5th Report - Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government's letter sets out its justification for the Bill's approach on each area raised by the Constitution Committee, and does not propose changes to the Bill on the three areas covered.

• On the definition of 'security compromise', the government acknowledges the Committee's concerns but is "confident" the Bill provides a "sufficiently detailed definition", saying a narrower one might not capture some future threats.
• On appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, it says ordinary judicial review principles will "ensure a smooth regulatory process" and should reduce incentives to litigate solely to delay it. Enforcement decisions under sections 105S and 105T are excluded.
• On oversight, it does "not consider it appropriate" to place the designated vendor direction powers under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, saying the Investigatory Powers Act regime is "not directly comparable".
• It points to existing oversight: notices and directions must be laid before Parliament. Where this would be "contrary to the interests of national security", the DCMS Select Committee "will be able to view" them.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error