The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms
Nadine Dorries) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second
time, We are living in the digital age. It is not only our
computers and smartphones; Brits young and old have an average of
nine connected devices in their house, from smart speakers and TVs
to baby monitors and doorbells. We are more connected than ever,
and we need to make sure that those connections are fast and
secure. The Bill will...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
( )
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time,
We are living in the digital age. It is not only our computers
and smartphones; Brits young and old have an average of nine
connected devices in their house, from smart speakers and TVs to
baby monitors and doorbells. We are more connected than ever, and
we need to make sure that those connections are fast and secure.
The Bill will achieve both those aims. It will take our roll-out
of gigabit broadband and 5G to the next level while boosting the
protection of citizens across the UK.
If there is one thing we have learned from this pandemic, it is
how central technology is to our everyday existence. We need
technology to work remotely; we need it to reach our children and
to drive scientific breakthroughs and business innovations; we
need tech to be interoperable—I struggled to say that—because we
are living in a world where our baby monitors, kettles and
doorbells will all be able to talk to one another; and we need
tech that is secure.
Underneath all that, we need the digital infrastructure to
support all those connections—the ones that we make minute by
minute, hour by hour and day after day. Such networks are vital
for the UK’s future prosperity. We cannot stay at the heart of
the global economy if our connections are not world class, which
is why the Government have made huge investments in digital
infrastructure.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the slowest broadband
speeds in the UK. In one area in particular, Cilycwm, a WeFibre
gigabit scheme has been sitting on the Department’s table for
eight or nine months. Will the Department come to a determination
quickly so that we can move forward with that scheme?
Ms Dorries
I certainly will. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we
are moving forward at an absolutely rocketing pace, but I will
have a look at the situation in his constituency. I assure him
that nothing sits on the Department’s table—it has all gone out
to the providers and those going through the procurement
process—but I will check on where things are up to in his
constituency. If he could contact me with some details after the
debate, that would be helpful.
Because the Government have made huge investments, at least 97%
of premises now have access to superfast broadband, which is fast
enough for a family to stream five different Netflix films in
five different rooms in the same house at the same time.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has just talked about the ability to
activate fast broadband in five different rooms, but constituents
in my Luton South constituency do not have five devices on which
to watch five different Netflix films. Should the Government not
be doing more on that basis?
Ms Dorries
We are. The roll out of superfast broadband and gigabit
broadband, in respect of which we have covered 65% of the country
in just a few years, is levelling up in practice. It is about
making sure that anybody who wants access can have it. We are
working with Ofcom and the providers to look at left-behind areas
in terms of levelling up and how we can increase access to
laptops and—this happened particularly during the pandemic, in
the first lockdown—how children in particular can access the
internet so that they have the same equal access and opportunity
as everyone else.
As we have upgraded our networks, we have invested more than £4
billion in our cyber defences since 2016, including by setting up
the National Cyber Security Centre. As we all know, the nature of
tech is incredibly fast-paced and constantly changing and
growing. Monthly broadband usage has doubled since 2018 and
continues to rise year on year. But the more we log on, the more
open we are to cyber-threats, particularly as new
technology—including cutting-edge consumer products such as smart
baby monitors—is not always secure by design. To stay ahead of
the game we need to keep investing in tomorrow’s networks and to
secure ourselves against future threats, which is why we have
introduced the Bill.
Let me explain the Bill’s impact in our telecoms networks before
I turn to its measures on product security. In 2019, the Prime
Minister promised voters a “broadband revolution” and vowed to
deliver fast, secure and reliable broadband to everyone in the
country. That was an important promise in 2019 but it is even
more vital today as we build back from a devastating global
pandemic.
We are delivering on our promise. Under this Government,
nationwide gigabit coverage has jumped from just 11% at the end
of 2019 to 65% today. We have set ambitious targets for the rest
of the roll-out and aim to reach a minimum of 85% of homes by
2025 and to get as close to 100% as we can as soon as possible.
We are constantly looking for ways to go further and faster with
that roll-out. For example, we have already legislated to address
the problem of absent or unresponsive landowners, who can hold up
the deployment of gigabit broadband in blocks of flats, and we
are currently consulting on proposals to amend the building
regulations to ensure that all new homes have gigabit from the
outset.
At the same time, we are working hard to improve our mobile phone
networks, so that people can enjoy world-class connectivity not
just when they are at home or work, but when they are out and
about. We have agreed a £1 billion deal with the industry to roll
out the shared rural network, which is already delivering
improved 4G coverage across the UK. Both the operators and the
industry remain confident that they will reach 95% of the country
by the end of 2025, and we are aiming for the majority of the
population to have the next level of cutting-edge 5G mobile
coverage by 2027.
(Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents in Northolt are not able to access faster
broadband through a fibre connection. I have repeatedly pressed
Openreach on this, and it admitted that one of its cabinets had
not been upgraded as it did not meet the commercial criteria.
Just last week, I also pressed Virgin Media, which said that it
had installed broadband in on Islip Manor Road but not on Islip
Manor estate, next door. Will the Secretary of State confirm
when, under the Government’s plans, all my constituents in
Northolt will be able to access a decent broadband
connection?
Ms Dorries
The hon. Member’s question is quite detailed, right down to
street names, so I will take it away and we will speak to
Openreach. The Department will see what we can do and come back
to him, although that is not a promise that we will suddenly be
able to connect Northolt. I am interested to hear about
individual constituencies, because it is useful to us to know
that information. We have not said that everybody is going to
have superfast or gigabit broadband tomorrow; we have set dates
by which to reach our targets. We will do our very best for the
hon. Member, if he lets me know the details of the case he
mentioned.
Things like 5G and gigabit have the potential to be truly
transformational for people and businesses. They are vital for
innovation, and can unlock huge economic and social benefits
across every single corner of the country—not just driving our
recovery from covid, but boosting our generational mission to
level up the UK. We therefore 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 that regulate installation
agreements between landowners and telecoms operators.
(Burnley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about ensuring
that we have the infrastructure that we need for the 21st
century, not the 20th century. But one of my constituents’
concerns—I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the
Member for Hyndburn () have a similar concern—is
that when private sector providers come in and install new
equipment such as telegraph poles, dishes and things like that,
if they do not properly engage with residents and the local
community, that can blight some of our streets and add
unnecessary infrastructure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
when we encourage providers to install such equipment, they
should engage with communities and residents, so that we carry
people with us?
Ms Dorries
Community engagement and engagement with individual households is
vital. People need to know that the connectivity is there. I will
look into my hon. Friend’s point and take it further.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Burnley (), I have received a
number of concerns from site providers in my rural constituency
that have hosted telecommunications infrastructure, in some cases
for a decade or more. When the code was last before the House, we
were led to believe that the rent reductions would be minimal.
However, it has transpired that in some instances, rent offers
have been reduced by about 90%. I am interested to know whether
the Secretary of State has any comments on that point, and
whether there is a way of rebalancing things. We want to ensure
that this infrastructure is there to benefit the community, but
we do not want site providers to have to sacrifice what is, in
many cases, very valuable agricultural land.
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.
(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 ()—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.
(St Albans) (LD)
In my constituency of St Albans there is the Highfield Park
Trust, run by a group of volunteers. Since the 2017 reforms, it
has lost 98% of its income from hosting a mast because of the
telecoms company using its new powers to renegotiate the lease.
Does the Secretary of State agree that that poses a real risk to
the roll-out of 5G, because in some instances small site owners
might decide that it is not worth their while anymore and just
evict the telecoms companies? Is she willing to look at the issue
again, and at the power imbalance that has arisen from the 2017
reforms?
Ms Dorries
In 2017, the prices were too high and they affected the overall
roll-out. The new pricing regime is more closely aligned to those
of utilities such as water, electricity and gas, which are fair.
In order for us to roll out 5G to future-proof our digital
economy and our telecoms, and to reach the targets of ensuring
that we have 4G/5G coverage and 100% gigabit roll-out as soon as
possible, we need to ensure that telecom providers can access
land to establish both masts and the facilities that we need to
make it happen. It has to be fair. We are not revisiting the code
of 2017; the Bill does not do that. It will stay as it was, and
there will not be a revision to the pricing regime. It is
important that I make that clear straightaway.
(New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State highlighted that the prices were once too
high. Now we have had multiple complaints that the prices are too
low. Clearly, the question of valuation is at the heart of the
matter, so why did the Government explicitly exclude valuation
from the scope of the consultation that preceded the Bill?
Ms Dorries
We have listened to landowners. We have not introduced the
legislation without involving them in its development. We have
included measures in the Bill that make it easier for landowners
and operators to use a dispute resolution if landowners feel that
they are not getting a fair price. That means greater
collaboration, and it makes preposterously low offers less
likely. Hopefully, a fair and reasonable price would be agreed.
If landowners were not happy with it, it would go to independent
arbitration. If they were then unhappy with that, they would have
recourse to the courts, which we know would look very dimly on a
situation where the telecom providers had been neither reasonable
nor fair to landowners. We think that that is a fair and
reasonable process.
Making the most of existing infrastructure can play a key role in
upgrading services and increasing competition. Under the Bill,
operators will have the automatic right to upgrade or share
apparatus installed before the 2017 reforms. That will be subject
to specific conditions to ensure that the work does not
negatively impact landowners. The measures have been considered
carefully to deliver significant benefits, while ensuring that
there will be little impact on landowners. The Bill also
rationalises the way that certain older code agreements are
renewed so that they reflect the code as reformed in 2017. This
means that there will be greater consistency in how agreements
are renewed across the UK. On that basis, the 2017 coding
agreements will not be revisited.
All those things will make much better use of existing
infrastructure, reducing the need for new installations. That
means less disruption with fewer street works and fewer mast
installations in both rural and urban settings—something that, I
am sure, will welcomed in all parts of the House. We will take
away that community disruption. In response to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Wokingham (), I will take away his point
about cables being laid under roads. In the area where I live, it
is done under the pavement right outside my house. I would
imagine that there is a good reason why that has to happen in
some areas, but I will get back to him with what it is.
Secondly, we want to build stronger, more constructive
relationships between network operators and potential site
providers. We are introducing measures to make it easier for
those two parties, when negotiating agreements to install
telecoms apparatus, to use an alternative form of dispute
resolution if a disagreement arises such as I have set out. This
will encourage constructive dialogue between networks, operators
and potential site providers. It will help new agreements be
reached more quickly and address situations where landowners may
feel compelled to accept terms offered by operators.
Finally, we are creating a new court process to address
situations where landowners are not responsive. This process will
provide a quick and inexpensive route for operators to gain
access to certain types of land. Again, these measures have been
developed to strike the balance between protecting landowners and
ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to reliable and
quick digital infrastructure.
We need this infrastructure because of the sheer demand on our
networks. Just think of all the devices that are in use at this
very moment. Millions of people will be switching on their smart
TVs to stream a film or a series box-set, unlocking their phones
or tablets to call a friend or a relative, or asking their smart
speakers to play music or give information. Around this Chamber,
right now, many wrists are sporting smartwatches that keep us up
to date with the latest news or alert us to the fact that we have
a new message from those infamous WhatsApp groups. [Laughter.]
Sorry—I just couldn’t resist.
But with every connectable product that enters our lives, the
risk of cyber-attack grows. In the first half of 2021 alone, we
saw 1.5 billion attacks on connectable products—double the figure
for the same period in 2020. Most of us assume that if a product
is for sale in the UK it is safe and secure, but thousands of
people in the UK have been victims of cyber-attacks. Many of them
have lost significant amounts of money or have had their private
data hacked and shared, and they have lost trust in the idea that
they can connect with one another and go about their daily lives
with confidence. This is not just damaging on a personal level;
it also has serious implications for our national security.
Cyber-criminals now have the ability to use compromised
connectable products to attack large infrastructure. We saw this
with the 2016 Mirai attack, which targeted anything from baby
monitors to medical devices to home appliances to disable
internet access across much of the US east coast.
In the past few years, this Government have made significant
progress to strengthen the UK’s cyber-security. In 2018, we
published a code for manufacturers to improve the security of
their own consumer devices. We led the world on this, and that
code has since been used by countries such as Australia and India
to inform their own product security principles. However, the
cyber landscape is constantly evolving and our approach needs to
evolve with it if we want to stay safe.
We have reached the point at which legislation is required to
protect citizens and networks from the harm posed by
cyber-criminafls. Packaged together, the telecoms and product
safety measures in the Bill will work in tandem to do just that,
creating a reliable, fast broadband while supporting the growth
of more secure consumer connectable products.
The Bill will enable the Government to specify a number of
mandatory security requirements for smart devices. They will be
set out in regulations, but manufacturers are already on notice
regarding what the initial three requirements will be. The first
is a ban on universal default passwords. Too often, consumer
connectable products come with easy-to-guess passwords as their
default setting, such as “password”, “admin” or four zeros. That
makes them vulnerable to hacking, and risks compromising a user’s
privacy and security right from the get-go. Under this new
security requirement, all passwords that come with a new device
will need to be unique and not easily guessable.
The second mandatory requirement is for manufactured consumer
connectable products to provide a public point of contact so that
security researchers and others can easily report when they
discover security vulnerabilities, flaws and bugs in their
devices. Manufacturers can then quickly identify and address any
shortcomings in their products. At present, nearly 80% of firms
have no such system in place.
Finally, manufacturers will be required to be completely
transparent about how often, and for how long, their products
will receive security updates and patches. According to the
current guidance that is being commonly issued, if we update our
computers regularly when asked to do so and use two-step
verification, 90% of cyber-attacks can be avoided. The
requirement for manufacturers to be transparent about how often
their product will receive security updates is intended to help
consumers to know at which point they will need to do that.
Businesses will have to give customers that information at the
point of sale, and keep them updated throughout. If a product
will not be covered by security updates, that must be disclosed.
That will enable consumers to have all the facts that they need
to make an informed decision about their purchase, to understand
when the product they buy could become vulnerable, and to base
their decision on whether or not to buy on that information. When
the security requirements have not been complied with, businesses
will not be allowed to make these products available in the UK.
We will be able to monitor, investigate and take enforcement
action against non-compliant businesses.
We have been setting consumer standards of this kind for decades.
Every product on our shelves has met all sorts of minimum
requirements, whether to ensure that it is fire-resistant or to
ensure that it is not a choking or suffocation hazard. It should
be no different in the digital age. The Bill allows us to protect
people across the UK even as the world around us changes. It
allows us to keep pace with technology as it transforms our
everyday lives. Combined with the measures on the telecoms
infrastructure, it will do a huge amount in the coming years to
benefit our constituents and society at large.
I hope that Members will show their support for the Bill, and
that the benefits can be realised as quickly as possible. I
commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I do not think there could be a better birthday present than
being in the Chamber today and listening to this Second Reading
debate. Happy birthday, !
2.03pm
(Manchester Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
May I extend those congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member
for Manchester, Withington ()? I think he is 21 again.
Once again, I congratulate the Secretary of State on her
continuing blind loyalty to the Prime Minister. Last week she
threw Big Dog a bone with her vendetta against the BBC to
distract from the Prime Minister’s partying antics. How is that
going? This week she has continued her role as
dog-walker-in-chief, trying to tidy up Big Dog’s mess after the
latest revelations about his lockdown-breaking birthday party
antics. She might have picked it up and put it in a plastic bag
but, as the saying goes, even she cannot polish this one!
[Laughter.] We are lightening the load today, because this is a
very technical Bill and we all need lifting.
Ms Dorries
It is a very serious Bill—
It is a very serious Bill, yes—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
It is just as well I am in a generous mood today, is it not?
It is just as well you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker!
We have here another infrastructure Bill. As with every big
infrastructure project this Government oversee, from the northern
rail betrayal to the disastrous green homes schemes, the
broadband and 5G roll-out has been beset with piecemeal,
short-term thinking. The Government try to get British
infrastructure built on the cheap, relying on the private sector,
which more often than not means foreign state-run companies. On
the broadband roll-out, the Government have wasted a decade and
squandered the world-leading position left by the last Labour
Government. This Government’s legacy over 10 years has seen huge
delays in the superfast broadband roll-out, and a widening in the
digital divide. Why were we not, 10 years ago, investing in a
public-private partnership, so that home-grown British businesses
could develop our own 5G network? Instead of looking towards the
future, and building up British capacity and resilience, the
Government have left us reliant on Huawei and other foreign
state-backed companies for our 5G, with all the security
complications that that entails.
This Bill deals with a couple of specific aspects of the
broadband and 5G roll-out: part 1 places security requirements on
manufacturers of smart devices and part 2 amends the electronic
communications code, which governs the rules on how rent is set
for community groups and others to host phone masts on their
land.
The hon. Lady is no Stalinist. Given that the underlying
principle of part 2 of the Bill is the Stalinist principle that
property is theft, will she be opposing it on Second Reading?
I must object to that suggestion that I am a Stalinist. I am,
however, someone who believes that there should be a fair —
No Stalinist!
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.
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?
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 ( ) looks like he is itching to
come in on that point.
The hon. Member for St Albans () intimated that people would
want to take their land back as a consequence of the changes. I
hope that she has identified that that is not possible. People
will not get their land back unless they are going to develop it,
and even then, they would have to go to court to get it.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Bill and
the previous code mean that those cricket grounds, sport clubs
and churches in all hon. Members’ constituencies that had phone
masts put on their property in good faith to give them income
that they would not otherwise have, which in many cases keeps
them going, have been offered dramatically reduced rents but are
forbidden by law from taking the masts down. They are between a
rock and a hard place. It will put many of those community
groups, and the roll-out, at risk.
There is a real risk that the Bill will hamper, rather than
support, faster broadband and 5G roll-out, so what assessment has
the Secretary of State made of the effect of the 2017 changes on
rent levels and on the speed of roll-out? Given that previous
reforms to the code have resulted in no demonstrable improvement,
what makes her think that strengthening the hand of telecoms
firms will speed up the roll-out, rather than simply allowing
them to increase their profits further? I think that is the
thinking behind the now not-selected reasoned amendment tabled by
the right hon. Member for New Forest West, with which I have a
great deal of sympathy.
The Opposition support the broad approach of the Bill, but the
security measures are too little, too late and are behind the
technology curve rather than in front of it.
(Rushcliffe) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest and I think that
security is an issue on which we can work across the House. What
specific measures from the 2018 “Secure by Design” guidance does
she think should be included in the Bill but are not at the
moment?
I am coming to the end of my speech, but there are a number of
issues that could have been included in the Bill, some of which I
have outlined. There are security issues, and there are new waves
of technologies that are not in the Bill’s scope; as the
Secretary of State rightly pointed out, they are coming on us
really quickly. Bills like this one tend to come three or four
years behind the technology, rather than ahead of it. That is
what I would like us to work together to address.
In conclusion, we fear that these telecommunications
infrastructure measures could further hamper the Government’s
pretty woeful record on broadband and 5G infrastructure.
2.15pm
(New Forest West) (Con)
I have been asked to vote for some pretty awful stuff over the
past couple of years, but this has to be the most profoundly
un-Conservative measure. It will compound the damage that was
done to rights of property in 2017, and the proposal to amend the
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will extend that damage to other
walks of our national life, fundamentally undermining our
position as a stable and predictable place in which to
invest.
The digital roll-out has been stymied by changes that have
brought about the very reverse of what was originally intended
with the changes to the code in 2017. As a consequence, our
constituents have been intimidated and bullied.
I have a constituent who refused a survey—she did not want a
mast, because it would compromise her existing enterprise—but
caved in when she was threatened with court action. Then, when
she refused the terms of the mast, she was presented with
statutory orders requiring access for both a temporary and a
permanent mast. Of course, getting legal advice comes at an
enormous cost. Happily, New Forest national park authority has
thrown out the applications for both masts, but the battle, the
uncertainty and the cost continue.
I have a group of constituents in a block who have let their
collective roof for an antenna over the past few years and
received an income, but have now received a demand with menace
for a dramatic reduction in the income. They are having to deal
with a demand for a 30-year lease of their entire roof. It is
really quite extraordinary how the terms of trade have been
rigged against landowners.
The Secretary of State presented the matter as if the problem
were the landowners—as if we have to find ways of getting
landowners to become more reasonable. When I had a meeting with
the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, she
reassured me with the alternative dispute resolution process,
which we have heard about from the Secretary of State today. The
problem with that procedure is that it is not mandatory. The
telecom companies know that they do not need to engage with it,
because they can afford to go to court and their victims cannot.
That is the difficulty—that is the outrage that we have
created.
It is no wonder that the whole roll-out has stalled and that no
one wants to give access for a mast, because the income is not
worth it and the consequences are frankly deplorable. Small
farms, churches and small sports clubs used to have an income,
but it has now crashed and they have all the uncertainty and
inconvenience of continuing to host a mast. As I pointed out in
an intervention on the hon. Member for Manchester Central (), there is no prospect of
getting their land back without court action and development.
(North Dorset) (Con)
Sports clubs, parish halls, village halls and the like have seen
a real depreciation in their income because of non-use as a
result of covid, so does my right hon. Friend agree that this is
precisely the worst possible time for an enforced reduction in
their income? Many of them will have hard-baked an expectation
into their future financial forecasts.
Of course, and these are the very people—the hearts of our
community—who are now identified as the villains whom the Bill
creates more power to bring to heel. It is the most monstrous
piece of legislation that has been brought before us, and we
should deal with it accordingly. We had a functioning market in
2016, and in 2017 we brought in measures. Whitehall has destroyed
that market, egged on by rapacious telecom companies, and this
Bill will make it even worse.
2.20pm
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(SNP)
In 2016, the need for regulation on product security became
undeniable when huge swathes of the internet went down. This
included websites such as Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Reddit
and Airbnb The attack was
conducted by a botnet, an interconnected series of programmes
running on a huge number of hacked devices, which overloaded the
web providers with requests for access. However, unlike previous
or more conventional attacks, this one did not emerge through
laptops and computers. This attack came through domestic
appliances. I am sure that this will sound completely ridiculous
to the many people gripped by this debate: the revenge of the
malevolent toaster.
The internet of things is a term given to physical objects that
either have processing power or are connected to the internet,
such as home security measures or even lighting. When we think of
cyber-security, it is natural to think of the precautions we take
when using our phones and computers, especially around personal
data and online transactions. What is less well known is the risk
that poor product security can have. Attacks on
internet-of-things devices rose 100% in the first half of last
year, and it is a worldwide problem. In the UK since the
beginning of the pandemic, 49% of people have purchased an
individual smart device and 57% have increased their use of
internet-connected devices, yet worryingly, only one in five
internet-of-things manufacturers is believed to have embedded
strong security into their devices. I want to praise Which? for
the excellent work it has done for consumers in investigating
this sector.
As we have seen in our inquiries into tech in relation to the
Online Safety Bill, it is necessary for Government to intervene,
as companies will often do the bare minimum to protect users. As
with online safety, one of the core solutions to product security
is the principle of secure by design. It is good to see the UK
Government acting to embed this principle in law, following on
from the Scottish Government’s cyber resilience strategy’s aim to
enshrine security by design as a foundation principle of
Scotland’s cyber landscape. On the SNP Benches, we are glad that
the UK Government have finally taken action on this, but there
are some areas where the Bill falls short, and there is the
potential to make some aspects of product security less
effective.
One area of concern is that the Bill will require manufacturers
to declare security flaws in their products publicly, without
having a mechanism in place for automatic fixes or requiring that
a fix be in place when the flaw is announced. This could make
users less, not more, secure. The requirement could in effect
alert hackers and malicious users to flaws without giving users
the tools to fix the weaknesses, thereby ringing a bell for
hackers to target those products. It has been highlighted that a
majority of users will likely not have the skills to implement
patching, so the benefit of the disclosure mandate, without
automatic patching in place, would be without value. The Minister
should look to implement requirements for automatic patching or
for manufacturers to put solutions in place before the time of a
public flaw disclosure.
Another oversight in the Bill is the exclusion of certain types
of products, leaving millions out of scope. Internet-connected
ovens, which have been targeted by malware, shutting down entire
businesses, medical devices, routers and second-hand products,
are all excluded from the scope of the Bill. The Bill should
clarify which products are in or out of scope. Additionally, the
Bill does not cover laptops or desktops, due to the existence of
a developed antivirus and security software market. However, a
mere 58% of people in the UK use antivirus software. Martin
Tyley, head of cyber-security at KPMG UK, has called for the
inclusion of laptops and desktops in the scope of the Bill, to
protect the increasing number of home workers who have been
targeted since the pandemic began. Even with its current flaws,
which I hope the Government will be able to iron out, the Bill
attempts to tackle an important aspect of cyber-security.
However, this should be part of an holistic IT security approach
that is taken to defend the UK’s cyber-security landscape.
I would like to mention the enforcement mechanism in the Bill.
Section 26(5) makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not
be able to bring proceedings in Scotland, but the Bill will still
establish enforcement mechanisms and a body to carry out
enforcement actions under it. As the Scottish courts and legal
system will have to manage enforcement action brought in
Scotland, and oversight of the Scottish legal system is devolved,
it is only right that the Scottish Government have a role in
developing the enforcement mechanism. Therefore, I ask the
Minister to consider amending the Bill to include a duty to
consult the relevant Scottish Ministers when developing the
enforcement mechanism and the security requirements that are to
be enforced, so as to account for the requirements of the
Scottish legal system.
I also seek clarity from the UK Government on what impact the
passage of the Bill will have on the powers of the Scottish
Government to regulate products in Scotland. We welcome, in
principle, reform of the code. We are working with civil society
partners to identify ways in which the Bill can be improved in
its passage.
I would like to raise one further issue. BT has highlighted
Openreach’s commercial plan to upgrade 6 million properties, all
of which will need agreement in order to upgrade them from the
copper network. Without more ambitious reform, Openreach risks
not being able to access up to 1.5 million flats, even in cases
where residents want full fibre. According to BT, the Bill as it
stands will not support improved connectivity to flats or rural
areas, where most of the network is built above ground.
The need for a fast roll-out must be balanced with the rights of
landowners, such as farmers. As we have heard, some campaigners
have raised concerns about the rapid drop in rents faced by
businesses hosting masts—some by as much as 90%. On this and
other issues raised, I look forward to the Minister’s
answers.
2.27pm
(North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in another debate on improving the
nation’s connectivity. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware
of connectivity issues in places such as Ilfracombe in my
constituency, as has been so well documented recently, so I very
much welcome the steps that the Bill is taking to begin to
address some of the issues that have slowed down infrastructure
deployment.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and
digital communications. We produced our own inquiry into the
electronic communications code in November last year, and we are
so pleased to see some of our recommendations materialising in
part 2 of the Bill, focusing on telecommunications
infrastructure. It is on part 2 that I will focus my
comments.
The Government set a manifesto commitment to improve the UK’s
broadband connectivity—a manifesto that I was proud to stand on,
having heard on far too many doorsteps back in 2019 about my
constituents’ connectivity concerns. The telecoms sector has
experienced lengthy delays in securing access agreements since
the electronic communications code was reformed back in 2017, and
the Bill clearly intends to help speed up the deployment of this
vital infrastructure. It is therefore warmly welcomed, in the
main, by me, industry and the APPG alike.
One of the asks from our inquiry was to have a clear distinction
between fibre and mobile infrastructure. It is important that the
code works for both, and mobile operators welcome the Bill, which
will accelerate the deployment of 4G and 5G. The new code had led
to significant delays in reaching agreements with landlords,
particularly where operators need to renegotiate leases as they
expire, or where additional equipment needs to be added in order
to upgrade or share sites to improve the service. The Bill before
us seeks compromise between industry and landlords, while noting
concerns in rural Britain among organisations such as the NFU, so
well articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for New
Forest West ( ).
Does my hon. Friend support making the alternative dispute
resolution procedure mandatory?
My right hon. Friend makes a noble point, to which I will allow
our hon. Friend the Minister to respond.
I recognise the need to balance competing interests carefully.
The single greatest barrier the fixed infrastructure sector faces
in the code is obtaining wayleaves and protracted negotiations
with unresponsive landlords. To deliver in rural constituencies
such as mine, large numbers of wayleaves to cross private land
will be needed, which is seen as a risk to Project Gigabit’s
success in rural Britain. Landlord negotiations to gain access to
multi-dwelling units have also been problematic. The industry
warmly welcomes the provisions of the Bill that would fast track
wayleave negotiations via the alternative dispute resolution
scheme, which will help to level up islands of poor digital
connectivity, which too often centre on social housing stock.
Sharing historical wayleave agreements and the underground duct
network is also warmly welcomed, although concerns remain about
whether the Bill is intended to address the problem of accessing
poles situated above ground on private land, which is a
particular concern in rural communities, where much of the
network is built overhead on poles. I hope that clarity on that
point will be given as the Bill proceeds. There is also concern
that the Bill does not address automatic upgrade and sharing
rights of existing infrastructure, either inside blocks or flats,
or overground on poles.
The pandemic has clearly showed how vital connectivity is to all
our communities, as those without good broadband have struggled
with so much during the pandemic. Too many schoolchildren have
explained to me the problems of the circle of doom, so I thank
Openreach again for coming to the aid of some of my more rural
primary schools and expediting their broadband connection; but I
remain concerned that this piecemeal approach to connectivity and
the focus on competition in urban conurbations is reducing fibre
access altogether in rural Britain. If we are truly to level up
our rural communities, speeding up our digital roll-out to them
is vital.
Given that my constituency resides at position 607 out of 650, I
am sure the Minister is not surprised to find me here again,
asking for more to be done across the north, and indeed the
whole, of Devon. In this day and age, fibre broadband is a
utility, and there should be universal provision. Rural
constituencies such as mine should not be left behind to
facilitate market competition in our towns and cities. The Bill
is a great step forward, and I hope that some of the industry’s
concerns will be addressed as it proceeds. The Secretary of State
has clearly noted my campaigning, as has the Minister, so I very
much hope it will be rewarded with faster rural roll-out than is
currently planned in North Devon, before any other visitors to my
lovely constituency find themselves in an
all-too-readily-available North Devon notspot.
2.33pm
(Rushcliffe) (Con)
I start by declaring my interests. Much of my previous career was
spent in the cyber-security industry, and in the four years
before being elected to Parliament, I led commercial strategy and
public policy for BT’s cyber-security team. BT was one of the
companies that helped to design the Secure by Design code of
practice, some of which we are putting into law through the Bill.
Also, I have recently undertaken cyber-security work for MHR,
which is set out in my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests, although the company does not produce
consumer devices, connected or otherwise.
In some ways, cyber-security was good preparation for
politics—for example, waking up to nightmare headlines such
as,
“Attack of the refrigerators! The cyber-threats lurking in your
home”
and
“Is your smart TV too wise? The FBI warns your screen is watching
you”
and
“HACKED IN THE HOME: Your entire home could be HACKED with these
simple mistakes, cyber-experts warn”.
Perhaps the most disturbing one I have seen is:
“Hacker who stole nude self-portraits of George W. Bush jailed
for four years”.
I am all for being tough on crime, but surely in that case the
perpetrator had already suffered enough.
Alarmist headlines aside, the Bill is very much needed to protect
our constituents. The average UK household has nine connected
devices, and the security on most of them will be poor.
Information about how secure the devices are, or how long they
will receive security updates for, is unlikely to have been
provided when they were sold. What are the risks? There is a huge
impact on our constituents’ privacy. Your TV really could be
watching you. Two years ago, footage stolen by hackers from home
security cameras in Hong Kong was sold to pornographic websites—a
huge invasion of people’s intimate private moments. There are
numerous reports of baby monitors being hacked by
paedophiles.
There is also the danger of hackers using a fairly innocuous
connected device as a gateway to jump to other devices and steal
valuable information. An infamous example from the business world
is the attack in 2013 on Target, one of the top five retailers in
the US. Criminals gained access to its network through a supplier
connected to an external vendor portal. They then stole the
details of 40 million customer credit and debit cards. The
supplier just provided air-conditioning. The total cost of the
cyber-attack was more than $200 million. That is one hell of an
expensive air-conditioning bill. There was also an attack on a
casino, where hackers gained entry to the network through the
thermometer of a fish tank.
Once they have a foothold in the home, hackers can access other
devices that are not properly secured. There is a real danger
that sensitive information relating to a constituent’s health or
their financial information could be compromised, but how common
is that really? Is it just a case of a few alarmist headlines?
The consumer watchdog Which? ran an interesting experiment last
year. It set up a smart home with a range of consumer devices,
from kettles to thermostats, televisions and security devices,
all connected to the internet. It experienced 12,000 hacking or
scanning attempts in a week. At one stage, it experienced up to
14 hacking attempts an hour. We have a problem, therefore, but
not a problem of which many people are aware. A recent report
that surveyed 2,000 UK consumers found that people were largely
unaware of the risks. Some 48% of respondents were not aware that
hackers could hijack their connected devices.
Unsecured consumer devices are also a real risk to our digital
infrastructure. Hackers who control connected devices can harness
their collective power into a botnet—a network of devices that
can be used to launch denial of service attacks on our digital
infrastructure. The Secretary of State referred earlier to the
Mirai botnet. What is interesting is that it is thought to be the
first botnet to harness the power of insecure consumer devices or
the internet of things. At its peak, it had about 600,000
devices—baby monitors, radios, cameras—at its beck and call. You
and I would not necessarily have noticed it, Mr Deputy Speaker,
until the day it launched an attack on the domain name service
provider Dyn in 2016. In doing so, it took out Netflix, PayPal,
Amazon, Visa, Reddit and Airbnb for the best
part of a day.
Contrary to some of the claims we have heard from those on the
Opposition Benches, the UK has always been a world-leading
cyber-power. Back in 2011, we were one of the first countries in
the world to publish a cyber-security strategy. It recognised the
risks and opportunities that cyber-security brought to nation
state relationships, critical infrastructure, business, consumers
and society as a whole. We have always been out in front when it
comes to protecting people, businesses and critical
infrastructure.
In the 2016 refresh of the national cyber-security strategy, the
Government moved from relying on a market-based approach to
protect consumers, to a more active role through the UK’s active
cyber defence programme, which makes the infrastructure of the
UK’s internet more difficult for cyber-criminals to exploit. It
does that through measures such as improving the security of
internet protocols—the method by which data is sent from one
computer to another—and domain name system filtering that blocks
access to sites known to host malware, such as phishing sites.
The 2016 strategy also committed to publishing guidance on how to
improve the default security of consumer products. There are
three measures on that in the Bill. As we know, it forms the
basis of similar codes used in India and Australia, but it also
forms the basis of the first global technical standard for
consumer cyber-security products. So far from being behind, the
UK is the leading country in the world on this issue.
As has been set out, the three measures put forward are: banning
default passwords; implementing a vulnerability reporting scheme;
and informing consumers how long a product will receive security
updates for at the point of sale. They are really necessary
because, I am sorry to say, we have not seen the response from
industry that we should have. Too many manufacturers are still
not taking responsibility for ensuring their products have the
basic security that our constituents need. Too many still shunt
their security responsibilities on to the users of their
products.
We need to call time on this. The digital economy is growing and
holds huge opportunities, but those who benefit from its growth
should also be investing in the safety and security of its users.
We are still, in my view, only on the cusp of the fourth
industrial revolution, the fusing of our digital and physical
worlds. Cyber-security needs to be a part of that revolution to
ensure that the inevitable risks are outweighed by the
opportunities.
2.41pm
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
As the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Manchester
Central (), said, this is a technical
Bill, but it is hugely important and will make a real difference.
It will build on the incredible speed of the gigabit roll-out
programme—up to 65% from just 11% two years ago. That is, whether
she likes it or not, the fastest roll-out in the world, delivered
under the Minister, and indeed under her predecessor—but I will
leave that to the rest of the House to judge. She is right,
however, to say that we should be doing everything we can to go
as fast as we possibly can. I humbly submit that setting the
large number of broadband providers that operate in this country
in competition against each other to get as much of the country
connected as possible, is one of the ways that is delivering that
incredible roll-out speed and I think she should welcome
that.
None the less, it is important to make sure that the operators
that seek to deliver the roll-out are able to access the land
they need. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West
( ) made a passionate speech,
possibly one that none of us was expecting in this kind of
debate, in defence of landowners. Landowners are a crucial part
of getting the roll-out right, but I say gently to him that there
has been an incredibly successful lobbying campaign on behalf of
those landowners, who, for a very long time, have had a very good
deal. The 2017 proposals to cut the amount of money they receive,
bringing it in line with other utilities—we could argue about
whether broadband is technically a utility—was absolutely the
right thing to do. It is what will speed up the roll-out
programme.
rose—
I will let my right hon. Friend intervene in a minute. He talked
about the benefit to landowners. When we get the roll-out right
and get masts at as many locations as possible, the benefit
accrues not to landowners primarily but to all the communities
that live around them. That is where we should be focusing, not
primarily on the small number of landowners who are
concerned.
I am only interested in the lobbying of my constituents who have
been so harshly affected. We have heard the stories of the 90%
and 95% reductions in income. This has made things very much less
expensive for the companies concerned. Where has that money gone?
It has certainly not been invested in the programme.
My right hon. Friend does not make a wholly unreasonable point,
but ultimately that money is going into an incredibly rapid
roll-out of 5G. In rural areas in particular, we are seeing the
industry putting in half a billion pounds of its own money
alongside half a billion pounds of Government money to get to
some of those hardest to reach places, so I fundamentally do not
accept his premise, which is that the industry is not investing
as it should. I would like the Government to go even further to
see even more investment. He is right to focus on some of the
small areas that rely on this income. However, that cannot be the
main economic driver for the roll-out of 5G.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the reverse seems to be happening
and that the roll-out seems to be slowing down? Does he also
accept that this is a rather mature market of providers in an
increasingly profitable arena, with ever-greater demand for their
services from a growing population? Therefore, it may be
worthwhile revisiting this de-incentivisation—obviously that was
not the intention but it seems to be the result—to see whether
restoring the proper remuneration that people had expected may
speed up this much-needed roll-out.
Ultimately, I think reducing it in the predictable and
long-announced way is what will speed up the roll-out. However,
to give my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for
New Forest West, who is no longer in his place, a little succour,
the industry should be on notice that if the currently voluntary
dispute resolution system does not work and does not deliver fair
settlements, perhaps the Government will think about giving the
system some more teeth. There is a balance to be struck, and this
Bill strikes it in the right way. However, there is another step
that one could take.
My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous with his
time. We had this sort of debate about the water companies and
sewage. Unless their toes are held to the fire, they will exploit
a system—I do not criticise them for so doing—for as long as they
can. If the Government were more robust in bringing this forward
as a clear commitment and making it binding and obligatory, that
might help unblock the logjam.
Ultimately, I simply say, from a Conservative standpoint, that I
would like regulation to be as light touch as possible. This is
the right step down that road. It may be necessary to be more
robust, but we are not there yet.
Moving on to “secure by design”, my hon. Friend the Member for
Rushcliffe () asked the Opposition which
of the other 13 points they would bring in. This Bill introduces
three of them, and they are immensely welcome, but they are the
lowest hanging fruit when it comes to cyber-security. I would not
jump immediately to all 13, and the world has somewhat moved on
since the 2017 report to which she referred, but there is a clear
direction of travel. I welcome how the Government are introducing
the proposal, but the industry should be looking at what more
there might be to do.
Finally, my hon. Friend also talked about cyber-security in a
much broader sense than this Bill. A huge number of businesses
will rely on cyber-security professionals in future to ensure
that they are provided with the kind of security that they need
and that which their insurance companies’ policies might require
to guard them against the potential costs of hacking. In due
course, some of the people operating in that profession will
require greater regulation. The UK Cyber Security Council, which
the Minister oversees, is welcome, but further regulation,
perhaps in the manner of the Bar Council, is what will allow the
cyber-security profession to grow, flourish and continue to
preserve Britain’s place as a world-leading cyber-power, which we
all want. This Bill helps us to get ever closer to that goal, and
I commend it to the House.
2.49pm
(Stroud) (Con)
I applaud the Government for the energy they are putting into
trying to improve our connectivity. There are undoubtedly still
notspots in my rural constituency. Having Zoomed constantly in my
River Severn village throughout the pandemic, I find that the
pizza wheel of doom—when the tinternet is struggling and people
freeze in strange positions—is no longer funny; it is just
annoying. I recognise that improvements are needed, and I see
what the Government are trying to do, but many of my constituents
are experiencing a David and Goliath situation, which I am
worried about. That is where I will focus my comments.
Trying to deal with the might of the telecommunications companies
is a pretty scary feat for any constituent, even before some of
the tactics that I have sadly seen deployed. In my short tenure
as Stroud’s MP, since the 2019 election, I have dealt with a
number of mast issues; some people are amazed by how many mast
issues have come up locally. I will summarise a couple. The
Minister has been kind enough to look at case studies in my area.
There have been issues with masts in Painswick village, where,
sadly, Stroud District Council infamously missed a deadline that
effectively led to permission being given by default on a
controversial site. That matter rumbles on and has caused a lot
of upset and stress for neighbours and the landowner. I
understand other councils in the country have faced this
issue.
There have been local applications in little villages in areas of
outstanding natural beauty that effectively rely on terrifying
elderly landowners. A village clubbed together to get
professional advice to support a landowner to deal with that. A
Stroud farmer currently receives a £10,000 annual rent payment
for an existing mast but has been offered a significantly lower
amount. We know that farmers struggle to make ends meet and that
the Government are telling them to diversify, so these incomes
can be fundamental to getting food on their own tables, let alone
putting food on ours. Negotiation is limited—this farmer is a
big, burly guy who does not feel bullied and told the company to
take the mast away—but it goes on and on, and he does not feel
like he is in a strong position.
If the Bill relies on the courts for remedy, I believe the
roll-out will continue to stall. Courts are the remedy only for
those who can afford it. Disputes have drastically increased, as
have stress, frustration and anger, since the 2017 changes, and I
fear it will get worse. The electronic communications code—this
is a bit more technical—grants code operators the right to access
land to install and maintain apparatus and to seek such rights to
be imposed by the courts where agreement cannot be reached. One
key change introduced in 2017 was to modify the pricing mechanism
that the court should apply; as we heard, there has not been a
proper look at pricing and valuation, even in the consultation on
the Bill. The pricing mechanism was changed from market value to
realign it along similar principles to compulsory purchase—we all
know how painful compulsory purchase has been for many of our
communities, not just Stroud—with statutory assumptions to place
the valuation in the no-scheme or network world. That change was
against the findings and recommendations of the Law Commission,
and effectively of Nordicity and Analysys Mason, which is beyond
my pay grade but I am told is important.
We are now in a situation where code operators typically portray
landlords as a grasping group who cause delay to hold them to
ransom for more rent. That is not my experience. Where code
operators seek to acquire new sites, there are a range of
different reasons why challenges are put up by constituents,
local villages and local communities. I will give a few of the
common themes I have come across. High on the list is the
potential effect on, or conflict with, the landlord’s own use of
the wider landholding and other tenants’ activities. The
potential impact on the landlord’s own future development
aspirations and the visual impact of unsightly and often poorly
designed electronic communications apparatus on the wider
landholding or host building are high up the list before rent
comes into it, along with: adverse impacts on neighbours or
disputes with neighbours about a mast going up; adverse effects
on the marketability of other land or buildings; adverse impacts
on the investment value; structural issues and future maintenance
of a building or structure on the site; the extent of extended
health and safety or drop or fall zones; and the implications of
further development granted as permitted development. All those
are on the list. It is not just about rent or money.
Stroud constituents inform me that the code operators have sadly
proved generally insensitive and unsympathetic to addressing such
issues. Instead they have interpreted the ECC changes as granting
them rights over any third-party land almost for free and on
terms that they can dictate, so that they can do almost anything
at any time. It is that mindset of entitlement over private
rights, and the blinkered belief that digital communications are
the only important thing, that are influencing decisions.
The code operators are looking to acquire large numbers of sites
and to renew hundreds of leases. Given the process-orientated
targets internally, no doubt the resource is driven by objectives
and milestones, and less by humans—the people it affects. I fully
accept that we are thinking about humans all over the country
when we are trying to improve connectivity, but I worry about the
balance. Bullying local people is not acceptable. No matter how
much my Stroud constituents want faster this, that and the
other—and, in many cases, how much we need connectivity actually
to work—they do not want their neighbours to be bullied and they
expect Government legislation to protect the weaker party. By any
analysis, it is usually the constituent landowner, not the
telecommunications organisation, that is usually the weaker
party.
Local councillors tell me that they feel pretty impotent on this
issue. Constituents do not feel that their local councils have
any power, so there is a disconnect between who they feel
protected by and the changes with the legislation. I will give
the House a bit of an overview of the process that constituents
have outlined. Mr Deputy Speaker, please shout or nod at me if
you want me to wind up, because I realise that I am taking some
time, but these are important points.
The process starts with a landlord being approached by a site
acquisition agent—not necessarily a well-known company—seeking
access to land to undertake a survey. That request is then
accompanied by a threat, effectively, to gain access via an
application to the upper tribunal, and this is pointed out as
almost impossible to resist, with the likely cost of a vast sum
of money to the landowner in the case of resistance. I am
thinking not about my big burly farmer, but about the elderly
landowner who is worrying about this. Access is often granted
unwillingly, which confuses neighbours and starts arguments
locally. A survey is then undertaken and the landlord is sent a
set of heads of terms, sometimes with an imploding offer of
capital payment if they are agreed within a short period. Without
any real attempts to negotiate or listen to concerns raised,
notices are then served under the ECC, which cock the gun for
reference to an upper tribunal again for the imposition of an
agreement.
I thank my hon. Friend for so clearly summing up the process of
what the Secretary of State called “community engagement”.
I only wish I was as beautifully dramatic and exciting as my
right hon. Friend when I spoke. I am conscious that I am reading
a list to the Chamber, but it is an important list because it
shows the experience of so many constituents. It may be dull, but
it is scary, and it is a very worrying time for our
constituents.
If residents and businesses are lucky—some of my constituents
have been—it is usually at around this stage that they instruct
professional support, because they are so worried. They start to
think about how to object to the application. It is pretty late
in the game—a long way down the track—but often people do not
realise that it is an option and a lot cannot afford it. However,
I am being told that people are successful in getting the
applications refused in most cases where professional support is
provided.
The lack of investment by the code operators in good-quality
design, and the lack of mitigating features such as screening or
structural landscaping, reflect the arrogant assumption that they
can simply pass on societal costs of their development to the
public at large, while simultaneously claiming that planning is a
barrier to deployment. All those things are often lost in that
long process before we get help to understand what really should
be brought into the planning applications.
It is clear that, where planning permission is granted, landlords
come under the real threat of a reference to the upper tribunal,
and given the extremely high costs of litigation, quite a lot of
people will fold at that point, regardless of the merits of their
case. I have to believe that the code operators do not set out to
behave in an egregious manner. I have met so many staff from
telecommunications companies who come to consultations, and they
are good people who want to find solutions, but time and again,
these are programmes that the agents, acting on their behalf, are
running through. My fear is that the totality of the changes we
are looking at now, far from redressing the balance of power,
will tip the scales further in favour of the code operators. As a
consequence, the proposed changes in the Bill will actually
exacerbate the marketplace issues being experienced, even if they
try to resolve some of the legal anomalies.
I fear that we have lost sight of the mission, which is how best
to deploy networks in the most appropriate places. We are trying
to fix the issues we have experienced since 2017 with a piece of
misused and, in effect, abused legislation that was supposed to
be used as a last resort, but is now very much used de rigueur by
the companies. I do not think that is the way to make
improvements for the landowners and the companies, nor is it a
way to roll out the improvements the country wants to see.
I want to know from the Minister how the Bill addresses what has
become the main issue with the framework, which is the way costs
fall on landowners and have in effect become the latest bludgeon
to beat them with. The cost of seeking advice is high and will
often far outweigh any consideration that is offered, even over a
10-year period. Whatever the merits of the landlord’s position,
to contest any matter in the courts is very costly, and the
extreme costs associated with losing mean that few but the
largest with much at stake will be able to take that step, as I
have mentioned. However, I think we have to keep hammering the
point home.
I want to know, given that we have the experiences of things such
as the water companies and the environmental fights happening all
over the country, and given that we know that the Human Rights
Act 1998 and article 6 provide the right to a fair hearing, why
we are not seeking to strengthen the alternative dispute
resolution option and thinking about making it mandatory. I
disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness
(), who is learned, in that I do
not see why we should wait to see if the measure fails before we
make improvements that will support everybody to achieve the
goals.
Finally, I was really disappointed that we have not worked harder
to think carefully about the valuations. The information coming
forward is that it is not about a slight chunk off what there is
already or even an attempt to rebalance the ability to look at
utility companies; the offers coming out to people with masts on
their land is a dramatic change. It does not feel fair and will
not achieve the goals, and I would like to hear from the Minister
whether we can take another look at the valuation structure.
This has been a negative speech, but I thank the Government for
the work they are doing. However, I think we can do better for
everybody involved, and by doing better we will achieve some
serious connectivity throughout the country, particularly in
rural areas.
3.03pm
(Eddisbury) (Con)
I am conscious that I am the last Back-Bench speaker in the
debate, and I see a number of hon. Members who have shown a late
curiosity in it over the past few minutes, so I will try to keep
my remarks as pithy as I possibly can.
I will confine my contribution to part 2 of the Bill, on the
changes to the electronic communications code and, in particular,
the Government’s measures to improve digital connectivity and
meet their target of delivering gigabit-capable broadband to 85%
of UK premises by 2025. I think it is fair to say that we have
made real strides in that direction, underpinned by the universal
service obligation. Locally, we have Connecting Cheshire, the
BDUK delivery partner, working to ensure that that is being met;
the gigabit broadband voucher scheme, which I know many of my
constituents have taken advantage of; and more recently the
addition of Cheshire to Project Gigabit, which will hopefully
mean that we secure more of the significant funding that has been
committed to that project.
I argue that Eddisbury is a good test bed from which to judge the
success of the Government’s commitment. It is the 92nd largest
constituency geographically, and 57.9% of it is classed as rural.
It is 599th out of 650 constituencies for superfast broadband
coverage. Some 23.5% of my constituents are aged 65 and over,
against the national average of 18.6%. As we know, isolation is
an issue for that age group, and therefore digital connectivity
is particularly crucial. We also have a high number of small
businesses scattered across the constituency. Some are run by
people from their home, not least the many farmers in Eddisbury,
or from a local commercial building, so the roll-out of
gigabit-capable broadband is fundamental to the whole of my
constituency and the local economy moving forward.
For all those local residents and businesses, reliable and
resilient broadband and mobile coverage of a more than decent
speed has become ever more essential, accelerated, as we know, by
the covid pandemic. Simply put, as my hon. Friend the Member for
North Devon () said, it is now one of
life’s necessary utilities. It is therefore pleasing to report
that in Eddisbury we have seen significant improvements in our
broadband infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the
Member for Boston and Skegness (), who did some sterling work
to try to make those figures move in a very positive direction.
We now have 89.7% of premises with superfast broadband
availability. Some 56.2% are gigabit capable, which is up 15% in
the last year alone, and I think up from just 7% in 2018.
However, as we have heard, there is still much to do,
particularly in the many villages and rural areas of south
Cheshire. For example, 9.4% of premises in Eddisbury receive
broadband speeds of under 10 megabits per second, compared with
6.4% across the whole of the north-west. Since my election in
December 2019, I and my staff have dealt with more than 100 cases
of poor connectivity raised by frustrated constituents. The local
survey that we carried out on the issue revealed that 55% of
those who took part felt that their broadband provider did not
meet the level of internet speeds that it had advertised in its
plan. Respondents also fed back frustration about the real
difficulty, and exasperating delay, in reaching agreements that
allow for fibre cables to be laid across private land to connect
properties—a frustration that the Bill seeks to address.
To give the House a short local example, there are 12 properties
in a semi-rural location that sit between two areas where fibre
has already been installed. Their broadband is delivered through
copper telephone lines at very slow speeds of between 1 megabit
and 5 megabits per second. In 2019, BT Openreach considered
installing fibre as part of a wider project in the local area,
but subsequently withdrew because of the incessant delays in
obtaining wayleaves. To compound the problem, Openreach has
estimated the cost of installing fibre via trench in fields
adjacent to the lane that the properties are located on to be
£55,000—a sum well beyond the amount that could be raised through
the gigabit voucher scheme. In any event, both BT Openreach and
Connecting Cheshire have, for some as yet unexplained reason,
deemed that the 12 properties are not eligible for the vouchers.
As a consequence, we have a stalemate. My team and I are doing
all that we can to unlock the impasse, including on potential
top-up funding and inclusion in the Airband project. I ask the
Minister what assistance she and her team may be able to provide
to ensure that those in the properties get the broadband that
they want, although it may well be that without this legislation
a solution may be a long way down the track.
I support the proposed reforms to the electronic communications
code that include the introduction of a faster procedure to allow
telecom operators to get temporary rights to access and install
infrastructure on land, as well as the sharing of equipment as
part of any upgrade. In doing so, I am of course mindful of, and
have sympathy with, the concerns raised by a number of Members,
including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West
( ) and my hon. Friend the
Member for Stroud (), off the back of the 2017
reforms that resulted, in some cases, in reductions in rents for
hosting infrastructure, which can affect the resolution
timeframe.
As we have heard, those issues were not revisited in the 2021
consultation, and I think that many of us would like some
reassurance from the Minister that the Government will continue
to monitor the issues of both valuation and dispute resolution in
order to understand the consequences of the changes in the code
arrangements. That will ensure that my landowner constituents
feel they are getting the right value for their commitment, while
my local residents can expect to have their gigabit broadband as
quickly as possible.
Overall, this is an important Bill, bringing about the ever more
pressing digital connection of our entire country. In Eddisbury
we are taking significant steps in that direction, but there
remains much more to do, and to that that end—with the help of
the Bill— I will continue to do all I can to make it happen.
3.10pm
(Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate. The first
job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and I am
glad that the security elements of the Bill were developed in
conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre and the
Department. Her Majesty’s Opposition have the utmost confidence
in our national security services, which go to such incredible
lengths to keep us all safe in an increasingly difficult online
world.
A number of speeches have been made by Members on both sides of
the House, but let me deal first with what was said by my hon.
Friends the Members for Ealing North () and for Luton South (), both of whom spoke about
the notspots in their constituencies and the increasing problems
with access to tech. People may have the “plumbing” that can
provide a good standard of broadband, but they may not have,
indeed may not be able to afford, the equipment that would give
them access to it.
We in the Labour party put security at the heart of everything we
do, and it is owing to that desire to see people in this country
safe in cyber-space that we will not oppose the Bill. However,
there are issues that we feel should be addressed in it, some of
which have already been mentioned today.
The product security measures in part 1 contain proposals that
Labour fully supports. They include a ban on devices that come
with easy-to-guess passwords such as “default” and “admin”, and
oblige firms to make such vulnerabilities public knowledge, with
those failing to comply being threatened with large fines. That
is especially prudent as it institutes common-sense rules for
sellers to follow, and ensures that consumers are more engaged in
cyber-security. Basic cyber-hygiene is paramount, and measures
such as changing default passwords would do a great deal to
improve devices’ security by, in theory, adding an additional
layer of protection. However, we agree with many in the industry
that certain measures could have gone further, and we will
continue to hold the Government to account in the areas where we
believe that to be the case.
While the pursuit of increased security on devices is laudable,
there are concerns about the practicality of such changes. If
each device is now legally bound to have a private password, who
will be responsible for managing it? Given the plethora of smart
devices that we all use, I am sure that we have all forgotten a
password or two; I certainly have. If a device needed to be
repaired and the user had forgotten the password, how would the
specialist repairing the phone gain access? Many in the industry
believe that that could potentially lead to a situation in which
manufacturers might have to provide “super-user accounts” or
“backdoor access”.
The Bill also introduces the mandating of manufacturers to tell
consumers at the point of sale about the product’s lifespan and
for how long it will receive security updates. While we can all
agree that more transparency is a good thing for customers, if
security updates are available for a few years—as is the case
with Android phones, for example—surely that will lead to
built-in obsolescence, meaning, in this case, smart devices being
excluded from key security updates after a relatively short
lifespan.
The point is that the companies providing the devices will stop
giving out security updates anyway. All that the Bill is doing is
ensuring that users are informed of when that will happen. It is
not forcing in any obsolescence; it is merely giving consumers
choice by enabling them to know when those security updates will
be stopped.
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but not everyone can afford simply
to keep on replacing their technology. [Interruption.] I gave way
to the hon. Lady, so she should at least give me the courtesy of
allowing me to respond. It is quite simple, is it not?
[Interruption.] Government Members do not like it, do they?
Perhaps this is not an issue in her constituency, but I bet it
is. If a company says, “You will not receive security updates
after X amount of time”, people will naturally assume that they
have to replace their device. We have heard from Members from
across the House today that not everyone can afford to keep
replacing devices based on the security that is put in front of
them.
All I am asking of the Minister is to work with the industry to
ensure that if updates could be taken over a longer period, it is
not simply a binary issue of saying, “This device will no longer
be updated.” It is as simple as that: we are just trying to make
sure that people can afford to keep the devices they own. In many
cases, people will save for years to pay for devices or do it
through hire purchase.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will not, no, because the hon. Lady does not like the
answer—that is the problem, is it not?
We must also consider the wider view that part 1 of Bill is
limited in scope. However, it is clear to all of us here today
that no one nation can legislate the internet. Part 1 does
provide some desperately needed security responsibilities for the
consumer, combined with giving them the necessary information to
make informed choices about how they manage the basics of their
own digital lives. The pandemic has only served to accelerate the
shift to digital, and with that comes the question of increased
security and safeguards online.
Now let us turn to part 2 of the Bill. I do not often say this,
but I am in almost complete agreement with the right hon. Member
for New Forest West ( )—that is an odd experience,
after so many years in the House with him. A number of Members
have spoken about constituency issues relating to the changes to
the code in 2017, including the hon. Members for North Dorset
() and for St Albans (). It is a good job I am a
Welsh MP, because the hon. Members for Ceredigion () and for Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr () have also done so. I pay
particular tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (), who spoke honestly about
what many community groups, farmers, landowners, churches and
many other organisations across her constituency are facing, and
I agree with her.
We are asking the Government for a review, for it to be fair and
for it to provide assurance to those organisations, many of which
were the backbone of supporting communities up and down the land
during the pandemic, whether through feeding us, taking us in
collective worship or offering support to our children and young
people. These community organisations deserve our support and we
need to ask the Government to follow through on their commitment
to undertake a review this year, which was part of the original
commitment from a number of years ago. I pay tribute to the hon.
Lady for saying that.
On part 2 and the current state of our country’s
telecommunications infrastructure, we do have some concerns, as
set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central
(), the shadow Secretary of
State. Having inherited a world-leading position from the last
Labour Government, since 2010 the Conservatives have cultivated a
culture of missed targets, stunted ambition, and ultimately,
stagnation when it comes to our telecommunications
infrastructure. The last Labour Government recognised the central
role that connectivity would play in the economy of the future,
and rightly placed the issue front and centre. As a result, we
delivered first-generation broadband to about 13 million UK
households by 2009, which shows that large digital infrastructure
projects can be delivered at breakneck speed.
To put it simply, we had a vision that we made a reality.
Ambitions can be delivered at this sort of speed only when there
is real effort, action and long-term planning on behalf of
Ministers. Unfortunately, we are not getting that from the
current Administration. As has become the norm with this
Government, bold and exciting-sounding targets are made in
public, only to be quietly watered down at a later stage. The
Prime Minister came into office promising full-fibre broadband
“by 2025”. His Government then realised that they were not going
to be able to deliver it, so they reduced the target to full
gigabit broadband by 2025. Realising they also could not deliver
that, they landed at the current target of 85% gigabit broadband
by 2025. Several bodies, including the Public Accounts Committee,
the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and
many industry experts, now doubt that the Government are even
going to achieve that. Dither, delay, disappointment—this has
become the norm under this Conservative Government.
The primary concern is that this Bill fails to address the
fundamental flaws introduced in the ECC. The code did not receive
the necessary scrutiny, resulting in an imbalance between mobile
operators and property owners. The Law Society’s analysis makes
it clear that the Bill fails to address fundamental flaws in the
code that are holding back the roll-out across the country. We
are now concerned that the measures in this Bill may slow the 5G
roll-out further by disincentivising small building owners and
landowners, such as churches, community groups, sports clubs and
farmers, from hosting phone masts.
This all began when the Government introduced the ECC in 2017,
permitting telecoms firms to renegotiate rents for phone masts
down by as much as 90%. Despite promising that the reductions in
rent would, in reality, be no more than 40%, this has not held
true and the rent reductions have far exceeded that figure. It
was deeply disappointing to hear the Secretary of State say to
the right hon. Member for New Forest West that there will be no
review, despite there being promises to the contrary—yet another
broken promise to the people of this country.
The Government have created a framework that allows telecoms
companies to dramatically reduce their costs at the expense of
businesses, sports clubs, farmers, small landowners and community
organisations. I know the Minister will have heard at first hand
from a number of organisations across the country that rely on
this small but crucial source of income. It is therefore of the
utmost importance that the Government review the Bill to make
rental valuations for telecoms masts fairer.
We heard from the hon. Member for Stroud about the David and
Goliath issue of a big telecoms company versus a church, sports
club or scout hut. It surely cannot be in the Conservative
Government’s interest simply to ignore all the groups across the
country that are in desperate need of the regular income that has
been ripped away from them for reasons they still do not really
understand.
I finish with a couple of questions for the Minister. Will the
Government stand by their 2017 commitment that rent reductions
should be no more than an absolute maximum of 40%? Will she look
to make a statement, or at least issue guidance, to establish a
clear expectation of land valuation that removes the impasse
between telecoms companies and site owners? Finally, will she
commit to looking at the evidence base and undertake a full
economic review of the code by the end of 2022, as was promised
during the passage of the previous Bill?
The Opposition want to ensure that every community across the UK
has the very best opportunities when it comes to connectivity,
whether it be in people’s homes or to allow small businesses to
start up right across the United Kingdom. We want the Government
to share in that ambition and to keep their promise to deliver
improved digital infrastructure. We ask the Minister to step up
and deliver these much-needed improvements across the UK.
3.22pm
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure ()
I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this
debate. I am pleased that the Bill commands cross-party support,
which underlines the commitment of this House to make sure that
every household and business in our country can access faster
digital connectivity and feel assured that our tech is secure. I
pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness
() for laying the foundations
for this Bill and for bringing his expertise to bear in today’s
debate.
This Bill comes at an opportune time when cyber-attacks are on
the rise and the pandemic has underlined the increasing
importance of digital connectivity to how we live, work and
socialise. The quality and security of that connectivity has an
impact on people’s life chances today and even more so in the
future, so we have to grip these issues now. That is why we have
to view fantastic telecoms infrastructure as more akin to a key
utility, notwithstanding the need for different regulatory
approaches.
In that way, this should not be seen as a dry debate about
technology. I appreciate the valiant attempts to spice up this
debate, which is about people and how we give them and their
communities the fundamental tools to live good lives and prosper.
These networks are vital for the UK’s future competitiveness. We
cannot stay at the heart of the global economy if our connections
are not world class, which is something we want not just for
pockets of our nation but for every community.
We must not see a digital divide emerge between well-connected
urban areas and poorly connected rural areas. I know how
passionate Members are about the connectivity of their regions,
and I welcome their highlighting of the challenges. I pay
particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon
(), who is tireless in her
pursuit of better broadband for her county. I encourage ongoing
engagement with my Department so that we get high-quality
intelligence about what is really happening on the ground as our
operators roll out new networks and upgrade existing. I ask my
hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury () to write to me in detail
with some of his concerns about particular streets in his
constituency.
As tech becomes a central driving force for our economy and our
society, we have to be able to trust it without ordinary citizens
needing deep expertise in cyber-security. That is why we want to
make connected devices more secure by design, whether baby
monitors or malevolent toasters, as highlighted by the hon.
Member for Ochil and South Perthshire ()—perhaps not as perilous a
nightmare as that offered by my hon. Friend the Member for
Rushcliffe (), who discussed pictures of
nude US Presidents. Cyber-attacks continue to be a serious and
current threat to businesses and states, but this is also
increasingly a phenomenon that is affecting all sorts of
organisations, from local authorities and public bodies to
individuals. The hon. Member for Ogmore () raised an important point
about the service of cyber officials and the tremendous work they
do, and I echo his words.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West ( ) made a typically zesty
contribution, but I am glad that he has at least accepted that we
ought to be debating these issues, as yesterday he was
considering not allowing that. He is very concerned about lowered
rents for landlords who are hosting telecoms infrastructure. We
have discussed these issues in person. As he knows, the
electronic communications code was changed in 2017. I should make
it clear again—I know this will disappoint hon. Members—that we
are not seeking to alter that pricing structure again. In our
view, the prices being paid for rights to install communications
apparatus prior to 2017 were much too high, and with digital
communications becoming an increasingly critical part of daily
life, that really needed to be addressed.
The argument has been made that delays in digital deployment are
primarily a result of changes to the code in 2017 because the
amounts offered by some operators are reduced, thereby
disincentivising landowners from letting land be used. We do not
think this is the case. We maintain that the 2017 valuation
provisions created the right balance between public need for
digital communications and landowner rights.
But that is not to say that the valuation changes did not create
challenges, and the Bill is designed to make a positive
difference to some of the David and Goliath situations raised by
my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (). To help ensure that fair
outcomes are reached, we are introducing changes to encourage
more collaborative discussion. The alternative dispute resolution
provision will offer a particularly useful means of tackling
situations involving either unreasonably low offers or
unrealistically high payments. I am none the less happy to
continue this discussion as the Bill progresses through the
House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West suggested
that the Government are on the side of rapacious telecoms
operators over landlords. I wish to assure him that that is not
the case. We are getting good digital infrastructure to as many
people as possible, as quickly as possible. I challenge the idea
raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset () that the telecoms operators
are making a quick buck out of the networks they build. These are
long-term investments, and the Government are pushing them very
hard to deliver more, including by stripping high-risk vendors
from their networks and rolling out infrastructure to communities
that are not within easy reach.
I dare to suggest that some of the rarer and more emotive cases
about community organisations receiving reduced rents are being
used by certain lobbyists, some of whom are former Labour MPs, to
obscure a larger, pretty hard-nosed commercial interest from
companies that have bought up large numbers of telecoms sites and
are concerned about receiving a lower return on their investment.
Some of the same interest groups that oppose rent changes have
written to me to express their support for better connectivity in
rural areas. We should therefore not pretend that better
connectivity does not rely on better access to sites and more
realistic pricing for network operators who wish to deploy their
services. Some hon. Members have pushed for the Bill to go
further, particularly in relation to renewals and operator
rights. Our policy aims align with that; we just need to make
sure that the legislation is working as we hope. If amendments
are required in Committee, we will actively consider them.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central () mentioned the recent report by
the Public Accounts Committee on gigabit roll-out.
I thank the PAC for its detailed work. It expressed concerns
about the absence of legislation, but here is the legislation,
which the Secretary of State and I have championed since our
arrival in the Department, building on the fantastic work of my
predecessor. We have also launched a series of procurements in
the hardest-to-reach areas and Building Digital UK will soon be
established as an executive agency to drive that work. I am glad
that the impact is already being seen in areas such as
Eddisbury.
On the product security part of the Bill, I welcome the expertise
of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and I encourage her
to engage in the new national cyber strategy, because we would
benefit from some of her points. The hon. Member for Manchester
Central expressed concerns about whether we are taking future
technological developments into account. There are a number of
secondary provisions in the legislation. Technologies are
changing all the time and it is important that the legislation
can change with it.
Finally, the Bill is not a silver bullet to address all the cyber
challenges that we face. It is an important tool in our arsenal.
The UK has established global leadership in the area and we are
the first to develop domestic legislation that creates
cyber-security requirements for consumer connectable products.
The Bill will allow us to protect people across the UK, even as
the world changes around us, and to keep pace with technology as
it transforms our everyday lives. Combined with the measures on
telecoms infrastructure, it will do a huge amount in the coming
years to benefit our constituents and society at large.
I am sure that we can continue to work together to bring this
important piece of legislation into law as soon as possible. We
care passionately about connectivity for every community in our
country and I am sure that the same spirit will continue as the
Bill makes it passage through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
(PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Product Security
and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not
previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29
March 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on
the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously
concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment
of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are
commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously
concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of
interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not
apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(.)
Question agreed to.
PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
(MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Product
Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, it is
expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or
by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable
under any other Act out of money so provided;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(.)
Question agreed to.
PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
(CARRY-OVER)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.
80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament,
proceedings on the Product Security and Telecommunications
Infrastructure Bill have not been completed, they shall be
resumed in the next Session.—(.)
Question agreed to.
|
