Select committee: Defence Committee
Recommendation 30
Second Report - The Security of 5G
Published 8 Oct 2020
Paragraph 158
Addressed to Ministry of Defence
Defence Committee The Security of 5G All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
The current regulatory situation for network security is outdated and unsatisfactory. The Telecoms Security Bill is required to bring regulations up to date and allow Government to compel operators to act in the interests of security. The current situation has led to commercial concerns trumping those of national security. The Government should not allow a situation where short-term commercial considerations are placed ahead of those for national security and defence. The Telecoms Security Bill is necessary in order to enhance the Government’s and Government bodies’ regulatory powers and should be published as soon as possible.
From: Defence Committee, Second Report - The Security of 5G (HC 201), paragraph 158, 8 October 2020
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 16 December 2020 (deadline 8 December 2020).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government agrees that the UK vendor market is not diverse enough and points to its diversification strategy and the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, while holding to a 2027 removal date for Huawei.
- On supply diversity, it agrees the UK market is "far from satisfactory" and cites a 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy, published on 30 November, with an "initial investment of £250 million".
- On the committee's call for the Telecoms Security Bill, it states the Telecommunications (Security) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 24 November 2020.
- On removing Huawei faster, it "recognises that there may be pressures" to do so before 2027, but says going "further and faster" would add "considerable further costs and delays".
- On compensation for operators, it says it expects "the cost of ensuring adequate security to be met by individual providers".