Media Bill

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 25.

[Julia Lopez]

It was a proud moment to be in this Chamber—a moment of justice—as the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill passed its final stages. Coupling that with the return yesterday of our hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), it feels a privilege to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box.

I rise to ask that all amendments to the Media Bill from the Lords be agreed to— namely, that we retain the Reithian principles of public service broadcast and include an explicit reference to children’s educational programmes in the public service broadcast remit. The Media Bill will enable viewers and listeners across our country to continue to access public service television and radio content as technology changes. The Bill will also deliver the manifesto commitment to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which, if commenced, could have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press.

I am tremendously grateful to the very talented Bill team in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and everybody who has contributed to and worked on this piece of legislation. It is the first communications law in this country in two decades and I am proud, as Media Minister, finally to have delivered it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

May I take this opportunity to say what an absolute delight, privilege and honour it was to be in the Chamber yesterday when Craig took his seat post his sepsis? I visited Craig in hospital every week that he was there, and I must say his resilience and positivity were an example to me. He really did raise my spirits and I am delighted that he was able to come back yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

East—apologies. I thank both Members for all the work that has gone into this legislation. Since we have discussed all these matters at length many times, I simply commend the Bill to the House; I am very glad that we have finally got to this stage.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 25 agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the Media Bill—congratulations.

Media Bill

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I bow to my ministerial colleague the sports Minister on the intricacies of sports funding. However, on the listed events regime, it is for the Scottish Government not only to make a recommendation to us if they want to expand that, but to have the discussions with Scottish sporting bodies as to whether that is actually something they want.

I will finish by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I am glad to say that culture and heritage are directly addressed in the updated public service remit for television. Ofcom is therefore required to ensure that public service broadcasters collectively make available content reflecting the cultural interests and traditions of the UK and different local areas within the UK, which I would expect to include Cornwall.

I thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members present for their contributions to the debate. I am grateful for the scrutiny the Bill has received; it has benefited greatly from the expertise of everybody in this Chamber. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I understand, Mr Eustice, that you wish to withdraw new clause 3.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 16.

[Julia Lopez]

I am pleased to see the progress that the Bill has made since it left this House before the summer, and I am grateful to Members in the other place for their scrutiny of it. Fast, reliable and secure digital connections are the cornerstone of a competitive economy and thriving society, and the sooner the legislation comes into force, the better. As hon. Members will recall from earlier stages of the Bill, its objective is twofold: first, to speed up the roll-out of 5G and gigabit-capable broadband; and secondly, to protect and enhance the security of consumer connectable products, such as monitors, doorbells, connected kitchen appliances and so on, so that users can get their benefits without being exposed to risk. I am confident that the Bill will do just that.

I will start by explaining the need for the relatively straightforward Government amendments tabled by my now former colleague, Lord Kamall, whom I thank and pay tribute to. I will then move on to Lords amendment 17, with which I hope the House will disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 11 seek to implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Those recommendations relate only to part 1, on product security. The amendments change the parliamentary procedure for two delegated powers from the negative resolution procedure to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those are the powers in clause 3, the power to deem compliance with security requirements, and clause 9, the power to exempt manufacturers from needing to draw up a statement of compliance. The amendments will also ensure that the Secretary of State is able to authorise another person to exercise enforcement functions only by making regulations rather than by agreement. Those regulations will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have carefully considered the Committee’s regulations and we are happy to accept those three.

On part 2 of the Bill, on telecoms infrastructure, Lords amendments 12 to 14 would remove the clause formerly known as clause 57 and make relevant consequential amendments to the version of the Bill that this House sent to the other place. That clause was intended to address difficulties that had arisen following upper tribunal and Court of Appeal decisions on the meaning of “occupier”. However, a judgment of the Supreme Court on this very issue was made during the Bill’s journey through the other place, and the judgment resolves the policy concerns that clause 57 was designed to address. As a result, we think it is no longer necessary to retain that clause, and its removal will ensure clarity and certainty for all users of the code.

Lords amendment 15 was made by the Government following a lot of debate and work by my team of officials, and I expect hon. Members on all sides will be pleased to see it realised in the Bill. It gives operators the rights to facilitate two things. First, the amendment makes it easier for a telegraph pole to be shared that is used by an operator other than the operator that owns the pole. Secondly, it makes it easier for the equipment on a pole to be upgraded—for example, by replacing an old copper line with a fibre-optic one.

This amendment is something that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members, and indeed the telecoms industry, were asking for. Overhead lines are used to provide a substantial proportion of network delivery across the country, and we think the amendment will therefore play a very important role in delivering better services to our constituents. We have listened carefully to stakeholders, and as well as meeting the needs of operators, I can assure hon. Members that we have included safeguards to protect the interests of private landowners and occupiers. For example, the legislation will not provide operators with an automatic right of entry on to private land. I hope that this amendment will therefore be welcomed.

The final Government amendment, Lords amendment 16, concerns an issue that has not yet been discussed in this House, so I should spend a little more time explaining its rationale. The amendment is intended to protect the autonomy and integrity of our national security, defence and law enforcement sites across the country. As it stands, the electronic communications code allows telecoms operators to seek consensual agreements with landowners to install and maintain telecoms equipment on private and public land, including sensitive national security, defence and law enforcement sites. If an agreement cannot be reached, a telecoms operator may seek a court order imposing such an agreement, potentially giving the operator access to those sensitive sites without consent. The code works in this way to make sure that operators can deliver the 5G and gigabit-capable broadband roll-out at pace.

However, this process does raise some national security concerns, including physical security, technical security and legal risks, which I shall go into a little further. On physical security, the presence of engineers and site surveyors on particularly sensitive sites, potentially without proper security clearance, could pose a national security risk. On technical security, the installation of 5G equipment on particularly sensitive Government sites could pose communications and information security risks.

Finally, on legal risks, the courts that consider proceedings under the code are not able to undertake closed material proceedings. That means that classified national security concerns cannot be evidenced properly, which might lead to courts granting access to sensitive sites without a full awareness of the risks. Lords amendment 16 seeks to address those particular national security risks without undermining our ambitious gigabit-capable broadband and 5G roll-out plans. It will confer powers on the relevant Secretary of State to intervene and prevent a court from imposing an agreement sought by an operator.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 3.

[Julia Lopez]

I am pleased that the Bill has returned to the House from the other place and for the chance to speak to it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for his tremendous work in bringing it through the House earlier in this Session and in the last.

The Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will protect networks, even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our telecoms critical national infrastructure both now and for the future. As the House will be aware, the Bill introduces a stronger telecoms security framework, which places new security duties on public telecoms providers and introduces new national security powers to address the risks posed by high-risk vendors.

I will briefly summarise the changes that have been made to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 were tabled by my colleague in the other place, Lord Parkinson. Lords amendment 4 relates to reporting on supply chain diversification and Lords amendment 5 relates to reviewing actions taken by Five Eyes nations regarding high-risk vendors. I will speak first to Lords amendments 1 to 3.

The important role of parliamentary scrutiny has been raised in debate throughout the passage of the Bill. In the other place, particular attention has been paid to scrutiny of our strengthened telecoms security framework. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that the new codes of practice were central to this framework, as they will contain specific technical information for telecoms providers. The Committee recommended that the negative procedure should be applied to the issuing of codes of practice. We carefully considered the Committee’s recommendation over the summer, and tabled amendments 1 to 3 in the other place to accept them.

The amendments will require the Government to lay a draft of any code of practice before Parliament for 40 days. Both this House and the other place will then have a period of time to scrutinise the code of practice before it is issued. These amendments demonstrate that we have listened and that we are committed to every aspect of the framework receiving appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I commend these amendments to the House.

I will now speak to Lords amendment 4, regarding diversification. This amendment would place an annual requirement on the Government to report on the impacts of their 5G telecoms diversification strategy on the security of public telecommunications networks and services. It would also require a debate in the House on that report. The Government cannot support the amendment for two reasons. The first objection relates to the flexibility necessary for diversification. A reporting requirement of this nature is restrictive and premature. This is an evolving market that is rapidly changing, and we need the flexibility to focus our attention where it will have the greatest impact. While our focus is currently on diversifying radio access networks, once that part of the mobile network has been diversified we will move on to focus on other areas. Committing to reporting on specific criteria would limit us to reporting against the risks as we find them today and would not afford us the flexibility that diversification requires.

Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As I have said, Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communications applications should be used for communicating classified information, but other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting business, and official information that is held in private email accounts is subject to FOI. I hope that that provides the right hon. Lady with assurance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for coming today to respond to Peter Bone’s urgent question and for responding to 37 parliamentary questions in total. We will now suspend before the statement on covid.

A Brighter Future for the Next Generation

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

That is subject to lively debate, and I know that it is being explored by the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I will take that point away to discuss with her while she is away.

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate on future opportunities for young people. From huge investment in the skills agenda and early years to measures to keep young people safe in the street and online, work on issues of passion to younger generations such as the environment and animal welfare, and giving freedom for vigorous intellectual debate that challenges and hones ideas—our own in-house political poet, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), set that out superbly—Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech sets out an ambitious legislative agenda to put young people at the heart of our national recovery and economic renewal. I commend it to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 17 May.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We look forward to 17 May, so that we can visit pubs and restaurants without fear of getting wet or, indeed, catching hypothermia —the glorious 17th.

Will those leaving the Chamber before we go on to the Adjournment please do so in a covid-friendly manner? I ask that the Dispatch Boxes are sanitised while Alexander Stafford opens the debate. The Minister is not going to touch the Dispatch Box until that has been done. Thank you very much, everybody—and thank you, Minister.

Exiting the European Union (European Union)

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As I have set out, the purpose of the instrument really is to ensure that the statute book works coherently and effectively following the end of the transition period. It does this by making various consequential amendments and repeals in respect of retained EU law relevant to the separation agreement law and other EU-derived domestic legislation.

I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says from the Opposition Front Bench. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) before the debate. He shares some of the concerns about the legislative aspects of leaving the EU and was very satisfied with the regulations. He has consulted his friends and colleagues in the legal and financial services professions, and they believe this to be a useful piece of regulation that clarifies and tackles ambiguity. He has also raised concerns about the complexity of leaving the EU. Yes, leaving the EU is a complex process, and it was always going to be. I am glad to say that the UK public deemed it to be an endeavour worth pursuing. They have supported it throughout the referendum and the subsequent general elections.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) bemoaned politicians kicking off referendum processes without due consideration. I hope that he will take his own advice. At least, we listened to the result of that referendum.

Finally, I reiterate my thanks to Members across the House for contributing to the debate. This is a highly technical issue and not exactly the most exciting television viewing, but it is a critical piece of secondary legislation that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that there is certainty and clarity about the UK statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I suspend the sitting for the sanitation of the Dispatch Boxes.

Local Contact Tracing

Debate between Julia Lopez and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I will take that suggestion back. We have listened to a lot of what has been said today, and there has been a lot of constructive feedback. I just want to let the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) know that we are going to be opening a testing site on the campus in Reading next week.

As many have said, the work that we are doing on test and trace is absolutely critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is a doctor himself and one of the many Conservative MPs who work in the health service, made a superb contribution using his experience of the system. He rightly pointed out that the vocal comparisons made at the outset of the pandemic with other European nations have suddenly faded away now that the UK is testing more per capita than those same nations. He encouraged us to be realistic about the capacity of the public sector and talked about the challenges of making things happen in practice, rather than simply lecturing from the sidelines about theoretical magic bullets.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said that we must test, test, test, and we are. As I mentioned, we hope to be able to do 500,000 tests a day by the end of this month. On the points that he raised about the Slough testing centre, it is critical to underline that people must make sure they have booked their appointment before they arrive on foot or by car. I understand that that test centre is still accessible by both methods.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) talked about the huge role that his town has played in the national effort, from the initial quarantine of British citizens from Wuhan to the incredible Lighthouse project that is employing robotics to boost our testing capacity. We are grateful for that contribution at this time of crisis. As he said, from vaccines to ventilators, medication to PPE, all have been produced at scale very quickly by the private sector, and British companies have achieved tremendous things.

I welcome those Opposition Members who recognised the challenges that we face as a Government and who made constructive contributions, highlighting genuine concerns from constituents. We are working through some of those concerns. However, I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who pointed out that the era of constructive opposition from Labour Front Benchers appears this week to be over. It is important in this public health crisis that we reflect on criticism and try very hard to improve. However, this afternoon, they have sought to divide local from national, public from private, UK nation from UK nation, and to undermine public confidence in the system for their own political ends. That is a matter of deep regret for us all.

We recognise that contract tracing needs to reach as many people as possible and we are working hard to make sure that that happens, but this is about partnership, with a national framework and local support. Indeed, we are rolling out that strengthened partnership to more local authorities. We also now have the covid-19 app, downloaded over 17 million times in England and Wales, identifying contacts with those who might have tested positive for the virus, including people you might not know. Work is ongoing to make the Scottish app interoperable.

It of course remains critical that everyone does their bit and follows the rules—hands, face and space, and self-isolating where necessary to prevent the spread of the virus. That is why on 28 September, we introduced financial support to help individuals to self-isolate, meaning that those on low incomes who cannot work from home but need to self-isolate do protect themselves and others. They will receive £500. This is an important step forward in helping enable people to take the action that they should to prevent the spread of disease. We have also put in place requirements for businesses not to stop employees self-isolating if they need to. NHS Test and Trace is also making follow-up phone calls to those who are self-isolating to ensure that they are aware of what local support is available to them and signposting them to local services.

Alongside that, we have set out a series of tougher enforcement measures, targeting those who repeatedly flout the rules, including fines of up to £10,000, but testing and tracing is only one of our lines of defence, so I reinforce once again: if you have symptoms, you must self-isolate in line with public guidance and get a test. Even if you are feeling well, wash your hands regularly, wear a face covering in confined spaces and follow the 2 metre rule on social distancing, because it is these little things that can make a big difference.

In conclusion, we are entering a new and crucial phase of our fight against coronavirus, where the number of cases is rising and we can see that once again, the virus is spreading among the elderly and vulnerable. But we are also in a very different position as a nation from where we were when this virus first hit our shores. We have better data, better treatments and the testing and contact tracing that will be instrumental in getting the virus under control. There is a genuine partnership approach—a national framework with tremendous local support—and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

During the Division, Front Benchers must leave via the door in front. Everybody else must leave via the door behind me—socially distanced, please.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.