Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill
Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2022.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. If hon. Members with speaking notes could email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, that would be very helpful to Hansard. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate with Ministers electronically. All electronic devices should be switched to silent mode. Unlike in Select Committees—although these proceedings are similar—tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can deal with these matters formally. We discussed the programme motion last week at the Programming Sub-Committee.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to members by email. I would usually call on the Minister at this stage to move the motion for the Committee to sit in private, but I do not think that the Front Benchers on either side want to move into a private session, so we will continue sitting in public and the proceedings are still being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any hon. Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
I am a former worker in the cyber-security industry, and have worked for a couple of the witnesses giving evidence today. One is techUK; I have also worked for BT, which of course owns Openreach. I also draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I undertook some work in cyber-security for MHR between May and December last year.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. The Clerks will note that declaration from Ruth Edwards; and Ruth, if you wish to refer to it later in the proceedings, do so.
James Grundy (Conservative, Leigh)
This is slightly tangential, but better declared than risked. The Grundy family farm has a mobile phone mast, for which my father receives yearly payment.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. The same applies.
Examination of Witnesses
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
I welcome the witnesses to the meeting, and thank you for your time. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed, so this session will end at 10.25 am sharp, or earlier if we run out of questions. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. Let us move first to the Minister to ask any questions that she may have.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Thank you for coming, Anna. It is good to see you again, and I am grateful to you for taking the time to meet me earlier. It would be helpful to understand how the curve of difficult cases has changed. You will know that in 2017 a lot of reforms were made to the electronic communications code and, initially, there were difficulties in finding the right balance between the rights of landowners and the interests of telecoms operators. A larger a number of cases arose, but certainly from my experience as a Minister, the number of difficult cases seems to have evened out. Is that the experience of Protect and Connect?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Could you be a little bit more precise on case numbers? How many people have directly approached Protect and Connect to ask you to lobby on their behalf? You have said that there are still a large number of cases, so can you put a number on that?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
On the 90% to 95% reduction that you mentioned, will you set out some examples of the impact that is having on site owners, churches and community groups? What challenges will they face as a result of these significant reductionsQ ?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q In your organisation’s view, how is the imbalance between providers and telecoms companies resolved? How could we improve the Bill?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Before Chris Elmore asks another question, let me say to the other two witnesses, who are appearing virtually, that if at any stage they wish to add anything to what has been said, please indicate that to me, and I will call you.
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q Dr Trotman, do your association and your members think that the Bill addresses the imbalance between site providers and telecom companies?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q Does part 2 of the ECC improve communications and engagement with the industry?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q Should the alternative dispute resolution mechanism be mandatory, or voluntary, as is proposed in the Bill?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Ms Griggs, good morning. Could you also answer that question on the AGR, please? Should it be compulsory, or voluntary, as set out in the BillQ ?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
I have two last questions for you, Ms Griggs. First, I am interested in some examples of where tenant farmers are being impacted by the reductions—similar to Ms Turley’s point on some of the broader community groups. Secondly, in moving forward, does the risk lower rents impact on farmers’ decisions regarding land access for masts and other Q telecoms devices? In essence, what are your members saying on the broader NFU’s work around the Bill and improving infrastructure for digital communications?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. Will any Members wishing to ask questions please indicate that? Ruth Edwards.
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q I refer the Committee to my previous declaration of interest. Ms Turley, I want to ask a point of clarification, please. You mentioned that 33,000 site owners across the country were affected by the legislation. Is that 33,000 site owners in total or 33,000 whom you believe have been particularly badly affected?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q And roughly what proportion of them have reached out to your campaign?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
You must have a rough idea. Is it something like 10% or 50%?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q How does the current rent valuation for phone masts compare to rents that other utility providers pay to landowners?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q Tell me more about your campaign. How is the organisation set up?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q Is APW APWireless?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
So that’s the phone mast lease investment firm?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
What’s their interest in this?
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
So they would stand to gain substantially financially if we increased rent valuations.
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Just to be clear, I do not think that there is anything wrong with APWireless lobbying for their interest; like you say, big telcos would as well. For clarity and transparency, however, I think it is important for people to note that Protect and Connect does not just represent small landowners and community groups; it also represents APWireless, which describes itself as one of the world’s leading mast lease investment firms, with thousands of leases in 21 countries across the world. I think it important that we have that on the record.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
I remind Members that we should confine ourselves to questions, not to straightforward dialogue.
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
This is quite an interesting Bill. I served on the 2017 Bill Committee, and at the time I thought it was interesting that a Conservative Government wanted to severely restrict private property rights. Nevertheless, I think we were content to support the principle that the legislation might unlock a problem. But, Anna, are you saying that that is not what has happened? Is that a fair assessment of the overall criticism of the Bill by both large and small landowners who have an interest in this?Q
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q You presented the case that someone might own a bit of land, and they would have previously got £1,000 for the site and now they are only getting £50. I can honestly say that that was not envisaged when the Bill was discussed in Committee in 2017. The Government never suggested that; everyone knew that the legislation would suppress rents for private property owners, but no one really understood that there would be a 90% suppression. Is that genuinely typical, or are those outliers in terms of what has happened to people’s private property rights and their ability to raise rent from their property?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q My final question is to Dr Trotman. What is your response to the charge that you are in effect trying to thwart the Government’s levelling-up agenda in what you are doing? Are you trying to stop essential national infrastructure rolling out? The state can reasonably suppress private property rights in order to bring about such a policy aim. This is a case in which the state, reasonably, is doing just that. What is your response?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Before I bring in Rebecca Long Bailey, Eleanor Griggs, did you wish to say something?
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford and Eccles)
One observation that I have certainly made as a constituency MP is that community groups and small businesses that are faced with applications from telecoms companies often tell me when I assist them that they feel powerless, either in objecting to the proposals themselves, or in negotiating decent terms and conditions for the licence or lease agreement. They simply cannot afford the costly legal advice that would be required to get a decent deal or to object. How will the Bill exacerbate that inequity, and what amendments should be put in place to ensure that we level the playing fieldQ ?
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford and Eccles)
Thank you. Dr Trotman?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
If you are finished, are there any other questions?
James Grundy (Conservative, Leigh)
I refer the Committee to my earlier declaration of interest. We mentioned the issue of particular sites and the considerable reductions in Q rent. Is that a universal problem across all telecoms companies, or are there any particularly egregious offenders regarding the practice of aggressive rent reduction?
James Grundy (Conservative, Leigh)
Q Are those changes, with the creation of those middlemen tower companies, largely developments since the 2017 review of the legislation?
James Grundy (Conservative, Leigh)
Q Just for clarification, on that basis, do you think that the pressure for dramatic rent reductions is coming from those middlemen companies, rather than the telecoms companies themselves?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
If there are no more questions, I thank our three witnesses for a very informative session, and for giving us their time. Thank you very much.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from John Moor, managing director of the IoT Security Foundation; Dave Kleidermacher from Google and the Internet of Secure Things Alliance; and Dan Patefield, head of programme, cyber and national security at techUK. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Can I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, starting with Dan?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. I will move straight to the Minister for questions.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Thank you, Mr Stringer, and thank you to all the witnesses who have come here today.
John, you rather touched on the challenge: this is an area that is very dynamic. All of us are learning what the security risks are, and in Government—which often moves very slowly—it is a particular challenge to manage such a dynamic, changing picture. That is why in this legislation, we have set out some broad principles and basic requirements, but a lot of this has to be secondary legislation so we can keep up to speed with all the changes that are going to be happening to connected devices, and some of the risks that will come with that. I think it would be very helpful if you could set out for the benefit of the Committee how this picture has changed over the past few years, where you think things will be moving, the extent to which connected devices will be in our homes in future, and some of the security risks that will present.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q It would be helpful if the other witnesses could also set out the context from their perspective. I am particularly interested in Google’s view, given it is a company with vast resources and a lot of expertise. There is a challenge for smaller operators about how to fulfil basic security requirements and how you think the basic set of requirements will help start that conversation with people who may not have even thought about the security of their devices before the legislative requirements come in.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Dan, you touched on the challenge about the need for simplicity, so that this very complex area is at least understood on a basic level—a general hygiene that everybody needs to apply. Ultimately, there is a need to thrash out a lot of this via secondary legislation. I wondered to what extent that basic requirement has helped you have conversations with other members of your organisation who may not have been aware of some of the challenges coming down the line. Also, does the basic three-point requirement that we will be introducing help the conversation with consumers about what they need to do, and some of the things that they need to be demanding of products when it comes to security?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Just one final question for Dave Kleidermacher. You talk in your submission about not having static labels, but live labels. Can you take me through how that would look in practice for the consumer?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
We now move on to the shadow Minister, Chris Elmore.
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q Thank you, Mr Stringer. This is only for Mr Patefield, unless anybody else wants to come in, of course. You talked, in answer to the Minister, about implementation and getting to the specifics of how that is delivered. In your evidence you refer to manufacturers and retailers being concerned about the timescales of the Bill, specifically the 12 months. I wonder whether you could expand on that, as I think you wanted to in your previous answer, and specifically on how secure devices could become obsolete because of the speed that it would take to implement the changes within the 12 months of the Bill’s introduction.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Do either of the other two witnesses wish to comment?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. John, did you wish to add anything?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you.
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q One final question for techUK about part 2. Lots of organisations that you represent talk about the digital connectivity divide within cities and large towns between flats and access for upgrading and automatic upgrading. You have said that the Bill could go further to deal with overground infrastructure and automatic upgrades for flats to resolve the problem. Could you expand on that and tell us what your members say about the challenges they face, because this is not just about rural roll-out or semi-rural roll-out, but changing infrastructure, including in boroughs such as Hackney and Camden—places where you would not automatically think there were connectivity issues?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Thank you.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank our witnesses for their time and contributions. I am sure that when Committee members come to consider the Bill in detail they will find those comments very helpful. Thank you.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will start this afternoon’s session with oral evidence from Professor Madeline Carr, professor of global politics and cyber-security, and David Rogers MBE, the chief executive officer of Copper Horse and an Internet of Things Security Foundation board member. We have until 2.40 pm for this session. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, please?
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Thank you very much. Members of the Committee will ask you questions in turn, but we will start with the Minister.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q29 It would be helpful if, for the Committee’s benefit, you could set out your own background and interest in this area. I would specifically like to ask you about how this fits with international regulation of this space. What are other countries doing? Some of the witnesses on the last panel discussed the potential challenges if different countries are doing different types of regulation in this area. How can the UK show leadership in this space and try to minimise the burdens on businesses while protecting, and maximising the protection of, consumers?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q I wonder if you could set out some of the challenges in this space, in relation to the fact that there is such a breadth of devices that need to be governed, with different vulnerabilities, and how we try to ensure that we keep pace with all of the changes in technology that will be coming down the line. There are also the specific requirements of different types of connected devices, whether watches or fridges.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Do you have anything to add on this, Madeline?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q David, I was interested to know that you were involved in the kind of practice being drawn up. I would be interested to understand the journey we have been on here; there has been an acknowledgment that a voluntary code of practice is not enough and legislation is required. Can you take us through that journey to legislation?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Finally, I just wonder how we use this as a moment to increase consumer awareness. You both suggest that the onus should not be on consumers, but as a Minister I am still concerned that people do not entirely understand what we mean by “internet of things” and the extent to which we will have even more connected devices in the future. Could you set out what the security challenge will be in the future, in your opinion, and how we try to use this to educate consumers so that there is an informed customer base when product decisions are made in this area?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
To keep the conversation on consumers, eBay, Amazon and other platforms are not part of this Bill, but an awful lot of research out there suggests that they do not regulate what they sell. There are an awful lot of suggestions from organisations like Which?, whom we are meeting later, that those platforms’ markets are often flooded with devices that are not secure, but are cheaper. Again, to go back to your comment about how security should not just be for the rich, if someone is looking for a cheaper type of product, they can go there and their thought will not be about security, but about how shiny and new, or refurbished, it is—how it looks very good and the same as what the other child in the class has, and so on. What are your views about looking at the online marketplaces? Is that the next step, through secondary legislation or this Bill? Should they be as responsible as the manufacturers, if they are wilfully selling products that they know are not secure?Q
In that vein, is there something in the idea of a reporting mechanism—either by the Department or some sort of regulator, annually or however long is appropriate—for whether these organisations and manufacturers are working to the standards that you so strongly set out? They have had years to deal with the standards, but many are still not doing it. I am suggesting naming and shaming, if you will, to give consumers better informed decisions.
A lot of people borrow money to buy these devices. On Second Reading, I expressed a concern that many people will look in a retailer or online, and go, “If that doesn’t exist for this much time—if it only has two years on it and the loan is three years—why am I bothering to purchase it if it is obsolete in that time?” That is a concern that many people have. Consumers potentially do not know what this or that means, but they know what “security” means, and if they think something is not secure, then, as Professor Carr mentioned, they think, “Well, I won’t bother having that product, because it isn’t safe”, because that is how they view the word “security”, which is logical, but not necessarily the best option given what they are looking for. There are several questions in there, forgive me, but they are interconnected with what the Minister was saying.
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Professor Carr, you made some really interesting comments about the balance between regulation and innovation, and how it is not always as it is portrayed to be. Do you think the Bill strikes the right balance in those areas? Is there anything missing from it that should be in there?Q
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Are there other specific security measures that you would like to see in the Bill?Q
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Thank you. Mr Rogers, I think you mentioned that four out of five IoT manufacturers still do not have a vulnerability disclosure programme—correct me if I am wrong. I want to put something to you that we received in written evidence from techUK, who gave evidence to the Committee this morning. In its written evidence, it says:Q
“Current proposals risk unintended consequences for manufacturers and consumers”.
It points particularly to security requirement 2, which is to implement a means to manage reports of vulnerabilities, and notes:
“On vulnerability reporting, not all reports/vulnerabilities will require intervention. The Enforcement Body needs to carefully consider when to alert the public about security risks to ensure associated devices are not viewed as obsolete or that vulnerabilities yet to be mitigated are advertised to threat actors.”
What is your response?
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Can I bring in Kevin Brennan, as we only have four minutes before this panel comes to an end?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Professor Carr, you do not need a magic wand to get your wishes; you need an amendment. Would you welcome an amendment to the Bill that specified that devices have to be supported for a minimum time?Q
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Do you own an Alexa-type device in your home?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Why not?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Will the Bill give you sufficient trust to purchase and acquire such a device and have it in your own home?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Very briefly, Professor Carr, if the security threat as regards connected products were substantially to change over the next few years, will the Bill cover those changes, or will some flexibility need to be built into the Bill to address them?Q
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Thank you. That brings us to a slightly premature end of this evidence session. I thank the witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for their evidence.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Catherine Colloms, MD for corporate affairs at Openreach; Simon Holden, the group chief operating officer at CityFibre; Mark Bartlett, director of operations at Cellnex UK, appearing on behalf of Speed Up Britain; and Juliette Wallace, also of Speed Up Britain.
We have until 3.40 pm for this session. Will the witnesses introduce themselves briefly for the record, please, before I turn to the Minister? We will go left to right.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Thank you for attending the session. I do not know whether you watched this morning’s session, but Protect and Connect and other witnesses put it that, since 2017 and the changes to the electronic communications code, roll-out has been even more difficult and slow, and that no progress has been made as a result. What is your response, as providers, to those concerns? Do you believe that the approach by operators has been too heavy-handed in the negotiations with landowners?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Juliette, did you want to add anything? You do not have to.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q This morning, a rather unflattering depiction was created of the behaviour of operators towards landowners. “David and Goliath” was a term that was used: using financial might to bully landowners. Do you accept that characterisation of operators’ behaviour? It was also suggested that people might be disincentivised to have any infrastructure on their land, because of low rents, and that that will therefore slow roll-out to the detriment of everybody who shares our aim of better digital connectivity. It would be helpful to have your response to some of those assertions.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Catherine, you set out some ambitions on roll-out. Were those ambitions based on the presumption that this legislation will go through, or were they based on the status quo? What would be the impact on the ambitions of your members and your company if the legislation did not go through? What would be the impact on rural connectivity, in particular?
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Can I ask witnesses to please keep their answers shorter? I have had a number of Back-Bench Members already indicate that they want to come in.
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q I have two very quick questions, because I am conscious of time and Back-Bench colleagues. On the flats and the issues around the digital divide, you mentioned the overall figure—1.4 million, I think it was. It would be good to understand where those places are and how that is impacting on connectivity, poverty, and access to education and services. There is almost an assumption that broadband roll-out is an issue in rural areas, which clearly is not the case if you are talking about mass flat construction. If an amendment regarding access were put forward and accepted, either in the Commons or the Lords, would that be about still trying to engage with the landlords to say that you are gaining access, rather than saying, “Look, we’ve got the powers. We are now going to start simply entering through this separate law”?
This is for Mr Bartlett. Forgive me if I am misquoting you, but I think you said 1,000 contracts have been negotiated since 2017. I am assuming those are all new sites, or are some of them renewals as well?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q To flip it on its head, how many people, companies, organisations or groups have tried to withdraw from contracts dating back more than a decade before 2017? This is purely for the record; it is not a trick question. It is all good and well saying that it is 1,000 since 2017, but how many have tried to walk away or are still arguing that the use of their land, building or whatever should not continue?
Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)
Mr Bartlett, you said that, as far as the agreements are concerned, some 85% are consensual. I would welcome it if you could expand on that, because there is a disproportionate element in terms of bargaining strength. Of the 85%, I am minded to say that there are some small landowners who probably are not happy but feel that they do not want to incur legal costs, that they are up against a David and Goliath scenario, and that they have no option, so they sign up reluctantly but are seen in your statistics as being consensual. Is it not right, then, to put on the record that that 85% is not everybody saying, “Sure, no problem. I have something here; I will just sign it—there you are”? I suspect that a lot of people have concerns about signing, but the cost of legal advice and so on is prohibitive. The way you have portrayed it makes it black and white and very simplistic when, in reality, it is anything butQ .
Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)
Sixty-three per cent. is still a significant sum for a small farmer who is counting every penny in his budget. The Committee can understand your reasoning in terms of policy and so on, but as far as the individual is concerned, I maintain—we will have to agree to disagree—that the 85% figure is somewhat misleading if taken in its individual context. I have made my point. Thank you.
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Just to get the record accurate, Ms Colloms, you mentioned earlier the Government’s 85% manifesto target. That was not the target was it?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
The manifesto target was for full gigabit by 2025, but that was dropped to 85% in November 2020, wasn’t it?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Ms Wallace, you said earlier that your companies were “over-enthusiastic” in the early years after 2017. I suspect that it is not really enthusiasm that you are referring to, but being over-assertive or aggressive with landowners, perhaps—that is probably what they would say. If that were the case after 2017, why would landowners not believe that the same would happen after 2022?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Can I stop you there? I do understand that—I served on the 2017 Bill Committee; obviously, I know about it—but my question is, why would your companies not do exactly the same again? You implied that they did not act very well after 2017 by using the term “over-enthusiastic”. Why would they act any better now?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Okay. Finally, Mr Bartlett, you mentioned a figure just now in answer to Mr Vara—was it 64%?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
That is the average. Could you tell us some of the figures for those who were worst affected? If 63% is the average, what were some of the biggest drops in income for people affected?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Would anybody have suffered a 90% reduction?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Ms Wallace, do you have any figures in relation to that?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
But the average has been a reduction.
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Thanks. I think everyone understood there was going to be a reduction, but I cannot remember those sorts of figures ever being mentioned at the time of the 2017 Bill.
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Q This question is for Catherine Colloms and Simon Holden to start with. My constituency, Hastings and Rye, has urban and rural areas—we have small Rye—and pre-existing 2017 infrastructure. You have both explained the consequences of the cost if you cannot use existing duct and pole infrastructure. What activities, exactly, would be required to upgrade existing infrastructure, and what reassurance can you give landlords or people who own gardens containing a telegraph pole or that sort of thing?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
The visual impact is going to be minimal.
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
On the telegraph pole.
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Q Why do you think the Bill does not cover infrastructure that was there before 2017?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Q Thank you. I have one more question for you, if I may. In Hastings and Rye, with rural and urban areas, and levels of deprivation, we do not want digital exclusion. Are there any other changes to the Bill that will get full fibre out more quickly to those people who really need it?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Q Thank you. I have one question for Mr Bartlett. We heard this morning from a colleague who is not here this afternoon that one possible reason for the increase in costs that perhaps Cellnex, for example, has met is that between the landowner and the operator, middlemen became involved. What are your thoughts on that?
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford and Eccles)
The Bill will give the right to share and upgrade pre-2017 infrastructure. In relation to mobile coverage, to what extent will this dramatically improve the roll-out? The range of 5G, as I understand it, is very limited—is it 500 metres? Perhaps you could confirm that. Beyond that, it would be very helpful for us to understand to what extent telecoms providers are currently collaborating with one another to locate the best sites to situate new masts and to upgrade existing masts, to minimise the impact that communities will face. As we heard from various people this morning, many communities feel very powerless in this whole process, and it would be helpful to reassure them that they are being considered and there is a wider agenda that is being addressed by such companiesQ .
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford and Eccles)
Q To what extent are mobile providers sharing their proposed network coverage maps with local authorities, so that local authorities could try to match them with other providers, for example, where such collaboration has not been taking place?
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford and Eccles)
Q I have one final question on the poles issue. I am genuinely inquisitive about this. Is it the case that an area could potentially have a full-fibre broadband network under the road, as it were, but also have a pole network adding competition? If that is the case, are we at risk of creating rural deserts where there are fewer consumers and so less commercial incentive to do that, and overpopulated areas that have many options but a lot of infrastructure in their street scene? That is a question for Simon and Catherine.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
If there are no further questions from Members, on behalf of the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I hope I have not hurried you along too much.
Examination of Witness
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Q We are now going to hear oral evidence from Till Sommer, head of policy at the Internet Service Providers’ Association. We have until 4.20 pm for this session. Please introduce yourself briefly, and then I will turn to the Minister.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Thank you. We will return to that at the end of the questions, please.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q It would be helpful to know how your members believe they stand to benefit from the Bill. You say that there is a strange degree of unity among them on this legislation, but in so far as there is any disparity of view among your members, it would be helpful if you could characterise that for us, so that we have an understanding of where commercial interest sits for different types of internet providers here.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q The legislation will make it easier to share infrastructure. What is your analysis of how that will change the economics of roll-out, but also reduce visual impairment from having new infrastructure in post? As MPs, we are all familiar with some of the concerns that constituents have about that kind of infrastructure in their vicinity. Will this help maximise the existing networks, such that we do not see more masts and so on?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Do your members have any views on the cyber-security aspects of the legislation?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
The Minister took my last question on part 1, so I am happy to give my time to Back Benchers.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Do any Back Benchers have further questions for Mr Sommer? In that case, I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee, Mr Sommer, for the evidence that you have given, and we will move on to the next panel, somewhat ahead of time.
Examination of Witnesses
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which? and Jessica Eagleton, senior policy and public affairs officer at Refuge. We have until 5 o’clock for this session if needed, but as we have started ahead of time I am sure that nobody will mind if we finish ahead of time. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? Then I will turn to the Minister to ask the first question.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Thank you both for attending. As a Minister, I am concerned about the general lack of awareness of the risks and vulnerabilities when it comes to internet of things devices. To what extent do you believe that the legislation will help to stimulate a consumer discussion about how we best protect ourselves against some of the threats that are emerging as the technology develops? It would be helpful, Ms Eagleton, if you could set out your own interests in terms of Refuge and the vulnerabilities that have been highlighted in your work when it comes to the impact that an insecure connected device can have on an individual.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Do you have anything to add?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Do you have any view on the enforcement powers in the legislation? Do you think that they are sufficient to deal with non-compliance?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q My first question, for Ms Eagleton, is on tech and some of the work that Refuge has done to highlight the fact that, as you said, 50% of all cases of violence against women and girls now involve some sort of device. What conversations are you having with the Government on funding and advertising to try to show that these devices have an impact? On new technology, such as AirTags, we have seen some very good pieces from journalists explaining how that is increasing the options for people to stalk, follow and track others, with terrible cases of people who have been victims of domestic abuses historically finding them in their cars. I am wondering how all that links into the work of the Bill, about areas where you would like to see improvements to acknowledge the fact that technology is moving so quickly, and whether we can do something in the Bill to introduce meaningful support for women and girls who are victims of violence.
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q You mentioned the broader point of industry and manufacturer engagement, and situations where they announce that there is flaw but do not think about the consequence of announcing a way in which someone can hack a mobile phone, for example. Is it fair to say that the industry does not necessarily fully appreciate the impact its technology has on women who are victims of domestic abuse? What work is it doing already, without legislation, to acknowledge that its devices are playing a significantly greater part in impacting on people who are survivors or are being abused currently?
Chris Elmore (Labour, Ogmore)
Q I have a final question for Ms Concha on the online marketplaces, which do significant work in this area. In your view, how easy would it be to change the Bill to ensure that online marketplaces are part of it as well as manufacturers? The argument was made earlier that there most certainly is a responsibility on those who sell the product. Particularly if you are using, say, eBay, there is often limited interaction between the seller, the parent company and the person purchasing. Arguably, eBay as the organisation should take significant responsibility. I am keen to understand whether you think that is a relatively easy change for the Government to make to help close what you describe as a significant loophole in the Bill.
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Good afternoon to you both. It is clear that in the Bill the onus is on the manufacturers to meet the product security and safety requirements. Clearly, consumers also need to be aware of security threats both within the context of domestic abuse and otherwise. Should the Government be giving guidance to consumers? I do not know what the current situation is, but is it the role of the Government to give guidance to consumersQ ?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Q Where would a woman go as a first point of call if she discovered that something in her house was monitoring or stalking her?
Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q On the Which? side, Ms Concha, one of our earlier witnesses said that they thought it would be a good idea if the Bill were amended to establish in law a minimum time limit for which this type of device is supported. Is that something that Which? would support?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q You have not drafted an amendment by any chance, have you?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Genuinely, do you think that it is a preferable outcome for the measure to be in secondary legislation so that it might be a little more flexible, rather than putting it on the face of the Bill?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Understood. Ms Eagleton, what are the devices that cause the most problems in relation to cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q You mentioned that people could report that sort of thing using a helpline, but are women concerned that, if they make a report using the internet on their computer or telephone, that might be detected by the abusive partner?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Q Finally, should the Government provide clarity by detailing measures that industry could take on the face of the Bill?
Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)
Thank you.
Ruth Edwards (Conservative, Rushcliffe)
Q Ms Concha, you represent the consumer perspective. I wanted to ask about some concerns around labelling that were put to us this morning. In particular, Google mentioned that it has concerns about having a static label on the product because security information changes all the time—a product might be fine today, but it could discover a vulnerability about it tomorrow. It strikes me that we are dealing with a really wide range of security awareness, and ability to use and understand technology among consumers. Google suggested a sort of live label, such as a QR code, which could give the real-time security status. What do you think is the best way to communicate security information to consumers—such as the information in requirement 3, about the minimum time for which a product will receive security updates—bearing in mind the huge range of understanding and ability that we have in this area?
Caroline Nokes (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North)
If there are no further questions from Committee members, that brings today’s sitting to a close. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. The Committee will meet again on Thursday at 11.30 am in Committee Room 14 to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.