briefing we received recognises the Government’s line on the current approach but disagrees with the contention. It actually puts forward a form of words that it believes, if inserted, would not risk any issue with the relevant European directive. Have the Government considered that? I am happy to forward that form of words if the Minister does not know what I am referring to; it is in the latest briefing.

[Matt Hancock]

Again, I am happy to look at any detailed representation, but we have had significant and extensive discussions about this, including with techUK and others. On the SME point that techUK specifically raised, that was covered in the impact assessment that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked about. It was published on 12 May; on page 15 it sets out the concern that, if we had a separate system for SMEs, we would end up with a yet more complicated process, as opposed to a simpler one, which I think would be an overall benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

The point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the BBC was essentially in negotiations with a gun to its head. It was not a free and fair negotiation. The individual to which the hon. Gentleman just referred does not sit on the BBC board, and I do not believe he was involved in the negotiations with the Government.

The fact that we have reached this point—that the BBC was in essence forced to agree to become an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions—says a lot about the overbearing, menacing way the Government treated an organisation that they should cherish, and the cavalier disregard they have shown to the over-75s to whom they made a promise last year. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that promises should be kept. Behaviour like the Government’s brings disrepute on all Members from all parties. It makes people think that it is exactly what politicians do: we promise things in elections that we have absolutely no intention of delivering. It is a problem for all Members, whether Government or Opposition.

Despite public outcry, the Government have still not ruled out further stick-ups of the type that have got us into the position we are in now. They have refused to establish a transparent process to set the licence fees of the future. The Opposition do not consider it a done deal. With new clause 38, we are seeking to guarantee free TV licences to over-75s. That would give the responsibility for the policy and the funding of TV licences back to the Government, where it belongs. There would be no more wriggling out of a decision that should be laid firmly at the Minister’s door.

If the Conservatives want to rid themselves of the cost of the free TV licence, they should have the courage to say that they are doing it. They should have put it in their manifesto and campaigned on it; they should not have created a non-ministerial branch office of the DWP in the BBC to do their dirty work for them. That is why if our new clause was accepted we would be calling for the scrapping of clause 76 in its entirety.

The new clause is very clear: it should be for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to specify the conditions under which people are entitled to concessions, and to provide the BBC with the necessary funding to cover the cost of those concessions. That is how it was set up under the previous Labour Government, and it is under those conditions that it should continue. The responsibility should not be delegated to any body other than the Government themselves. They should not be allowed to get away with delegating the responsibility and effectively forcing the BBC to take the rap.

This is a point of principle for the Opposition. We cannot accept a policy that takes the responsibility for even a tiny part of our social security system and gives it to an organisation with no direct accountability to the electorate. Unaccountable organisations do not have to face the consequences of their decisions, especially given the announcement we have heard today from the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Even HMRC does not want to see private sector involvement in decisions on tax credits. A non-ministerial body has said that the private sector should not be involved in who does or does not receive tax credits, or any other type of benefit. That is exactly the argument we are making.

Private sector organisations are the wrong bodies to be involved in deciding who gets benefits, not only because they are incentivised by profit but because they are unaccountable. They do not have to stand for election based on those decisions, and therefore they should not be allowed to make them. It is the equivalent of outsourcing children’s services to Virgin and, in the process, asking them to pick up the tab for child benefit and requiring them to decide who gets it. Our social security system is far too precious for BBC executives, however noble their intentions or professional their considerations, to decide who is and who is not entitled to a benefit of any description. Labour introduced the free TV licence for the over-75s. It cannot be a BBC executive, unaccountable to the public and unaccountable to all our constituents, who calls time on it.

If the amendment falls, it will be high time that the Government were honest about what they were doing and honest with the voters. If they are not, Labour will do everything in its power to make it clear to those millions of over-75s exactly what is happening: their TV licence entitlement will be reduced or taken away not by the BBC, but by the Government who knowingly and cynically engineered the change.

[Calum Kerr]

What a fantastic presentation of a new clause, which I absolutely agree with.

Having looked into this whole area, I find it staggering. The BBC is faced with the prospect of huge cuts, but I am concerned that it is suddenly being passed the responsibility for setting policy. The Bill shows that the Government like to outsource as much as possible, because they outsourced most of the content to Ofcom in the early stages. However, the proposal relating to free TV licences for the over-75s is an absolute abdication of responsibility. We have all been invited to enough Age Concern events to know how isolated elderly people feel and how important television is for them. This is fundamentally welfare policy.

[Kevin Brennan]

On the point about isolation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the Government are effectively doing is equivalent to devolving concessionary fares to private bus companies and then letting them decide whether older people should have concessionary fares?

[Calum Kerr]

Absolutely. I see we are on a bus theme, which must be because the hon. Member for Hyndburn has returned to his place.

We must consider the risks inherent in this shift. With its budget potentially squeezed in future, the BBC is the one faced with choosing a priority. The BBC will have to decide whether someone should get a free TV licence. Fundamentally, that is welfare policy. I hope the Government are listening and will reconsider. The new clause is well worded and I fully endorse it on behalf of the Scottish National party.

[Christian Matheson]

I support the new clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley on an outstanding contribution among numerous outstanding contributions during the Committee’s considerations.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is absolutely right that the proposal is an outsourcing of responsibility, but there is more to it than that. The Government are not only putting a further financial squeeze on the BBC, but when, as may be inevitable, the allocation of TV licences to the over-75s has to be reviewed, they will apparently have a clean pair of hands. It will be, “Not us, guv—it was the BBC what did it”, when that may well have been the intention all along. It is, again, outsourcing of responsibility and an attempt to evade responsibility, put on the financial squeeze, take a step back and say, “It’s nothing to do with us. It’s that bad BBC. Because that bad BBC is so bad, we shall cut them even more to punish them for how they have treated pensioners.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who does not serve on this Committee, described the events of June and July 2015 when the so-called negotiation took place as a drive-by shooting when we were in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Hon. Members have today talked about negotiations with a gun to the head; a drive-by shooting is an appropriate description of what happened.

The BBC board was taken by surprise by the motives of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Select Committee asked the chairwoman of the BBC Trust whether she and her fellow trust members had considered resigning in protest at what was happening; she declined to answer. I am sure that there were discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. There is no need to add too much to that, other than to say that if we want to talk about the Government’s view of the BBC and this chipping away, which our new clause is designed to prevent, it is the outsourcing of programme making again to 100% programme making that will now be made out in the private sector and not in-house. Again, it is part of the package of making the BBC less viable, so that we arrive at a day when a tough decision might have to be made because the BBC as it exists now has been completely undermined. The policy is not to put it on a firmer footing. This £700 million is a huge part of that chipping away at the BBC.

[Calum Kerr]

In reality, the Government by all means could have had a financial settlement that reflects the same outcome, but the fact is they have passed the policy. Why pass the policy other than to abdicate responsibility?

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was moving on to, which is that the policy is also about passing responsibility. The Government want to shape the decision and take the credit where there is an upside, and to dump it on the BBC where there is a downside. That is what this is about—so the BBC is left with it.

Suppose the Government wanted to offer further icing on the cake and have over-70s get the free TV licence. The Government would take the credit for that, but any difficult decisions, such as only over-80s getting the free licence and the 75-year-olds losing out, will of course be the BBC’s fault. We can see exactly what is happening and the duplicity of the argument. The Government are setting the BBC up with a dilemma: it will take the stick for any downsides, but for any upsides the Government will be up there on the podium, all backslapping each other, saying, “Great social policy!”

There is no escaping that, and I do not think that the general public are fooled—they can see. It would make perfect sense for the Minister to accept new clause 38, because the public see what the Government are doing with that shift of responsibility for the over-75s. The public will not be fooled by the shift; they can see precisely what Ministers are trying to achieve. The public, too, will be concerned and asking how it affects them, the ordinary person. Will the BBC, faced with further cuts, have to say, “Well, we’re sorry, it’s only over-80s who will get it”? Decisions and responsibilities are outsourced to the BBC, and the licence fee payer, in particular those coming up to that age, will be wondering, “Hang on, I’m going to get the worst of both worlds—either a Tory Government or the BBC cutting my licence fee.” I do not think that the public will be too happy. They will not not see through this—sorry about the double negative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I hope that I will still agree with new clause 34 then; I think I will, because I am so enthusiastic about it.

[Calum Kerr]

Feel free to carry on, Minister, if you are enjoying yourself.

[Matt Hancock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that, having answered the hon. Lady’s questions in relation to amendments that I think are intended to probe and in anticipation of our coming on to new clause 34, she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Calum Kerr]

I am sorry for the miscommunication; it was my fault. Actually, having read the newspapers at the weekend, I think that the Minister may be in agreement on extending the penalties in relation to nuisance callers to company directors; I certainly read a number of quotes about the importance of doing that. What I am unclear about—perhaps he will enlighten me—is whether he intends to accept our new clause or whether he has another vehicle by which he intends to make this change. I would be grateful to him if he intervened, because there is no point in my—

[Matt Hancock]

We agree with moving liability on to individuals rather than on to companies, because sometimes those companies will be closed down, bought up and restarted under a different name very quickly. We propose to do that by tabling a Government amendment.

[Calum Kerr]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I had thought that I might have done his homework for him already with new clause 34. Perhaps he might consider embracing the cross-party consensual nature that might return after the BBC fun and games—except on tobacco ads, which certainly go too far.

[Matt Hancock]

Before I was stopped by Mr Streeter, I was going to say precisely that—namely that I have just announced that we intend to introduce such measures. We need to consult on the exact details of those measures, which is why I do not propose to accept the new clause, but we intend to put into place something of similar substance.

[Calum Kerr]

Excellent. I thank the Minister for that and given that comment, rather than outlining the full case for why I think accepting new clause 34 is a good idea, I will embrace the positivity and happily sit down, without pressing my new clause, knowing that the Government will introduce a similar measure.

[Louise Haigh]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I propose after consultation to bring in measures to ensure that the liability is on the individual. That will significantly strengthen the hand of the regulator here, alongside the code of practice, but I am open to working with the hon. Gentleman and others to see what else we can do for calls that originate from overseas. I entirely understand the problem. Ultimately, we are trying to stop as much spamming as possible, while allowing people to communicate and use modern means of communication.

[Calum Kerr]

Last week I had a call from a director from Ofcom, who had just returned from south-east Asia, discussing nuisance calls. As the Government go around the world setting up their new trade agreements, perhaps they might consider this one of the clauses they build in around nuisance calls.

[Matt Hancock]

That is an interesting suggestion. Of course, this will apply to overseas companies; it is just that, as we have discussed in other parts of the Bill, that is harder to enforce against.

Finally, there was discussion about charities making nuisance calls. Charities, and agents on their behalf, were covered in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, which introduced a new regulator specifically for charities in this space. With those explanations, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Commencement

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

We very much welcome the new clause and are pleased that, once again, the Government have heeded the Opposition’s advice. We said clearly at the beginning of the process that, in regard to the digital skills that are needed to support and improve the digital economy, the Bill was lacking. I want to put on record the fantastic work already going on across the UK in supporting adults to learn digital skills, not least by organisations such as the Tinder Foundation and community organisations—I will abuse my position now and reference organisations such as the Heeley Development Trust and Heeley City Farm in my constituency, which through community work already skill up adults in digital skills. We very much support the clause and look forward to the Government taking our advice more in the future.

Amendment 183 agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 26

Qualifications in information technology: payment of tuition fees

‘(1) The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 88(1) (qualifications for persons aged 19 or over: payment of tuition fees), for “1(a) or (b)” substitute “1(a), (b) or (ba)”.

(3) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 (qualifications for persons aged 19 or over), after paragraph (b) insert—

(ba) a specified qualification in making use of information technology;”.

(4) After paragraph 5 of that Schedule insert—

“Power to specify qualification in information technology

5A The level of attainment demonstrated by a specified qualification in making use of information technology must be the level which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is the minimum required in that respect by persons aged 19 or over in order to be able to operate effectively in day-to-day life.”’—(Matt Hancock.)

This clause creates an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that courses of study for qualifications in information technology are free of charge for persons in England aged 19 or over. The qualifications will be specified in regulations under Schedule 5 to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Digital additional services: seriously harmful extrinsic material

After section 24 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (digital additional services) insert—

“24A Duty to prevent access to seriously harmful extrinsic material

(1) In carrying out their functions, OFCOM must do all that they consider appropriate to prevent digital additional services from enabling members of the public to access seriously harmful extrinsic material.

(2) “Seriously harmful extrinsic material”, in relation to a digital additional service, means material that—

(a) is not included in the service, and

(b) appears to OFCOM—

(i) to have the potential to cause serious harm, or

(ii) to be likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder.”’ —(Matt Hancock.)

This new clause would require OFCOM to seek to prevent digital television additional services enabling access to seriously harmful content that does not form part of the service, for instance by linking to content streamed from the internet. OFCOM could do this by imposing licence conditions in relation to such services.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

Suspension of radio licences for inciting crime or disorder

‘(1) In Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (sound broadcasting services), for section 111B (power to suspend licence to provide satellite service) substitute—

“111B  Suspension of licences for inciting crime or disorder

(1) OFCOM must serve a notice under subsection (2) on the holder of a licence granted under this Chapter if they are satisfied that—

(a) the licence holder has included in the licensed service one or more programmes containing material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder,

(b) in doing so the licence holder has failed to comply with a condition included in the licence in compliance with section 263 of the Communications Act 2003, and

(c) the failure would justify the revocation of the licence.

(2) A notice under this subsection must—

(a) state that OFCOM are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1),

(b) specify the respects in which, in their opinion, the licence holder has failed to comply with the condition mentioned there,

(c) state that OFCOM may revoke the licence after the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served on the licence holder, and

(d) inform the licence holder of the right to make representations to OFCOM in that period about the matters that appear to OFCOM to provide grounds for revoking the licence.

(3) The effect of a notice under subsection (2) is to suspend the licence from the time when the notice is served on the licence holder until either—

(a) the revocation of the licence takes effect, or

(b) OFCOM decide not to revoke the licence.

(4) If, after considering any representations made to them by the licence holder in the 21 day period mentioned in subsection (2)(c), OFCOM are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence, they must serve on the licence holder a notice revoking the licence.

(5) The revocation of a licence by a notice under subsection (4) takes effect from whatever time is specified in the notice.

(6) That time must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice under subsection (4) is served on the licence holder.

(7) Section 111 does not apply to the revocation of a licence under this section.”

(2) In section 62(10) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (application of sections 109 and 111 of the 1990 Act to digital sound programme services) for the words from “section 109” to “1990 Act” substitute “sections 109, 111 and 111B of the 1990 Act (enforcement)”.

(3) In section 250(3) of the Communications Act 2003 (application of sections 109 to 111A of the 1990 Act to radio licensable content services) for “111A” substitute “111B”.’—(Matt Hancock.)

This new Clause gives OFCOM power to suspend immediately, and subsequently revoke, the licence of any licensed radio service if material is included that is likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder. It replaces a power applying only to satellite and cable services.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions

In Part 24 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (insolvency) after section 379 insert—

‘Settlement Finality

“379A Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions

(1) The Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the application to payment institutions, as participants in payment or securities settlement systems, of provision in subordinate legislation—

(a) modifying the law of insolvency or related law in relation to such systems, or

(b) relating to the securing of rights and obligations.

(2) “Payment institution” means—

(a) an authorised payment institution or small payment institution within the meaning of the Payment Services Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/209), or

(b) a person whose head office, registered office or place of residence, as the case may be, is outside the United Kingdom and whose functions correspond to those of an institution within paragraph (a).

(3) “Payment or securities settlement system” means arrangements between a number of participants for or in connection with the clearing or execution of instructions by participants relating to any of the following—

(a) the placing of money at the disposal of a recipient;

(b) the assumption or discharge of a payment obligation;

(c) the transfer of the title to, or an interest in, securities.

(4) “Subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.

(5) Regulations under this section may—

(a) make consequential, supplemental or transitional provision;

(b) amend subordinate legislation.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’—(Matt Hancock.)

The inserted section enables the Treasury to apply a settlement finality regime to payment institutions. The current settlement finality regime for payment systems and securities settlement systems is in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999 (S.I 1999/2979).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Bank of England oversight of payment systems

“Schedule (Bank of England oversight of payment systems) extends Part 5 of the Banking Act 2009 (Bank of England oversight of inter-bank payment systems) to other payment systems; and makes consequential provision.”—(Matt Hancock.)

The new clause introduces new Schedule NS2 which extends the Bank of England’s oversight of payment systems, by removing the current restriction that limits the Bank’s oversight to systems for payments between financial institutions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Strategic review of sharing telecommunications infrastructure

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a strategic review of the sharing of telecommunications infrastructure and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.

(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider measures to maximise the sharing of telecommunications infrastructure by telecommunications service providers.’—(Calum Kerr.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Calum Kerr]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Strategic review of mobile network coverage—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a strategic review of mobile network coverage and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.

(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider measures to ensure universal mobile network coverage for residences and businesses across all telecommunications providers.

(3) The review under subsection (1) shall also consider measures to ensure savings made by telecommunication providers under sections (4), (5) and (6) of this Act are reinvested into expanding network coverage.’

[Calum Kerr]

We seem to have raced through this final section, for which I commend all right hon. and hon. Members. We do not need the gift of foresight to know that the Minister will tell me, “We do not do reviews in this Government. We expect someone else to do them for us.” Let me briefly explain why I support new clause 1, which I will not press to a vote, and I will then touch on new clause 20.

We heard an excellent articulation in the evidence sessions of the value of third-party infrastructure as an effective means of maximising communication roll-out across the country. Today, about a third of the UK’s 27,000 masts are independently operated, and that contrasts with about 60% of masts globally. In EU countries, it is 80%. Independent analysis has shown that independently operated towers across Europe and North America host at least twice as many masts as when those towers are operated by the mobile companies themselves. As we map a new digital future—we are all excited to see what the new Minister does with his digital strategy for the country—we should be conscious of the fact that we will need a lot more masts. We know that he knows that. Technology such as 5G is higher frequency and covers shorter distances. Unless we want our country to resemble the back of a hedgehog, we need to look at effective ways of minimising the number of masts while maximising the coverage we need.

With the approach in the new clause, we are looking to encourage the Government to be consciously competent and to come forward with a model or measures that will enhance the further deployment of shared infrastructure, so that as we deploy 5G and embrace the technology of the future, we minimise the impact on our environment.

New clause 20 is certainly a different take on this area. It is well meaning but not quite right, to be honest. I do not think the idea of a universal service applies in the same way for mobile as it does for wired. It is probably something we will evolve to as the worlds of wired and wireless networks intertwine and overlap going forward. I would be happy to support the new clause, but I would welcome some more discussion.

I hope the Government and the new Minister and team recognise that third-party infrastructure will be central to driving the coverage model in rural and urban areas as we look to put a lot more masts out there to deliver the potential speeds and capability of the technology in the future. If the Minister will not give me a review, perhaps he will at least throw me a bone or two that things are beyond, “Hopefully the Select Committee will do a review.” The Select Committee has only so much bandwidth to do it.

[Matt Hancock]

I can do better than merely asking the Select Committee, although I do think that Select Committees do important reports and should not be denigrated. Ofcom has also been given a statutory duty to provide a report to the Secretary of State every three years on the state of the UK’s communications infrastructure, including the extent to which UK networks share infrastructure. That is precisely what the new clause asks for as a one-off. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reports will happen regularly. The next three-yearly report is due in 2017, which is the same time that new clause 1 specifies for its review.

Moving on to new clause 20, we recognise the importance of improving mobile coverage. I support the intention behind it, but I do not think a statutory review is necessary at this time. We already have building blocks in place to deliver extensive mobile connectivity, and it is happening. The changes that we have debated today will give Ofcom the ability to provide data to ensure that we know how effective mobile connectivity is. We have legally binding licence obligations to ensure that each mobile operator provides voice coverage to at least 90% of the UK land mass. Taken together, 98% of the UK will have a mobile signal by the end of 2017, according to the agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

We just changed the rules so that instead of being restricted to producing such reports three times a year, Ofcom can do so whenever it thinks it appropriate. That will provide for Ofcom to be able to do so as much as possible, but I committed earlier today to having a connected nations report before the end of this year. I hope that that provides for what the hon. Lady seeks in new clause 20 and that the hon. Members will not press their new clauses.

[Calum Kerr]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)

Digital Economy Bill (Eighth sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is right to probe me on that. The truth of the matter is that there is a convenient clause to which we could add our amendments, which starts things two months after Royal Assent. As I said, amendment 94 is a probing amendment and I am sure the Minister will tell us all the reasons why it is technically defective. I will not push it to a vote so I am prepared to hear that, but we want to use it as a method of finding out the Government’s position.

Section 73 was originally introduced to encourage the roll-out of cable and to help a fledgling platform compete against terrestrial television by ensuring that cable platforms had access to public service broadcasting content. The Government have agreed that this policy objective was met some time ago, and in July reported that they were

“satisfied that the objective of ensuring that PSB services (as well as other TV services) are available throughout the UK has been met, and therefore section 73 is no longer required to achieve that objective.”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.”

Inasmuch as this generally means that the state will repeal section 73 when it sees fit, there are concerns among some public service broadcasters about understanding more clearly the Government’s intentions in relation to the timetable for that repeal. It would not be such a pressing issue were section 73 merely a harmless hangover and simply moribund. However, as we have heard, it is more than a legal anachronism. It is a loophole through which taxpayers’ money is effectively funnelled into private businesses.

As we have heard, section 73 allows companies, such as TVCatchup and FilmOn, to live stream the content of public service broadcasters and other channels online without permission. In other words, the money the public pay through their licence fee pays for content that is then, in effect, given away for free to companies other than public service broadcasters. Those companies then monetise that public service broadcasting content by placing their own advertising around it.

Public service broadcasters are granted public funding and the other advantages we have talked about on the understanding that, in exchange, they are obliged to air content that works for the public’s benefit, rather than solely for the benefit of commercial interests. Section 73, in effect, allows TVCatchup and FilmOn to benefit from that same public funding, but those companies are clearly not held to the same standards. That amounts not only to the taxpayer unwittingly subsidising those businesses, it effectively directs funds away from PSBs and impacts on their ability to generate legitimate commercial revenues and to reinvest in the wider creative economy. Those live-streaming sites increase public service broadcaster reliance on public money and can fuel a vicious cycle of under-funding.

There is cross-party agreement that that is wrong and has to be put right, which is what the Government are seeking to do, but why do we have to rely on the Secretary of State to

“make transitional, transitory or saving provisions”

for repealing section 73? Is it not the case that broadcasters and the public deserve a more explicit timeframe, for the reasons I have laid out, so that this does not persist for any more time than is absolutely necessary? Not only is that fair, but it would provide more certainty for public service broadcasters and ensure that their investment in UK content is protected. Amendments 63 and 64, which the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty tabled, would mean the repeal of section 73 immediately after Royal Assent, which offers one way forward. Our probing amendments offer another alternative if the Government need more time.

Public service broadcasters first wrote to the Intellectual Property Office to ask for the repeal of section 73 in 2008. In the meantime, TVCatchup has obviously made millions on the back of PSB content and the European Commission has launched infraction proceedings against the UK Government, on the basis that section 73 denies public service broadcasters their intellectual property rights for their content, which is guaranteed under the 2001 copyright directive. It would also be helpful to know from the Minister how he believes that infraction proceeding plays into our discussion on the amendment, the repeal of section 73, and what role it has to play if the Bill indeed repeals section 73. In short, will the Minister explain why he is not offering a clear timetable for repeal in the Bill?

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I feel that I should thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Streeter; I feel a bit left out, given that the Opposition spokesperson did it. Thank you so much for your chairmanship. It is nice to see a smile at the top table.

I will add a couple of brief points. I am surprised the hon. Member for Cardiff West earned only £10.60. I thought he displayed some creativity. I have never heard so many song lyrics or titles; I do not know if he is on commission for that. Hopefully, journalists across the country are googling—that is appropriate, given what we are discussing today—for what content he has earned £10.60, so that number may go up.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Other search engines are available.

[Calum Kerr]

Indeed—I thank the Minister. There is an interesting point here about the importance of parity across channels. The Scottish National party is clear in supporting the repeal of section 73. The hon. Member for Cardiff West made a point about the many different ways in which people can access content, which he articulated well, and the importance of being consciously competent across all areas when making legislative change. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s remarks on that.

We noted earlier the concerns specifically in relation to Virgin as a large cable company, but I want to put on the record very clearly that we absolutely support the Government in repealing section 73. As these models change and people access content in different ways, the ability for them to earn revenue from the content they produce becomes all the more important, because they cannot necessarily rely on its being consumed in a way that ensures that advertising revenues naturally flow. I emphasise that we support this, we welcome the Government’s bringing it forward but we would like a bit more clarity from the Minister around the broader picture.

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to respond to these points. I take this opportunity to commend the Opposition Front Benchers and, in particular, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, for how she proved, earlier in Committee, how it is possible to put points with great clarity and precision, such that on Thursday we rose early—somehow that seems unlikely today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

Hear, hear!

[Calum Kerr]

Oh, the curse of a word of praise from the Minister! I thank him none the less.

I support these two excellent new clauses tabled by Labour Members. I was delighted to hear the Minister say in response to the debate on the last clause, “We strongly support public service broadcasting.” Hot on the heels of that, the Opposition have provided him with an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and show that he truly does. I think—at least, I hope—that we all support public service broadcasting, but there has been a lot of chat in this place about the PSB funding settlement and about it not encroaching on competition. Let us push beyond that to consider how to support public service broadcasters. Let us find a way to ensure that they maintain their place in an adapting world.

I will touch briefly on both clauses. New clause 14, on the review of listed events, is close to my heart. I note that the football World cup is one of them; I do not know whether we can table an amendment to ensure that Scotland has a chance of getting there—

[Kevin Brennan]

You’re going too far.

[Calum Kerr]

I thought so. At least when we eventually get there, we will not expect to win it, unlike others.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Like in 1978?

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Kerr]

“We’re on the march with Ally’s Army. We’re going to win the World cup.”

[The Chair]

Order.

[Calum Kerr]

I will keep to the subject with a bit of brevity and levity.

I support the Labour move to review this whole area to ensure that we have a set of listed events that is fit for purpose and, more importantly, to ensure that the protection will continue. Likewise, we fully support new clause 17 on prominence. The Committee has spent a lot of time talking about the changing digital landscape. There is no doubt that if we do not introduce measures to protect listings, the public service broadcasters will disappear, slide down the pecking order and be harder to find. We will then be on the slow road to an argument that says that public service broadcasting is not as popular as it once was, but the reality will be that it is just difficult to find.

I conclude by thanking the Labour party for beating me to it with both amendments, to which I should have added my name and which I fully endorse.

[Graham Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Streeter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West encouraged me to talk about children’s programmes—I was thinking about “Play Away”—and I apologise for not being here earlier. I was observing a NATO training exercise as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.

I rise to talk about retransmission charges, and I will do so briefly because I am conscious of the time. We obviously have a listening Minister who is deeply concerned about these matters, and I hope he will go away and give due consideration to some of the points that have been raised, perhaps coming back with some thoughts of his own and some changes that could improve the Bill. On retransmission charges, repealing section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—the intellectual property rights element—is important and welcome. It will put Virgin on an equal footing with the public service broadcasters in the marketplace of buying and selling channels.

I will return to that second issue and the financial impact in a moment, but I will first highlight an anomaly. Unless there has been a change in the last few days, the Bill does not include satellite channels, which fall under the Communications Act 2003. The Sky platform is exempt from the Bill and will not be liable for retransmission charges, which seems to be a market anomaly—I stand to be corrected by the Minister. We should have a level playing field for everyone. Sky benefits significantly not only from the five public service broadcast channels but from some of the other channels—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West has just mentioned S4C and Alba, among others—and the radio stations. Sky has a huge commercial advantage in not paying for receiving something that is very complementary to its platform. We are applying a principle to Virgin, and the Bill should treat Sky equally.

We demand a lot from public service broadcasters, particularly the BBC, for which we pay a licence fee, and it is only right that the BBC should be able to recover some of that money for the licence fee payer in the commercial marketplace, rather than the service being literally given away to some platform providers. There is obviously a commercial benefit to the Sky platform or, for that matter, any satellite platform that automatically has to deliver PSBs under the 2003 Act. There ought to be something that provides clarity and a level playing field, because without it, Sky has another advantage among the many it already has.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, I quote from the Government’s consultation.

[Calum Kerr]

It is good to see the shadow Minister back in her place. She is making an excellent start to this section of the debate, pulling out many of the key issues. I am afraid that the ministerial team might not like the scrutiny that the process is supposed to provide—and essentially does. The point about transparency is critical and there is a confidential submission that points out that transparency does not prevent people from doing anything; it simply requires them to be accountable for what they do. We have recently seen the case of HMRC outsourcing to Concentrix the ability to collect tax credits. Data from another source were used, and we all know the damage that can be done when that is not done well.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am very aware of the Concentrix case and will come on to it shortly.

On the inclusion of non-public sector authorities and the Government’s intention to strictly define the circumstances and purposes under which data sharing with such organisations will be allowed, their statement of intent was clear. However, only one paragraph in the 101-page draft code mentions non-public sector organisations. That paragraph says that an assessment should be made of any conflicts of interest that the non-public authority may have but it does not give any examples of what those conflicts of interest might look like, so perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that when he responds. It states that a data-sharing agreement should identify whether any unintended risks are involved in disclosing data to the organisation—the risk regarding Concentrix was just highlighted—but the code of practice does not list any examples or set out how specified persons might go about ascertaining those. It also states that non-public authorities can only participate in a data-sharing agreement once their sponsoring public authority has assessed their systems and procedures to be appropriate for the secure handling of data, but it does not give any sense of what conditions they will be measured against or how officials should assess them.

That is not the kind of reassurance that was provided in the Government’s consultation response. Given that these are draft codes, I hope the Minister will take what I have said away and improve them, not least because of the recent scandal relating to the US multinational company, Concentrix, which was contracted by HMRC to investigate tax credit error and fraud. Concentrix sent letters to individuals—mostly working single mothers across the country receiving tax credits—in what was essentially a large-scale phishing exercise. Not only did it get things catastrophically wrong by cancelling benefits that it should not have cancelled and leaving working mothers destitute over many weeks and months in some cases, but it performed serious data breaches in sending multiple letters to the wrong individuals and disclosing personal information.

We have made it very clear that the Bill could have done with considerably more work before it was brought before the House. I understand that the civil servant who wrote part 5 has now left, or is in the verge of leaving, the employ of the civil service, so there is even more reason for us to work cross party and with expert organisations on improving the proposals.

As I have said, public trust in Government handling of data is not strong. Unfortunately, the public have not been given any reason to put their concerns to rest. The recent National Audit Office report, “Protecting information across government”, revealed the prevalence of weak controls on the protection and management of personal information in Government. Any continuation of the existing poor information management identified by the NAO, or the further weakening of cyber-security and data protection implied by part 5, is likely to have negative economic and social impacts.

As the Information Commissioner’s Office commented:

“It is important that any provisions that may increase data sharing inspire confidence in those who will be affected. Our research shows that the public are concerned about who their data is shared with and reflects concerns that they have lost control over how their information is used. Even apparently well-meaning sharing of data such as GP patient records for research purposes can arouse strong opinions.”

This is an important time to strengthen cyber-security and the minimisation and protection of data, which is why it is so important to get this part of the Bill right. A huge prize is on offer, but this has the potential of going the way of the care.data scandal. Frankly, it is astonishing that neither Ministers nor civil servants have learnt their lessons from that very regrettable episode, because there was absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of care.data either; it attempted to achieve exactly the kind of aims as the Bill’s reforms.

The idea was to create a database of medical records showing how individuals have been cared for across the GP and hospital sectors. Researchers believed that the information would be vital in helping them to develop new treatments as well as assessing the performance of NHS services. The records would be pseudo-anonymised, meaning that the identifiable data would be taken out. Indeed, they would just contain the patient’s age range, gender and the area they lived in. However, researchers could apply for the safeguards to be lifted in exceptional circumstances, such as during an epidemic. That would have needed the Health Secretary’s permission.

The concept had the backing of almost the entire medical community, many charities and some of the most influential patient groups. The UK’s leading doctors told us how access to so many NHS records would help them to understand the causes of disease, quickly spot the side effects of new drugs and detect outbreaks of infectious diseases.

The problem with care.data was that the advantages and the principles upon which the data would be shared were simply not communicated by the Government or by NHS England, and so it attracted the criticism of bodies as disparate as the British Medical Association, the privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch and the Association of Medical Research Charities. Such was the botched handling of the publicity surrounding care.data that, by April 2014, the launch was aborted. However, it emerged the following June that nearly 1 million people who had opted out of the database were still having their confidential medical data shared with third parties, because the Health and Social Care Information Centre had not processed their requests.

A review by the National Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, found that care.data had caused the NHS to lose the trust of patients, and recommended a rethink. That prompted the then Life Sciences Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to announce that the scheme was being scrapped altogether, even though £7.5 million had already been spent on constructing a database, printing leaflets, setting up a patient information helpline and researching public attitudes to data sharing.

The Caldicott review established a set of Caldicott principles, with the primary one being that the public as well as the professionals should be involved in data-sharing arrangements. Dame Fiona Caldicott proposed a simple model that gives people the option to opt out of any of their information being used for purposes beyond care. She said:

“We made it slightly more complicated by saying it was worth putting to the public the choice of having two separate groups of information to opt out of – [those being] research and information used for running the health service. If you put all of the possible uses of data currently in the system together and asked people to opt in or out of that, it’s actually asking them to make a choice about a very big collection of information. [People] may want to have the possibility of saying, ‘Yes, I’d like my data to be used for the possibility of research, but I don’t want it to be used for running the health service’.”

She also made it very clear that the benefits of data sharing and what it means need to be communicated clearly to the public, as there is a lot of confusion around how the data are shared.

Absolutely nothing has changed since that disaster and the subsequent review, so it is concerning not to see those basic principles included in the Bill. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to those principles laid out by the National Data Guardian. The public need to be able to trust organisations that handle their data and they need to retain control over those data. Both those things are essential to build confidence and encourage participation in the digital economy. The principles have been debated over the past several years at the European level, and we should be told here and now—today—whether the Government intend to implement the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. If they are, why is the Bill not compliant with it?

The new EU GDPR and the law enforcement directive were adopted in May and will take effect from May 2018. The GDPR includes stronger provisions on: processing only the minimum data needed; consent; requirements on clear privacy notices; explicit requirements for data protection by design and by default; and on carrying out data protection impact assessments.

Although the Government’s arrangements for exiting the European Union have yet to be decided, it seems likely that the GDPR will take effect before the UK leaves, so the Government will have to introduce national level derogations prior to its implementation. If that is the case, there will have to be a thorough consideration of the impact of the new legal framework on all aspects of the Bill affecting data sharing, including implementation arrangements. Indeed, as the Information Commissioner said when giving evidence to the Committee two weeks ago:

“There may be some challenges between the provisions and the GDPR… There would ?be a need to carefully review the provisions of this Bill against the GDPR to ensure that individuals could have the right to be forgotten, for example, so that they could ask for the deletion of certain types of data, as long as that was not integral to a service.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2016; c. 112-13, Q256.]

The GDPR states that data are lawfully processed only if consent has been given by the individual, which is completely lacking in this section of the Bill. It also gives data subjects that right to withdraw consent at any time:

“It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.”

Controllers must inform data subjects of the right to withdraw before consent is given. Once consent is withdrawn, data subjects have the right to have their personal data erased or no longer used for processing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

On the individual point of audit, I will have to write to the hon. Lady. I will further consider her amendments and speak about them when we discuss three-year reviews. I want to ensure that bodies sharing information under the public service delivery power, for instance, strictly observe and follow codes of practice. Although I welcome the intention of the amendments, I think they are unnecessary. The Bill sets out the key conditions for disclosing and using information, including what can be shared by whom and for what purposes. We followed the common approach taken by the Government to set out details of how data are shared in the code of practice.

I want to return to the hon. Lady’s question of whether we use “have regard to” or “comply with”. The wording, “have regard to” already follows common practice in legislation, as illustrated in section 25 of the Immigration Act 2016 and section 77 of the Children and Families Act 2014. As the power covers a range of public authorities and devolved territories we want the flexibility that I mentioned about how the powers are to be operated, so that we can learn what works and adapt the code as necessary. To put it into the Bill, as I mentioned, would hamper that ability to adapt for future purposes. If bodies fail to adhere to the code, the Minister will make regulations that remove their ability to share information under that power, as is indicated, indeed, in part 11 of the code of practice, which states:

“Government departments will expect public authorities wishing to participate in a data sharing arrangement to agree to adhere to the code before data is shared. Failure to have regard to the Code may result in your public authority or organisation being removed from the relevant regulations and losing the ability to disclose, receive and use information under the powers”.

Amendment 106 requires the Minister to run a public consultation for a minimum of 12 weeks before issuing or reissuing a code of practice. The code of practice is essentially a technical document that sets out procedures and best practice with guidance produced by the ICO and Her Majesty’s Government. Clause 35 requires the Minister to consult the Information Commissioner and other persons, as the Minister thinks appropriate. I think that that strikes a good balance. Indeed, as I mentioned, we have been working closely with the ICO to ensure that there is confidence in the codes and the Information Commissioner states:

“I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made since my evidence session and I am content that my main concerns about the codes have now been addressed”.

I think it is very important to put that on record.

[Calum Kerr]

I welcome the Minister to his place. He comes across, to me, as rather bullish now, despite the damning evidence we heard over a very condensed couple of days. Does he think that he has cracked it now, that these codes of practice are all fit for purpose and that we should be sufficiently reassured?

[Chris Skidmore]

The codes of practice remain in draft form and obviously we are in Committee having a discussion around the nature of what is in the codes of practice. We had criticisms last week of, “Where are the codes of practice?” We were still in the process of a conversation about the codes of practice with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that the Information Commissioner was content. If she is content with the codes of practice as they currently stand, I am not one to go against the ICO. I am not saying that that is a form of complacency, although maybe the hon. Gentleman is, but I trust the ICO’s decision and am confident in its ability to deliver on the codes as they currently stand.

[Calum Kerr]

I thank the Minister for that mildly reassuring answer that the codes of practice are a work in progress. We welcome that, but in the spirit of helping improve them, I hope that he will consider some of the feedback from Big Brother Watch, which I thought gave the Committee excellent advice. Although Big Brother Watch recognises that the draft codes published by the UK Statistics Authority on research and statistics are detailed and comprehensive, it says that the draft codes published by the Cabinet Office and the Home Office are the polar opposite, offering very little detail or clarity.

[Chris Skidmore]

The codes are quite extensive in terms of being able to provide the material information that is there. They have gone through an extensive process. Although we had evidence from certain critical witnesses drawn by Opposition Members, there was also significant support for data-sharing measures and the ability to have flexibility through the codes.

As for considering how to go forward, the codes are now published—the hon. Gentleman can read them for himself—and the ICO is now content with the codes. That is a great position from which the Government intend to move forward. In terms of whether the codes are comprehensive, it is set out that the Government have a duty to consult the ICO and territorial Ministers. That is important, and we are following a process and a journey over which the Bill has been developed for a number of years. We are content that we are on track.

I welcome the intention of amendment 99 that only the minimum and necessary information is shared under the power to achieve the objective. The principles are set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. The public service delivery power will need to operate in compliance with the 1998 Act. The principle of data minimisation is also strongly embedded in the code of practice, to which specified persons who use the power must have regard.

In addition, the public service delivery power is intended to act as a more conventional gateway to allow public authorities to share information without the need for central oversight by Whitehall. It is important to reflect on that. Rather than having the dead hand of Whitehall overlooking a measure that should allow for local flexibility and local freedom, we expect a large number of local authorities to use the power to deliver their troubled families programmes. A central monitoring power could impose significant resourcing burdens, which we felt were unnecessary given the intended positive outcomes for citizens. On that basis, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 95 intends to modify the definition of “personal information”. The definition in the Bill is consistent with section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, which relates to the confidentiality of personal information. It has been drafted with that consistency in mind. The amendment proposes a definition that includes a vague group of persons. We believe it unsuitable because of its vagueness, and it risks causing confusion.

Amendment 96 requires that data subjects be allowed to request and correct as necessary personal information relating to them that is disclosed under the public service delivery powers. The amendment is unnecessary because the data subject already has those rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. In addition, the impact of such an amendment on public authorities would be significant. An assessment would need to be made of how many requests could be made to public authorities, and of the resulting resourcing requirements in terms of staff and any supporting technical infrastructure. Work would also need to be carried out to ensure that we can verify the identity of individuals requesting access to data and assess the risk of corrections and modifications to data held being made for the purposes of committing fraud.

I understand the intention of the amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley will understand that the Government believe that progress has been made, as well as provision for ensuring that the sharing of data is proportionate. The regard for individuals’ privacy is central to the Bill and is set out in the code of practice, and the Government have put in place measures to work with the ICO and other civil society groups on that. I urge her to withdraw the amendment.

Digital Economy Bill (Third sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome. I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent. First, I believe that Calum Kerr would like to declare an interest.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I would like to declare that I am a trustee and voluntary director of Advice Direct Scotland, which also operates as Citizens Advice Direct.

Examination of Witnesses

Peter Tutton, Alistair Chisholm and Dr Jerry Fishenden gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Please continue, witnesses. We are running out of time.

Dr Fishenden: I would like to see some precision around what is meant by data sharing. Some earlier drafts from about three years ago reflected much better cyber-security and privacy practice around defining what that meant and how we would make sure it was not slopping people’s personal data around, but just confirming specific pieces of data to enable someone to make a decision or undertake a process.

Alistair Chisholm: It is not enough to say on data sharing powers that the organisation should “have regard to” the code of good practice. It must be stronger than that. We need something in the Bill to make sure that the code of practice is not just a one-page set of high-level principles, but will make a difference. That means some conversations with collecting Departments that might have to be quite robust on occasions. Stronger protection around debt protection practices are needed.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Building on that question, if you are sending Mr Brennan emails, copy me in.

We have seen in this session a number of Members trying to drag out of you the positive benefits of data sharing. I hope we have all bought into the positive benefits, but if that is done in the wrong way, there may be a mess with unintended consequences which could be disastrous for individuals. Dr Fishenden, your exasperation with what is in the Bill is shared by other witnesses. We are faced with whether we can strengthen it in such a way that it is workable, or whether we should just oppose it, despite all the benefits. What is your view on whether it is saveable—clearly there is a desire for this—and can you help us to put in enough guarantees so that there will not be unintended consequences?

[The Chair]

Very quick answers please.

Peter Tutton: There is an opportunity here and we will be very happy to help and to work with all of you to make sure there is benefit from that opportunity.

Dr Fishenden: It is important not to lose the opportunity to do the right thing. My concern is the complete lack of detail and, seriously, how quickly that can be put in the Bill in both legal and technical terms. If we have sight of the codes of practice, there may be elements in them that could be in the Bill itself to help to narrow down and define the scope of what it is talking about and to get those safeguards embedded in primary legislation.

Alistair Chisholm: The way that people in financial difficulties are treated has been transformed in this country since 2008 and the pocket where it has not is the public sector, so please do not miss the opportunity to sort that out. Let us work on good principles. It really can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

Q All our constituents are victims of nuisance calls. Do you think the law as it currently stands is sufficient to protect them? What measures in the Bill do you think will offer enhanced protection, and when we are dealing with companies that are out to drive a coach and horses through the law, what measures do you think we can put in place to provide protection for customers? If I could lead you down a path, at the moment, if you want to lodge a complaint against a company you have to have the phone number and the website address. When I have asked nuisance call companies, “Can I have your phone number; can I have your website address?” guess what? They have neither of those things.

Lindsey Fussell: We absolutely recognise that nuisance calls remain a huge concern to consumers. We estimate that consumers in the UK will receive about 4 billion nuisance calls this year. If I sit, as I have, and listen to calls coming into our contact centre, I know how distressing and frightening some of them can be to consumers.

As I mentioned earlier, the provisions in the Bill relate to the powers of the Information Commissioner, relating particularly to direct marketing calls. That forms a substantial proportion of the concerns that I know consumers have, and it is great to see the Information Commissioner being given more power to enforce against companies that break the rules, including companies that either do not have consent, or have very aged consent, if I can put it that way, for those calls to be made.

Ofcom’s specific interest is in silent and abandoned calls, which can be especially frustrating and frightening for more vulnerable consumers, particularly. We believe that the best way—because of the nature of the companies, as you have been saying, that are now making the majority of the calls—is to encourage more network blocking of those calls before they reach the consumer. That is something that we are making good progress on with a number of companies. You may have seen recent announcements from Vodafone in this space.

We also encourage companies to roll out software—and BT, again, is doing so shortly—free of charge to consumers to give consumers more power to block calls themselves. It is a really difficult problem but we are absolutely not complacent about trying to tackle it.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Perhaps I can bring you on to the universal service obligation. While we are frustrated by the lack of ambition in terms of the speed offers, if designed correctly it need not hold back regions and countries that want to go further. As you design the scheme, could you perhaps reassure me that it will not hinder but help a Government, such as the Scottish Government, who want to aim for 30 megabits and not 10 megabits?

Lindsey Fussell: Absolutely. As you know, our research shows that the current level of 10 megabits per second is suitable for consumers who need to access at least a reasonable level of communication service. Ofcom is supportive of the fact that the level needs to be reviewed over time, and we would expect it to rise. On our specification, as you know we will be providing advice to the UK Government by the end of this year. We will absolutely look at both the nature of that specification and what 10 megabits could mean in different contexts, and also at how we would future-proof that specification so it is able to deliver faster speeds under a USO if required to in future.

[Calum Kerr]

Q I think there are mechanisms, for example voucher schemes—of which BDUK already has some experience—that could provide foundational funding that allows 30 megabits to be the target, rather than settling for 10 megabits. I hope that is something that will be made possible. You talk about a review period for speed. How often do you think the speed should be reviewed?

Lindsey Fussell: To be honest with you, I think it is probably a bit of a trap. The answer is that it is very difficult to tell. I suspect that, if we were all sat here a decade or even five years ago, we would not be talking in the way we are now. Setting a definitive review period will probably feel too short or too long, depending on how technology develops. The Government have placed the power in the Bill to direct us to carry out reviews, and we will obviously do so whenever asked.

[Calum Kerr]

The danger is that we leave it open-ended, we all get busy and it does not happen. Mr Streeter, may I ask one more question?

[The Chair]

One more.

[Calum Kerr]

Q The very good document from the Minister and DCMS gives us a bit more information on the USO and talks about upload, download, latency and capacity. One of the other factors is cost. I get frequent complaints from constituents, as I am sure my colleagues do, that they do not receive a service that, as Ronseal would say, “Does what it says on the tin.” To what extent are you going to go to a granular level and look at the service, and also include cost as a key metric, so people are getting what they pay for or paying for what they get?

Lindsey Fussell: I understand. The Government have made public the letter that has been given to Ofcom and have specifically asked us to look at the cost of different technological solutions. That will clearly give a range of factors to weigh up when the Government decide how to implement the USO. Some of the issues you go to about how the USO will be enforced and how we will measure performance against it are implementation issues that we will have to consider once we know what type of USO we are implementing. It might be worth saying that, to the extent that we designate a universal service provider, either in one or in several areas, we would have the ability to enforce if they do not meet the commitments they signed up to and to provide the appropriate remedy.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Q I have a question for each of the witnesses. Starting with Mr Close, under the Bill, Ofcom will be given quite significant new oversight responsibilities over the BBC. Can you confirm what skills and attributes Ofcom currently has in terms of broadcasting, and are you confident, given this substantial increase in responsibilities, that you will have the skills and resources to do this job in the future?

Tony Close: There are two parts to my answer. I will begin with the specific provisions in the Bill and then talk about skills. The Bill removes some constraints that were placed in the Communications Act 2003 on our ability to regulate the BBC. We already regulate the BBC but we are subject to some constraints. At the moment, for example, we cannot consider the competitive impact of a significant change to the BBC’s website. The Bill removes those constraints so we can discharge the full range of functions that the charter and agreement would give Ofcom.

Are we currently sufficiently skilled to regulate the BBC to a high standard? Absolutely. We have been regulating broadcasting and making complex editorial judgments for the past 13 years, covering 2,000 separate television and radio broadcasters. Do we need more people and more skills to ensure that we do a great job from day one? Yes, and we are doing that at the moment by ensuring that we have the right number of people and the right skill mix.

Digital Economy Bill (First sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The acoustics in the room are terrible. If Members and witnesses could really speak up, that would be very helpful.

Sean Williams: To answer from our perspective, we are willing to enter into a binding legal commitment that we will deliver at least 10 megabit broadband to 100% of premises by the end of 2020. Our objective with this is really to give the Government and Ofcom comfort that we can get on and do this.

I would emphasise that I think that there is a lot of competition, as the Baroness just mentioned. We have Virgin expanding their network, we have Gigaclear and Hyperoptic expanding their network and we have the mobile operators expanding networks that can deliver 10 megabit broadband by 4G. There is a lot of competition to deliver this. For our part, we are willing to undertake to make sure that every single premises can get 10 megabits by the end of 2020.

Baroness Harding: The MP for Devizes raised a very good question. I am a firm believer that competition will do the majority of this, and we should try our damnedest to make the private sector fund most of this through competition, but I think there is a fair chance that in three or four years’ time a number of your constituents will not have broadband that they think is good enough.

I promise that I will not take up the whole session on this, but I think that the solution is to separate Openreach completely and put a universal service obligation on an independent Openreach. Once you have an infrastructure entity that is not owned by one of the retail providers, that takes away a lot of the industry issues with the public subsidy in some shape or form needed to get proper fibre for that final few per cent.

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

Q Given that broadband speeds have doubled in the past three years, and that the pace of demand is accelerating, I find it staggering that we should say to rural constituents, “You are second-class digital citizens and must accept 10 megabits.” How do we bring forward a scheme that ensures that, in areas where they want to go further to ensure that they keep up or even get ahead, the universal service obligation does not peg them at a low speed? How could we design a flexible, regional USO model? Has that been considered by anyone on the panel?

Sean Williams: I do not want to occupy a disproportionate amount of air time here. We think that, by the end of 2020, we will be able to deliver fibre broadband speeds to probably 97% or 98% of households across the whole country, and at least 10 megabits to everybody by then, unilaterally and without any public funding or a USO. That will continue to go on after that as we continue to innovate networks.

We also have a commitment to deliver ultrafast broadband—more than 100 megabits—to 10 million premises, and fibre-to-the-premises deployment to another 2 million premises by 2020. There is going to be an awful lot of network investment, which, by the way, can only happen in an integrated, end-to-end business case.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Mr Williams, do you think that a tactical, on-demand USO only provided by BT can really provide the strategic outcome—a direction toward “gigabit Britain”—that I think we all agree is a matter of when and not if? If we continue to do this in a piecemeal fashion surely all we are going to do is cement the digital divide, rather than close it.

Sean Williams: To get these networks out to as many premises as possible, by as many providers as possible, through competition and commercial market action is exactly the right solution. To get good networks out to everybody, both mobile as well as fixed, it is important that everybody has an incentive to invest. Through competition and commercial investment, we will get to the answer.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Q I welcome the commitment from BT to reach 100% of premises by 2020, but I ask for a point of clarification on language. Mr Williams, you referred in the percentages to “fibre” and, separately, to “fibre to the premises”. Can you confirm that by “fibre” you mean a combination of fibre and copper and that by “fibre to the premises” you mean pure fibre? The use of the term “fibre” reflects statistics that I understand mean fibre to the cabinet, so I find confusing the offer to households being “fibre plus copper”. I would be grateful if you clarified that.

Sean Williams: I am happy to. When I use the term “fibre broadband”, I mean fibre to the cabinet, which is a combination of rolling out fibre further into the network but with copper into the end premises. When I use the term “fibre into the premises” I mean fibre all the way into the building. I apologise for being unclear.

When I say we will deliver fibre broadband, it will largely be, in my view, through a combination of fibre and copper, but we are also very positive about fibre to the premises and typically deploy fibre to the premises in all new building sites and in lots of Broadband Delivery UK areas. We are developing fibre to the premises solutions that are particularly targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises. We have made a commitment that we will get ultrafast broadband speeds, which is both fibre and copper, and also fibre-to-the-premises solutions to 1 million SMEs by 2020. We have heard the prioritisation that the Government have put on getting very good broadband speeds to small and medium-sized enterprises and we have made a commitment we will get that to 1 million of them by 2020 as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

Q I suspect that the Bill is not going to be subject to the most detailed discussion around the country. However, as a question to both of you, having had an opportunity to analyse the Bill, if we were all pitching this to our constituents across the country, what do you see as the key benefits for consumers?

Pete Moorey: The telecoms sector needs to catch up with where consumers are. That is part of what the Bill is trying to do: we need to recognise that people increasingly see their mobile phones and broadband as essential items. Yet we know that customer satisfaction is very low and that people are increasingly frustrated about their inability to get a signal or to get the broadband speed they are paying for.

There are critical things in the Bill that will start to bring the telecoms sector kicking and screaming into the 21st century. For me, those elements include switching—I think it is incredible that we do not have provider-led switching in the telecoms sector. Automatic compensation is very important. With water, electricity and gas, if we lose a connection we get a compensation payment, but that is not the case in telecoms. The appeals process, which we have heard a lot about this morning, has had a chilling effect on the regulator’s ability to introduce measures that would both improve competition in the sector and better protect consumers.

The final area, for us, is nuisance calls, which we know are some of the biggest bugbears that people face—they are sick to death with receiving annoying calls and texts. To put the ICO guidance on nuisance calls into statute is another step towards tackling that everyday menace.

James Legge: Yes, I think that switching and compensation are important: it is important to hold the feet of the telecoms companies to the fire. But there is possibly an opportunity in the legislation to empower the consumer. At the moment, we have a sort of opaqueness around data and provision. We do not have address-level data. If I want to decide where I am going to get my mobile or broadband from, I cannot just put in my address and find out that the company that provides the best service is x. I have to sign up to someone. Then I can test the level of my service through their internet connection as a customer.

If there was more transparency, and if people had the information to hand, they would be able to make better choices. The market would also be more competitive for mobile or broadband providers, because if they do not provide the coverage, they will lose customers. It is no good waiting for someone to sign up and then find out that switching is jolly difficult, so customers say, “Well, I’ll just put up with this and complain”. We do that terribly well.

We should be able to say, “No, sorry. You didn’t tell me this. I didn’t have the data. Your service is appalling. I’m switching, and it is easy.” The level of switching at the moment is extremely low. A previous witness suggested that there was general contentment, which is not my experience.

[Calum Kerr]

Q There has been a lot of discussion in this session about fixing mobile coverage. Do you think that the Bill will achieve that? It comes down to licence obligations. If we want to do it, we need to set the right licence obligations. I accept that you are going to get less money.

On the electronic communications code changes, if we want the measures to be about driving more coverage, should we actually just exclude existing sites—you will have a lot of landowners and we will have local government bodies that will lose a lot of money—and say, “Access will change but, in terms of valuations, let’s exclude existing sites; this is about you going to new sites and doing them more cheaply”?

James Legge: I had thought—if I have understood the question correctly—that the Minister indicated previously to the House that it was not going to be retrospective.

[Calum Kerr]

Q It is not retrospective, so you will not revisit deals. Essentially, when a site comes up for renewal, the valuation of that land will be treated differently, so costs will drop dramatically. My suggestion is that they should be excluded from a valuation perspective, and the old rules apply for valuation.

James Legge: So you keep the old rules at the renewal point for old sites.

[Calum Kerr]

So you will still see some price erosion, but not as much.

James Legge: I would have thought that anything that brings the cost down for the providers when it comes to rolling out and upgrading infrastructure—

[Calum Kerr]

Q This is existing infrastructure.

James Legge: But a lot of it needs upgrading.

[Calum Kerr]

Q They will be allowed to do it, but the rental cost of that land would go down.

James Legge: Well, we would agree with that. If the rental goes down and it costs less to upgrade the infrastructure, that is a good thing from our point of view. Presumably that would be under the newer system, not the older one. My understanding—and this may be wrong—is that the new code values land and access in a slightly different way, and the cost should be less to the person putting the infrastructure in. I had a discussion with the Local Government Association about that issue. The LGA said that it would potentially get slightly less money on public land, but that there are savings at the other end. If, for example, you have more efficient provision of digital government—“digital by default”—there could be savings at the other end. The LGA has a slightly mixed view. Yes, it might lose some income but, ditto, landowners will—

[Calum Kerr]

Okay. I do not think you understood my question, but I will leave it there.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

Q Mr Moorey, let us return to your comments about Which? being hamstrung by a lack of data sharing. Could you give a fuller explanation of that? Will you put on record the views of Which? about the public services delivery power, and the potential benefits that it might bring, particularly to the most vulnerable in society?

Pete Moorey: As I said, we are broadly supportive of the measures in the Bill. We are hamstrung from two perspectives. The first is a service delivery perspective. When we are delivering something such as our Which? elderly care website, we want to have the richest possible data available to help people make decisions. Yet on occasions when we have gone to certain local authority providers or certain care home providers, we have had an inability to gather that data and provide it in a comparable way. There is also the need to get that information in a clear and comparable format so that organisations like us can do that much better. It is something we have worked on a lot over the past few years with regard to universities. We are starting to see some of the data coming through at the kind of level that students want when they are making those choices. Clearly, having such legislation would better allow us to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It was not the last question.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Have you considered whether automatic compensation should be not just for download speed but for upload speed? On the USO, have you put forward proposals on other, more granular levels, such as cost and latency as well as upload and download?

Pete Moorey: Our general view on compensation is that it really should be down to the regulator to set the specific areas that are covered. It needs to do that with consumers, and it needs to be based on consumer expectations. We need to look hard at what the consumer expectations in this world are. If you look at things like water and energy, actually a lot of those compensation levels and what they cover have not been reviewed for some time. We would not want a situation in telecoms where an arbitrary figure of £30 or £40 was set for particular things and then over time that was not addressed.

[Calum Kerr]

Q They are on or off-type services, though, which, to go your point, should do what it says on the tin. There should be a more granular—

Pete Moorey: Absolutely, and it should meet customers’ expectations for that service.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the whole Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

Jeni Tennison and Mike Bracken gave evidence.

Digital Economy Bill (Second sitting)

Calum Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have given the witnesses a good half-hour grilling, so if no one is seeking to catch my eye—yes, Calum?

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

May I move on to intellectual property?

[The Chair]

Fire away, sir.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Thank you. There are some welcome measures in the Bill relating to making the protection of intellectual property online as same as it is offline. I note, though, that there is some concern about search engines and how intellectual property would be policed. What is your view on how that will work? Do there need to be additional powers?

David Austin: To be honest, we do not deal with intellectual property. Our core work is the protection of children, and intellectual property is another issue. We do work with an industry for which the protection of intellectual property is very important, but I am afraid I am not the person to ask.

Alan Wardle: I am not an expert on intellectual property, regrettably.

[The Chair]

Colleagues, are there any other questions for these excellent witnesses? No. In that case, thank you very much indeed, David and Alan, for your evidence. We appreciate it.

Examination of witnesses

Dr Edgar Whitley and Mr Scott Coates gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is known in the trade as a comprehensive reply. Thank you.

[Calum Kerr]

There was a Coates who played for Liverpool. He was from Uruguay, so they called him Co-ah-tez.

Scott Coates: He played against England once.

[Calum Kerr]

Q He will again.

I would like to ask you about the USO, and then I would like to come on to the mobile environment. I have a problem with the USO not just because of the lack of ambition and what 10 megabits means for people living in those areas, but because the tactical low-speed USO will not push fibre a lot further. The lines between wired and wireless are blurring all the time, so would a more ambitious USO with faster speeds help you, in terms of pushing fibre further and putting other infrastructure out there?

Scott Coates: I think it comes down to the cost element. The further out you go with fibre, the more expensive it becomes. Our infrastructure in rural areas tends to be bigger pieces of infrastructure, so quite often there is fibre coming through it or it links to a site that has fibre, and that creates more bandwidth to power the wireless services coming over it. More generally, I would say that the USO is a start. No one is going to be happy with 10 megabits in a few years, but I would say that you need to start somewhere and it needs to be manageable from a cost point of view.

[Calum Kerr]

Q I will not ask you, then, whether the Scottish Government’s policy to have 30 megabits everywhere is more appropriate. I think that everyone is in agreement that the electronic communications code needed to be reformed, and there are some welcome measures in there, but as an independent infrastructure provider, do you honestly think that that will lead to more coverage by mobile providers, or will it simply give them a better bottom line?

Scott Coates: There are certainly measures that will make it easier to get rid of the bottlenecks and faster to resolve disputes. Running cables to connect up mobile sites has been a real challenge, so being able to fix those problems—that is not really about economics; it is about having faster resolution. Some of the pricing elements I do not think will have a material impact in rural areas when the commercial case to invest is not really there for the mobile operators anyway. The only way you can deal with that is through the licences. The new code will help to remove some of the ransom costs that we see in the industry and certainly give us a much more powerful weapon against those, but on a day-to-day basis, we do not expect to be moving towards compulsory-based conversations with our customers. The industry needs to work on a voluntary basis. That is absolutely essential; it is how it works everywhere else in the world. We have busy infrastructure facilities. We are there on average every 12 days. We need to have a good partnership with our land providers. The code is a really helpful and powerful new tool of last resort, but our whole industry needs to maintain a voluntary basis of engaging as our MO for dealing with landowners.

[Calum Kerr]

May I ask two quick follow-ups?

[The Chair]

Very quickly.

[Calum Kerr]

Q Thank you very much. Mr Coates, I thought you gave a great overview of why independent infrastructure is really important. You obviously feel a concern, so is there specific wording that you would like to see in the Bill that we could discuss at the next stage to ensure that you are protected and the value of your assets is not lost?

Scott Coates: Thank you for that question. We have had a really engaging journey with the Minister’s officials. They have been very diligent and transparent in engaging with us all the way through this fairly long process on the communications code. Our concern generally is that there is a fine line between the technical drafting that says that what we do on land is not covered by the communications code, and the risk of a legal challenge that it might be and might have nil or low value. What we have really asked for is as much clarity as can be provided. That will help to enhance the investability of our business. We are in a different place from the mobile operators and some other network providers, because we do not get any economic benefit from our own infrastructure; it is built for other people to use, so we are not a net user of infrastructure.

[Calum Kerr]

Q So that is a, “Yes, if possible, please.” It is okay; do not answer that. You have already answered. My final quick question is this. Although this is not retrospective, is there any case for excluding existing sites, if this is really about building out more network, in terms of the valuation element, given that a lot of those sites are actually on publicly owned land?

Scott Coates: There is certainly a difference in the substance of a transaction when you are approaching a farmer, a sports club, a university or whatever and asking for access to build a new piece of infrastructure where there is new coverage, and you are having that negotiation in the context of a new communications code that has tighter reference points on pricing. You will have more leverage for that conversation. You will still end up, I believe, paying them a rate way in excess of what zero value would be because that is just how you have those conversations, but it will be less than what is paid today, that is for sure, because you have got this new reference point. The substance of that is very different from the substance of a voluntary agreement you entered into with a firm six or seven years ago and that comes up for renewal in two to three years and the infrastructure is already there.

I think it is important that we have a robust set of tools as an industry but, as I mentioned earlier, it is equally if not more important that the industry acts responsibly and avoids behaviour such as forcing situations where they need a new compulsory purchase tool, even though they have already got access today. There is definitely a way of engaging on existing sites that should be a bit different from new sites, as part of a package of trying to maintain the voluntary support of the land and property sector for our industry.

[Matt Hancock]

Q Could you set out in more detail—you have already gone into this a bit—about what you mean when you say that the code should include land owned by the infrastructure providers but not the apparatus, and the distinction there in the written evidence?

Scott Coates: It comes back to this. Under UK property law, anything that affixes to land could be considered land. At the moment, the code effectively is to regulate land coming into the telecom sector, not to regulate the relationships between telecoms companies. It carves out from land the apparatus.

I am advised that there is a risk of ambiguity. That is probably the best way I could describe it. It may be challenged down the line. This is an evolving and dynamic industry where we don’t exactly know the physical things we are going to be deploying in future. There is a risk that some of the things we do might receive a challenge that it is land not apparatus. I do not know.

Is a new runway at Heathrow infrastructure or land because it sits on top of land? Is the national grid transmission network an infrastructure asset or land because it sits on land? It is a fairly technical point. Like all these things, once the lawyers are running around looking at them, they will find concerns.

All we are saying is that we invest over 20 to 30-year horizons. The more clarity that can be provided is helpful. We acknowledge and clearly appreciate the intent behind Government policy to protect investment and passive infrastructure but more clarity around that will only help the investability of what we do.