Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s clear statement of policy that foreign states should not be allowed to take over press and media in this country, which is a welcome development. I hope that in the proposals for amending the law it will be clear that the policy relates not only to Governments but to nationalised industries, public authorities or companies in which states have significant influence because of their shareholdings. If that is not set out, such bodies may try to find ways around the law. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is up to that, but can we please have an amendment that absolutely nails press freedom in the way we want it to exist—free of influence from foreign states?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s points. When we bring forward legislation, it is important that it does not have loopholes. As a Department, we thought very carefully about how we can protect against that. When the Bill comes back to this House this afternoon, he will see that we have defined foreign state ownership very broadly. We have extended the definition to include not only ownership but control and influence.

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

That point has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We have tools for these kinds of acquisitions, as can be seen in the public interest intervention notices that we have imposed in this case. I reassure Members that we are not totally naked on this question; there are tools, under the Enterprise Act, that allow us to look into it. I am sure that once the process is over, we will be able to look back and say whether any further action or intervention is required.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As owners expect to have influence over editors and the editorial line, why do we not have a policy of ruling out all Government ownership of such organisations, which would make it much simpler?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that simple point. It is one that I am sure will be considered once this case has passed.

Channel 4 Privatisation

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes some excellent points, some of which I will turn to later in my speech.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Lady see the opportunity that could be provided by a new private owner or owners, who could contribute a lot of new ideas, innovation and extra money to transform the channel for the better? Why is she always so pessimistic about any new idea?

[Lucy Powell]

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that large American media companies are more innovative than small, British-made institutions such as Channel 4, which has been innovating for the 30 or 40 years since Margaret Thatcher invented it. He might want to rethink his point. We are not known for the blander, more mainstream content that would come from the sell-off. That is not how our success has been built. Creativity means actually being creative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

Let’s do a shout-out for Channel 4. “Derry Girls”, “First Dates”, “Gogglebox”—there are so many fantastic programmes that Channel 4 produces. That is not in doubt and not in question. I would, however, suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the “Up next” broadcasting White Paper, because in it we state clearly that carrying and making that distinctive content is a part of what we want to carry forward with Channel 4—distinctive British content, which is what “Derry Girls” is and what much of what Channel 4 makes is. That is in the White Paper, and I suggest he reads it.

[John Redwood]

Many fine British businesses have grown, flourished and invested far more once being privatised, and I hope that this one will too. But will the Secretary of State see, during the privatisation, whether there is a way of allowing the people who work for Channel 4 and do so much for it to gain participation, perhaps partly by buying and partly by gift, so that they become shareholders in whatever entity emerges?

[Ms Dorries]

I will go on to talk about the fact that we have many bidders who are looking at purchasing Channel 4, and we are looking at all options before we bring the matter to Parliament to see what is on the table. But for the sale of Channel 4, as it says in the “Up next” White Paper, what we are looking at is to sell Channel 4 as a PSB. Therefore, I do not think the model that my right hon. Friend outlines briefly would be conducive to that sort of purchase. We are going to sell to an organisation that will invest in Channel 4 and keep it able to make those distinctive programmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Dorries]

I could not agree more. Labour may not like to hear it, its refusal to even engage with the profound changes in the broadcast landscape is further evidence that it does not have a serious plan for broadcasting. If it really wants to protect Channel 4 and to protect the wider broadcasting ecosystem, it is not enough to consider only Channel 4’s current success.

[John Redwood]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Opposition think that they know better than the audience what Channel 4 should show every evening? Is it not a good idea that we move to a model where the owners engage with the audience and try to grow the audience, because that way they will attract more revenue?

[Ms Dorries]

We agree on many things, and we agree on that.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

It is a pleasure to be making such good progress on this Bill, which seeks to deliver world-class connectivity to our constituents and to improve the security of the devices that we all rely on. I will start by explaining the need for the Government amendments tabled in the name of the Secretary of State, as those amendments are relatively straightforward. I will then move on to the more substantial matter of the remaining amendments, which I suspect right hon. and hon. Members are keener to discuss.

Beginning with new clause 1, as I explained on Second Reading, some operators with apparatus on land are currently unable to follow an existing statutory process to renew their agreement once it comes to an end. These operators also cannot use the code to get an entirely new agreement, because only the occupier of land can grant code rights. An operator already occupying land clearly cannot enter into an agreement with itself. Clause 57 was intended to ensure that operators could obtain code rights from another party in these circumstances, but subsequent engagement with stakeholders has made it clear that the clause as drafted would not cover all scenarios and that a more focused approach is required. Some operators would still find themselves effectively stuck once their agreements ended, with no means of renewing their agreement and no reasonable or practical means of obtaining a new code agreement. This can have negative consequences for consumers, and as such it is unacceptable. New clause 1 therefore replaces clause 57.

The new clause will ensure that all operators in exclusive occupation of land who do not have a statutory renewal option can still seek a code agreement. The person who can grant those code rights will usually be the owner of the land, although the new drafting makes provision for less straightforward situations. As well as resolving the problem of “stuck” operators, new clause 1 also assists operators with an existing, ongoing agreement. Where such operators need additional code rights that are not already provided by their current agreement, the new clause ensures they can seek such rights. Currently, some such operators are unable to do so because they are in occupation of the land.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that operators still need to get the agreement of the landowner or someone else who is empowered to grant that right, so that there is no muddle or confusion?

[Julia Lopez]

Yes. They will be allowed to take out a new agreements, but they still have to be under the existing regime.

To be clear, this will not let an operator unilaterally change, or ask the court to impose a change to, the terms or duration of their current agreement. It allows an additional code right to be conferred on the operator via a new, separate code agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the great work of KCOM and the importance of competition and how it is driving roll-out. It is changing the dynamic in the market, very much for the better. I am mindful of how we drive extra competitiveness in this field, because that is what is getting us the roll-out and the digital connectivity that our constituents need and demand.

Amendments 14 to 17 are, I think, identical to the proposals tabled in Committee. As I explained then, upgrading and sharing electronic communications apparatus offers substantial benefits. We specifically recognised that in our 2017 reforms and in the new upgrading and sharing rights that clauses 59 and 60 will create. However, as I also explained, any legislation concerning work affecting private land has to take careful care to strike the right balance between public benefit and individual rights. The automatic rights introduced in 2017 were developed to maintain that balance.

Even more careful consideration is needed for legislation that applies retrospectively. It is for that reason that clauses 59 and 60, which have retrospective effect, include tighter restrictions on the rights they confer on operators. Under those clauses, operators will have automatic rights to carry out only limited activities that will not have adverse impacts on the land in question or impose any burden on anyone with an interest in the land. However, conferring these rights will facilitate activities such as crucial upgrading work on cables installed underneath land. Industry stakeholders have confirmed that this has significant potential to provide homes and communities with gigabit-capable connections at pace. The public benefits are therefore substantial, with little to no impact on private individuals.

Further expanding these retrospective measures, as proposed by the amendments, would require us to revisit two fundamental points: first, what would the public benefit be, and, secondly, what would the impact be on individual landowners’ rights? We have considered that carefully, and we do not think that the case has been made for the changes that the amendments propose.

Looking first at the impact on landowners’ rights, if apparatus can be upgraded or shared without material alteration to land or property—for example, if works are carried out solely on or within apparatus, such as a duct—impact on the land can be negligible. Upgrading equipment in a building almost always involves some direct impact, however small, on the building. We think that works that have an impact on property should require either agreement from the landlord or imposition by the courts through the processes provided for in the code.

In any event, if an automatic right of the kind envisaged was introduced, operators would still have to successfully engage with the landlords for logistical purposes, such as to arrange access to the property or to discuss any potential health and safety issues or need for repairs. If these conversations must take place, and we think that they should, it seems sensible that the operator should at the same time ask permission to carry out the works. That brings us again to the question of whether the expanded automatic rights, as proposed by the amendments, would be proportionate. There are other ways that operators can upgrade equipment in multi-dwelling units. They can already ask for the rights to do so, and measures are being introduced that will enable them to resolve matters quickly and cheaply.

Finally, what of the public benefit? Members made the point in Committee that residents in blocks of flats urgently need gigabit-capable connections, particularly if we are to meet our levelling-up ambitions in urban areas, as well as in rural communities. I have explained that the code already contains provisions that would enable operators to seek rights to upgrade apparatus in buildings. In contrast, an automatic right could have adverse impacts that have perhaps not been fully explored. Members suggest that there is consensus in industry that these changes are needed, but that is not the case. I have received direct representations from many fibre providers that strongly oppose these proposals. They say that the proposals would create an unfair advantage for operators with equipment inside buildings, with potentially anti-competitive effects.

I hope that gives the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch assurance that the provisions in the Bill on retrospective rights to upgrade and share represent a balanced approach, and that there are substantial measures in place and under way to connect residents of multi-dwelling units. I therefore hope that she will not press her amendments to a Division.

Finally, I will address the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). First, amendments 12 and 13 seek to remove clauses 61 and 62 from the Bill. This is another matter that I am familiar with. Indeed, as I suggested in response to an intervention, I have had conversations with him and other hon. Members about particular cases, as well as with the campaign group that represents landowners on the issue.

The Government recognise that, since 2017, there have been problems between some landowners and telecoms operators, and a level of discontent about the result of the valuation regime change, but we want to bring that regime more in line with that of other utilities, and we believe there are significant benefits to doing so. I must say that I have found little evidence in recent weeks and months to suggest that the regime requires a radical overhaul.

I have encouraged more collaborative discussions between operators and landowners. I have looked into specific cases, and concluded that the measures that we are introducing to encourage more collaborative negotiations will help to tackle many of the problems that I have seen. Significant information about cases has not always been forthcoming when asked for, but if hon. Members would like to discuss constituency cases, I am always happy to receive the details. Fundamentally, we need a legislative framework that keeps costs low, so that we can encourage investment and protect consumers from price increases. The code valuation framework to calculate the sums payable to landowners by operators, which was introduced in 2017, aimed to achieve that. We maintain that the overall framework creates the right balance between the public need for fantastic digital infrastructure and making sure that landowners receive a fair payment for allowing their land to be used. The purpose of clauses 61 and 62 is to make sure that the valuation framework applies consistently across the UK and to all agreements the code applies to.

[John Redwood]

I certainly support the Minister in the belief that the more competitive the industry, the better the results that we will get. Has she had representations from people who would like to enter the market about whether the change would make them more likely to do so?

[Julia Lopez]

Most of the people I have spoken to are already in the market and believe that the change will make a big difference to how they roll out. It is a very competitive market with many new entrants. I am not aware of anybody who is just dipping their toe in the water; because it is so competitive, people are already aggressively in the market. We think that the change will really help to accelerate the roll-out to our constituents of fantastic digital infrastructure of the kind that we all understand is fundamental to driving productivity gains, and to reducing the divide between areas that do and do not have that connectivity.

From the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West on Second Reading, I understand that his concern relates to the effect of clauses 61 and 62 on landowners who already host telecoms apparatus on their land. I recognise that, ultimately, these changes are likely to lead to reductions in the rent received by landowners with a tenancy protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. I appreciate that that might not have been expected by those entering into such tenancies at the time they were created, but it is also fair to say that market values change over time, and there is never any guarantee that rents received by a landlord will remain constant or increase.

We have also given careful consideration to the effect of clauses 61 and 62, and have balanced the impact that they might have on landowners with the wider, substantial public benefits that we are pursuing. It is also important to recognise that the changes will not happen until any ongoing agreement expires and comes to be renewed. Furthermore, clauses 63 and 64 introduce separate provisions allowing the landowner to recover compensation for any damage to their land, reduction in its value or reasonable expenses resulting from an operator exercising their code rights.

Clauses 61 to 64 ensure that the 2017 framework will apply to all future agreements. It must be remembered that the code has an underlying purpose, which is to support the delivery of robust digital networks. Our constituents increasingly rely on those networks for critical digital services. Only recently, the National Farmers Union’s digital technology survey found that poor mobile signal and unreliable internet access are hampering farming businesses. We know that rural connectivity is a problem for many organisations, and addressing it is one of our priorities as a Government. The Bill, including clauses 61 and 62, aims to address those issues.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend had only noble intentions when tabling his amendments, but although they may benefit some landowners, they have the potential to penalise entire communities by keeping network costs unacceptably high. Clauses 61 and 62 will help to reduce the digital divide between different parts of the country, as they will help to prevent deployment being cheaper in one area than another.

Finally, I turn to amendments 9 to 11 tabled by my right hon. Friend, which would require a party to use alternative dispute resolution processes before making certain applications to a court under the electronic communications code, including where an agreement granting rights under the code is being sought. The provisions on ADR processes in the Bill aim to create more collaborative discussions between landowners and telecoms operators to ensure that litigation is used only as a last resort. I suspect that that is what the amendments seek to ensure as well. Although I sympathise with the intention behind these amendments, the Government oppose them—first, because they are unnecessary; secondly, because ADR is not appropriate in every situation; and thirdly, because they would be counterproductive to the amendments’ overall intentions.

The Bill requires operators, when requesting rights under the code, to inform the landowners of the availability of ADR. Crucially, it also creates a requirement that if an application is made to a court, the court will be required to take into account any unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR when awarding costs. Those requirements strongly incentivise the use of ADR without the need to make it mandatory. The Government therefore believe the amendments to be unnecessary.

It is also important to note that ADR may not be suitable in certain cases, such as where a disagreement is based on differing interpretations of the law. Such points of law must be resolved in the courts, and mandatory ADR would add cost and time to that process without offering any benefit.

The Government also believe that the amendments would be counterproductive to their own goals. If ADR were compulsory, some parties would be compelled to participate in an ADR process they do not want to be involved in, and so would be less inclined to actively engage in the process. That would increase the risk that ADR would fail, which would mean that parties would have to go to court anyway. If that were the case, all that compulsory ADR would have achieved is to add an additional layer of time and costs for landowners, such as charities, sports clubs and farmers. It should also be noted that, when consulted, a clear majority of stakeholders were not in favour of compulsory ADR. I hope that I have given my right hon. Friend assurance that the provisions regarding ADR in the Bill already represent the most effective way of encouraging its use, and I hope that he will not press his amendments to a Division.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I am coming to the first point raised by the hon. Member. On his second point, which was about rebalancing, I am afraid that he is probably going to be disappointed.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome massive private-led investment in proper broadband, which is what we all need. Could the Secretary of State give guidance to the companies doing it that it is not helpful if they bury cables under main roads, requiring the roads to be dug up again every time they want to improve or mend a cable? Could we not do better, either in ducts or by the side of the road?

[Ms Dorries]

An interesting point. I will certainly take that back to BDUK, Openreach and others. We need to ensure that the legal framework underpinning our digital infrastructure encourages and enables the deployment of the latest networks. In 2017, we made changes to that legal framework. Implementing reforms to the electronic communications code—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake)—requires installation agreements between landowners and telecom operators. The aim was to make it easier for digital networks to be installed, maintained and upgraded, and now we will go even further. The Bill will update the electronic communications code to deliver on the Government’s ambitions for digital connectivity and levelling up. Specifically, it will do three things: make the most of existing infrastructure; encourage stronger and more collaborative relationships between telecom operators and site providers; and build on previous measures to tackle the issue of non-responsive landowners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

Oh, no Stalinist. I am someone who believes that there should be a fair valuation, and a fair and balanced approach taken to those who put masts on their land in good faith, expecting that income to come in the future. I will say more on that shortly.

We support the measures in part 1. Smart devices have increasingly become targets for fraud, surveillance and other forms of cyber-attack. We have some concerns that these measures have not come sooner and do not go further. In 2016, the Government promised that

“the majority of online products and services coming into use”

would be

“’secure by default’ by 2021”.

Why are the Government only just bringing this legislation in, given that previous commitment? These requirements should and could have been mandatory from the start, as opposed to our spending four years with a voluntary code. I have real concerns that we are always behind the technology curve. These devices are already being used in ways beyond the scope of this Bill—for example, by stalkers and abusive partners in tracking those they are abusing, as well as in fraud and criminal activity. There is nothing in this Bill about that, let alone measures to address new waves of technology that are already making their way into people’s homes and lives, such as virtual reality.

Moving to part 2, our main concern with this Bill is that it is likely to slow down, rather than speed up, the broadband and 5G roll-out.

[John Redwood]

I was very interested in the hon. Lady’s comment about virtual reality. Does she think we need to change the legislation now to deal with the metaverse, which is meant to be a great opportunity of bringing together various technologies in something new?

[Lucy Powell]

I do. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the metaverse; we are constantly considerably behind the curve on legislating for the regulation of some of these issues, and of course that will not even be covered by the forthcoming Online Safety Bill either. The pandemic has demonstrated more than ever the importance of broadband to our prosperity, but the Government’s failure to deliver the roll-out is hampering creative industries, businesses and those attempting to work from home.

The Government have consistently rolled back on their commitments. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Prime Minister originally promised full-fibre broadband to every household by 2025. He then downgraded that pledge to universal gigabit-capable broadband to every home. The commitment is now that at least 85% of UK premises will have access to gigabit broadband by 2025. That is downgrade after downgrade, which sells our capacity short.

The National Audit Office expressed serious reservations that even the watered-down target would be met. The main barrier is the Government-funded roll-out to harder-to-reach areas. The unequal roll-out of next generation gigabit broadband will mean that the same households that do not have superfast or, in many cases, as we have already heard, any functioning broadband at all, will continue to fall behind—for years, if not decades, to come. As the Public Accounts Committee said last week, the Government have no detailed plan in place for reaching communities where it is not commercially viable to do so, and there is little in the Bill to address that key issue.

The Bill does make further changes to the electronic communications code, which governs the agreements between telecoms companies and the landowners who host their masts. The code was last updated as recently as 2017, but those changes have not had the desired effect of speeding up roll-out.

Despite promises that rent would not reduce by more than 40%, many community sports grounds, churches and local authorities that host phone masts have had their rents cut by up to 90% or even 95% in some of the cases that we have already heard about today. That will be further exacerbated by the Bill, which hands more power to the telecoms companies in court and disincentivises people from coming forward to have phone masts put on their land in the first place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) looks like he is itching to come in on that point.

BBC Funding

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee to take the pressure off magistrates courts? Should this not be a household bill like any other?

[Ms Dorries]

That is something we are keeping under review. In today’s age, should we really continue with a licence fee paid by individuals with the potential threat of bailiffs or criminal prosecution? That is an important question and it will be part of the discussion.

BBC: Dyson Report

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

How can someone who supports Brexit, believes in the Union and loves England be persuaded that the BBC’s view of public service broadcasting will in future be fair to their views? In future, will the BBC allow the majority on these issues more voice and less denigration?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I can answer my right hon. Friend by saying that I am one of the people he has described precisely, in all three of those measures, and I, too, have occasionally been concerned at what appeared to be a lack of impartiality in the BBC on some of those issues. That is something that has been, I think, felt by a large number of people. It is the job of the BBC—as I say, it is the first public purpose of the BBC—to deliver impartiality. I know that that is something that the leadership of the BBC which is now in place is absolutely committed to, but it will be examining ways in which that can be strengthened where necessary.

UK Telecommunications

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the D10 alliance, which was proposed not by the UK Government but, I believe, by the Atlantic Forum. We are working with all the D10 countries on this, and with Japan, South Korea and others, where we have a lot of interest in that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

There could be offsets to the delay and cost if, as a result of this, we design and manufacture many more of the components we need here at home. What exactly can the Government do to make that more likely to create jobs and technology?

[Oliver Dowden]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the point, which is the opportunity created by open RAN technology. It will take a very long time, were the UK minded to do so, to create a new mobile vendor like Ericsson, Nokia or indeed Huawei, but with open RAN we can get UK technologies into the provision of telecoms infrastructure, and that can sit alongside contributions from other like-minded countries around the world. That is how we will create jobs and provide a long-lasting solution.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah]

I wish to make some progress, but I will be happy to give way in a while.

What the Prime Minister promised was full fibre by 2025. Then he downgraded that pledge to universal “gigabit-capable” broadband, and then, in the Queen’s Speech, the pledge was watered down further to “accelerating the roll-out” of gigabit-capable broadband. I am pleased that, in this Bill, the Government appear to be acknowledging the limitations of a market free-for-all and now propose a number of minor measures to ease infrastructure build-out by giving operators more power to access apartment blocks when requested by tenants.

This is a mediocre Bill. On Second Reading, the Minister spoke of

“taking the first hammer blow to the barriers preventing the deployment of gigabit connectivity.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 358.]

This is not a hammer; it is not even a toy hammer. It is like one of those sponge hammers that may make you feel better, but actually does nothing at all. This Bill does not go far enough in solving the problems brought about by a wasted decade in which the Tories allowed the re-monopolisation of broadband infrastructure and failed to take advantage of the world-leading position left by the last Labour Government. If the Government genuinely believe in the levelling up of the UK’s broadband, the Prime Minister has to do far, far more than this.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Could the hon. Lady give the House some guidance on the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the three different versions of something that looks similar in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? I would like to understand why the Opposition are taking a different line from that of my right hon. Friend, and what that amounts to.

[Chi Onwurah]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was about to make in my speech, and I will clarify the differences.

Despite the lack of ambition in this Bill, we will not be opposing it. The Government are taking baby steps when it comes to digital infrastructure, but we will not stand in their way. Indeed, we will help them. We will be pushing a set of practical amendments in line with the Government’s stated intentions on tenants’ rights, competition and excluding high-risk vendors from UK telecommunications networks in the absence of the management and mitigation plans that we have been promised. There is also an important amendment on cyber-security education.

Amendment 2 expands the definition of persons who can request an operator to provide an electronic communications service to include rental tenants and other legal occupants who may not own the lease to the property that they occupy. Although the Bill’s explanatory notes and comments from the Minister suggest that tenants can make the request, the Bill itself does not make that clear, referring to them as lessees. Many tenants are desperate for gigabit broadband to enable them to work from home or grow their business. What if the landlord is difficult to reach or indifferent to their situation? Should not the person who actually lives in the building have some rights?

I will not try your patience, Mr Speaker, by expounding at length on the dire state of both home ownership and leasehold—or fleecehold as it is more properly known. The Government could end the misery of millions if they took on the large landowners and followed Labour’s commitment to end leasehold altogether. The system is broken, and that is one reason home ownership rates among young people are a third lower than they were in the early noughties. There are 4.5 million households in the private rented sector. We know also that tenants can easily find themselves in precarious and insecure circumstances through no fault of their own, or even with nowhere to live as a result of a section 21 notice. We therefore have a large proportion of our population condemned to renting for life, but with few rights and less certainty. Although the Government seem unwilling to address the housing crisis, they could, at the very least, ensure that tenants benefit from this legislation, and that is what our amendment seeks to do.

Much of the publicity around today’s debate relates to amendments 1 and 4, which seek to limit or prevent operators with high-risk vendors in their networks from taking advantages of the provisions of this Bill. Mr Speaker, as this is an issue of national security, I do hope that you will forgive me if I take quite some time to discuss these amendments.

My first job when I left Imperial College was with Nortel, a Canadian world leader in the then emerging telecommunications sector. If someone had said to me that a couple of decades later we would be incapable of building a European telecoms network without a Chinese vendor, I would have been astonished. Essentially, though, that was the Government’s position when they confirmed that Huawei would be allowed to participate in the UK’s 5G network, despite national security concerns. Huawei is bound by China’s National Intelligence Law 2017 to

“support, co-operate and collaborate in national intelligence work.”

We are not Sinophobes or Chinese conspiracy theorists. We do not believe that trade and cultural exchange with China are a bad thing, as some have suggested. There are also many great people working for Huawei in this country dedicated to improving our national infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We have looked at the past, we are where we are and now we look to the future. That suggests that we will become completely and utterly in thrall to providers that we cannot possibly trust. That is a big security risk, and it is a statement of absence of thought by any Government. If defence of the realm is our No. 1 priority, this becomes demi-defence of the realm, and I am simply not prepared to put up with that.

[John Redwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting and leading on this crucial issue; I fully support him. Will he confirm that there is technology outside China that would do this job perfectly well?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend raises that point, which I was going to come to. He is right. There has been a whispered suggestion to many of my colleagues and, I am sure, others—I do not mean that anyone has set out with malicious intent, but with practical intent, I suspect, to head off any would-be vote in the wrong direction—that we have to use Huawei because there is no other way of doing this, but that is simply untrue. Yes, there were 12 companies once upon a time and they are much reduced in number now, but I am aware of at least three that have been involved in 5G development or are capable of doing 5G development in what I call the free market world, with all of us, and they are Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung. In fact, Samsung has been involved in the South Korean 5G network anyway, and every one of them says, “We can do this.” The question then is that this will add cost, but I am sorry to say that, in reality, when it comes to security versus cost, my view is that security wins every single time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

Not only are they greatly exaggerated, it is utterly untrue that there is a link between the two. My hon. Friend has made the case perfectly clearly that the Chinese knew that the Australians were ruling out Huawei involvement yet they still trade with Australia, so the argument in this debate is a red herring entirely. This is an issue about national security. Also, in terms of trading and China, we have not yet resolved issues such as dumping, illegal subsidy and intellectual property theft—and that is before we take into account the 2017 national intelligence law.

[John Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the important talks between the US and China, the issue of intellectual property theft and the legitimate defence of western technology was absolutely central and the US got guarantees in that deal which we still do not have?

[Dr Fox]

That was absolutely central, as my right hon. Friend says; whether the guarantees will turn out to be enforceable is a separate issue, however, and that of course points to some of the issues the United States has about Chinese membership of the World Trade Organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

The National Security Council looked at that. The National Cyber Security Centre advised on it, working with GCHQ. We took that analysis of the risk. That was then assessed by Ministers through the National Security Council, who weighed up that risk. The Government took the decision that we should have a cap of 35% for high-risk vendors—principally, Huawei—and we would then seek to diversify and reduce that. We are clear in that commitment: we want to diversify away from Huawei. What we are setting out today is the process for achieving that, and that is, first of all, about ensuring that we get the capacity there in the first place.

[John Redwood]

Why is there no sense of urgency about getting the alternative capacity in? This is not a unique technology to the Chinese company. These are potentially massive orders. Put it out to bidding and see what is out there.

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a huge sense of urgency in this. That is why we are committed to working with our Five Eyes partners to make sure that, for the first time, we set out a timetable to say that within this Parliament, we will get the capacity, so that we can then ensure that we will start to move away from our reliance on high-risk vendors. It is already capped at 35%. We want to get to a position where we do not need to rely on them at all. This is the important first step and it is about assuring the House that we are on the path towards diversification.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson]

I certainly do agree with the hon. Gentleman: I think that he is absolutely right. One of the peculiarities of the Government’s position, from our perspective, is that they are prepared to invest billions in fighting 20th-century battles—renewing Trident, for instance—while opening their arms to 21st-century threats to cyber-security. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, countering those threats would require serious investment in and protection of native companies, which would involve a long, hard look at China’s enthusiasm for the acquisition of small engineering companies that have valuable intellectual property in this country.

I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I will vote for it if there is a Division. I think that I should now cut my time short, as I am beginning to sound like a 1930s jazz singer. I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central is very keen on those.

[John Redwood]

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends, who have made a strong and cogent case based on national security. As they have argued, there are some absolutes in national security. There are occasions when a risk is such that whatever the commercial or other considerations might be, it is important for that to be put first.

However, I wish to add to their argument. I do not think the commercial and economic situation in the medium term is any different from the national security situation. Indeed, I argue in defence matters and these wider matters that our country cannot say it is secure if it does not have control of the crucial technologies it may need to defend itself and protect itself. Nor can we say that our country is secure—an island trading nation—if we are dependent on countries and suppliers in other parts of the world who may in some future disagreement or, heaven forfend, some conflict no longer be willing to supply us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly refers to our national security being dependent on our allies. Some of our best allies are old friends such as Australia and New Zealand. Surely it is deplorable that any move we make could damage that relationship.

[John Redwood]

I agree. I have supported my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have not wished to bore the House by repeating all their excellent arguments, but of course the fact that the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all of one view does matter. I happen to think they are right, but even if they are wrong, sometimes we have to go along with wrong thoughts by our allies and friends—I know that only too well, trying to live in the Conservative party—in order to make things work. There has to be give and take, and I am sure that any other political party with an honest MP would agree that it has exactly the same issues. Before Labour Members get too conceited, I have to say that I have noticed even more extreme issues in the Labour party. It is important that there is give and take.

I happen to think our allies are right, but I want to stress the wider point that in this vision of a more prosperous Britain, we are going to have more skilled people. That must mean we have a bigger role to play in the technologies of today and tomorrow, and those are surely the crucially important digital and data communications technologies. I repeat my challenge to the Minister. We have heard from people who know about these things that this technology already exists among our allies and in safe countries today, so we have an opportunity to buy from them.

The Government and the commercial sector in the United Kingdom are about to commit enormous resource into putting 5G into our country. This is going to be a massive investment programme, and in this situation, money talks. I have no idea who will win the competitions. I do not have preferred vendors that I want to win the competitions, but I do know that I do not want high-risk vendors winning them. Surely this new Government, wanting to level up and wanting to strengthen technology and training, can use this commercial money and state money to better effect. Let us bring forth those providers now and get rid of those high-risk providers as soon as possible.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I think we all share some concerns that the Government seemed to be more amenable to moving their position last week than they are this week. At the end of the debate last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who kindly responded to us, said that

“we will work to move towards no involvement of high-risk vendors”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 299WH.]

in our system. I am unsure whether the Secretary of State has said the same thing today, and we would all be grateful if he clarified whether that statement made by the Minister is still a live statement or whether he is effectively rowing back from what the Minister said.

I speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) because I believe that high-risk vendors should not be in our critical national infrastructure. This is for reasons of national security, which have been eloquently put, as well as for a whole host of other reasons, including human rights, data privacy, the rule of law and economic competition—a critical one just mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).

One of the most concerning elements of this entire sorry saga has been the litany of questionable claims. One of the problems of being a new Member—I speak in part to the good people behind me—is that we want to trust Ministers and although I hold these Ministers in high regard, I believe they have unfortunately been handed a poisoned chalice. There has been a great deal of misinformation in the past—none of which they are responsible for—but it is worth putting this on record with as many sources as possible, so that we can be absolutely clear what the argument is about.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about Huawei being a private firm, because that is one of the claims that it has made. Sir Andrew Cahn described Huawei as being

“the John Lewis of China”,

and, frankly, I treat that description with the derision it deserves. The academic Chris Balding has made a study of the ownership structure of Huawei, and he has stated:

“Technically, the firm known as Huawei is Huawei Technologies. Huawei Technologies is 99% owned by Huawei Investment Holdings.”

He went on to say that Huawei Investment Holdings was a vehicle of the Chinese trade unions. Chinese trade unions are a public or mass organisation. Public organisations do not have shareholders. An example of a public organisation in China is the Communist Youth League. So, despite the laughable claims in this country and elsewhere that Huawei is a private company—and it is trying to sue people in France who are claiming the same thing, let it be known—Huawei has the same relationship to the Chinese state as the Communist Youth League.

Can Huawei be safely limited to the periphery of 5G networks? The core versus periphery argument has been well laid out by Opposition Members. The Australian Signals Directorate says that

“the distinction between core and edge collapses in 5G networks. That means that a potential threat anywhere in the network will be a threat to the whole network.”

I have been talking to Dr Ian Levy and other good, knowledgeable people from the NCSC. They dispute some of this, and they try to provide technical analysis, while that is not correct. I note what the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo says, on the advice of the National Security Agency. He says:

“Because 5G networks are largely software-defined, updates pushed to the network by the manufacturer can radically change how they operate.”

So if a network is run by an untrusted vendor, that vendor can change what the network can do quite easily using software updates.

Shared Rural Network

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

That is very true.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, which is that honesty about the coverage being offered is very important. There is nothing more frustrating for people than being told that they have coverage—or it even looking like they have coverage on their phone—but they still cannot make a call. I am concerned to hear how EE handled that particular attack. I hope that Members right across the House will always know that, if they have problems such as that, they should contact me, the Ministers involved, or the Department so that we can follow it up on their behalf.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How and when will my constituents in west Berkshire and Wokingham be able to get an advantage out of this excellent initiative? Will they need to do anything?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, they will not need to do anything. They will see the roll-out. Near, if not in, his constituency is, of course, a significant office of Vodafone, and we are grateful that it is part of these arrangements.