Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Oral evidence: Digital inclusion and telecoms, HC 1562
Tuesday 9 December 2025
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 9 December 2025.
Members present: Dame Chi Onwurah (Chair); Emily Darlington; Samantha Niblett; Dr Lauren Sullivan; Adam Thompson; Freddie van Mierlo; Martin Wrigley; and Daniel Zeichner.
Questions 1 to 122
Witnesses
I: Baroness Lloyd of Effra CBE, Minister for Digital Economy, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; Kevin Adams, Interim Director Digital Infrastructure, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; Jenny Hall, Director Digital and Data Policy, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Witnesses: Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Kevin Adams and Jenny Hall.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to today’s session of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee. Today, we are having a one-off session on digital inclusion and telecoms. We will be examining the Government’s vision for telecoms, particularly broadband, and how this overlaps with its plans to tackle digital exclusion and assessing whether the Government have the digital infrastructure and skills plans in place to support their ambitious growth and digital transformation agendas. We are very pleased to be joined by the Minister responsible, Baroness Lloyd, as well as two of her officials.
I want to start by declaring an interest, having worked in this area for many years before coming into Parliament and specifically having led Ofcom’s work on physical infrastructure access. That was my last job in what my constituents still insist on calling the real world before coming into Parliament. That is what gives broadband companies access to Openreach’s physical digital infrastructure.
I want to start by trying to get up to date on where the Government are. You consulted on a draft statement of strategic priorities on telecoms, radio, spectrum and post earlier this year. Could you outline for us briefly what those strategic priorities are and what the next steps are? Specifically, do you still plan to publish the updated statement this year?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Thank you very much. You asked about the vision and what we are trying to do with digital infrastructure and so on.
Chair: It is the strategic priorities.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is specifically on the strategic priorities. As you know from that statement, we set out all sorts of areas, covering not just telecoms but also other areas. The things that are really driving it are our focus on growth and wanting to make sure that we have reliable digital connectivity that supports productivity. We also want to make sure that we have the right security infrastructure. There are threats, new and old, that we need to take into account, both things like cyber-threats but also other areas of resilience.
The other area that we have seen a lot of action on in the past 12 months is around both digital inclusion and making sure that consumers get the right information so that they can make good decisions about the telecoms packages that they sign up to and there is really good transparent information.
We did consult on the SSP. We are looking at all of those results now. We will not be publishing the results of that this year, given that we are very close to the end of the year, but we will be taking that forward once we have absorbed all the consultation responses.
Q2 Chair: The plan was to publish this year. Will you be publishing early next year? If so, how early?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Kevin, do you want to come in and introduce yourself as well?
Kevin Adams: Yes. Good morning, I am Kevin Adams. I am the director of digital infrastructure. You are right. Our ambition was to publish it this year. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to do that now. It will be as early as possible in the new year.
Q3 Chair: Minister, I notice that your strategic priorities, as set out, did not actually include consumer information. Though it included maximising opportunities for growth through secure and resilient telecoms infrastructure, it did not reflect security as such. Does this mean you are changing your priorities to include secure consumer information and national security?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: No, I was just stepping back and giving some more context for where the SSP sits in terms of our overall approach. In the SSP we have set out very clearly our thinking. The focus on investment and infrastructure is really essential.
Q4 Chair: There are no changes to the SSPs, the overriding strategic priorities, as a consequence of the consultation.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do not want to pre-empt all the consultation responses. We are not going to publish it imminently.
Q5 Chair: One of the aims is to have high-quality standalone 5G in all populated areas of the UK by 2030. What does “high-quality” mean and what does “populated” mean?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Standalone 5G, which is sometimes called 5G‑plus, is the next capability on from 5G. It allows much better data transfer. It is more reliable and it will equip us to have the digital infrastructure that we need for the future. That is the technology standard that is defined. It is standalone 5G.
Q6 Chair: I am sorry. Which standard is that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: This is the standalone 5G coverage.
Q7 Chair: What is the technology standard? Is it 5G or is it something else?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I am sorry. I am not sure I understand the question.
Q8 Chair: As I would say it, the technology standard would be 5G.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q9 Chair: You said that high-quality 5G was 5G-plus or something.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is standalone 5G.
Q10 Chair: What is meant by “standalone 5G”?
Kevin Adams: Standalone 5G is higher-quality than 5G. By “standalone” what we mean is that, instead of it running on the 4G network, it has its own separate network.
Q11 Chair: It is 5G on a 5G network. I am still trying to understand what “high-quality” means.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is the same.
Q12 Chair: “High-quality” means standalone.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q13 Chair: In the statement “high-quality standalone 5G”, “high-quality” and “standalone” mean the same thing.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I am sorry. I cannot define “high-quality” other than in that way.
Q14 Chair: What does “populated areas” mean?
Kevin Adams: We are excluding remote areas where there are few or no people living.
Q15 Chair: How would you define few or no people?
Kevin Adams: I am sorry. I do not have the exact definition.
Q16 Chair: The reason I focus on this is that the Public Accounts Committee in 2024 said that, while you had set an ambition for standalone 5G to be available in all populated areas, you had not defined “populated areas” or the level of 5G performance. It seems that you have not followed the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: That is a very good question. It is one that I will absolutely take back.
Q17 Chair: You will take it back and perhaps write to the Committee to follow up on the work of the Public Accounts Committee from over a year ago now.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q18 Chair: You believe you are making progress towards that aim.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The Connected Nations report by Ofcom this year is the first time that it has stated what standalone 5G coverage we have. That gives us a baseline of where we can move on from.
Q19 Chair: What was the level of coverage?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It was 83%. That is outside the premises from at least one operator.
Q20 Chair: We will probably come back to this in more detail. The fact is that most people do not care what the technology is. They care about what they can do and whether they can access a decent level of broadband. As you outlined, one of the priorities of the Government is supporting growth and productivity through investment in digital infrastructure. In your view, do we have the digital infrastructure necessary to support the Government’s ambitions on growth both regionally and nationally?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are making good progress, but we need to do more. If we take gigabit-capable coverage, the target is 99% by 2032. This will take a huge amount of private and public investment.
Q21 Chair: Minister, we are going to come on to the details of that. I am just asking for your view on whether now, in 2025, we have the digital infrastructure that we need to support the Government’s ambitions.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We have very good digital infrastructure. We have great data centre capability. We now have good mobile coverage that benchmarks pretty well with the EU and comparable countries. That does not mean there is not more to do, particularly on inclusion. I am making sure, to your absolutely pertinent point, that coverage and quality match up so that people’s experience of their mobile signal is that it does what they need it to do.
Q22 Chair: Just on that point, the Government’s target for 4G coverage, not 5G coverage, is 95%. That is for all mobile networks. As a citizen, if I am going to experience that 95% coverage, do I need to buy four different SIM cards, one for each mobile network? What kind of expectation can I have of decent 4G and broadband coverage across the country?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The target was 95% from at least one operator.
Q23 Chair: To get 95% coverage, I would have to have four different operators on my phone across the country, which I do not.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The Map Your Mobile facility helps people have sight of what is available in their local area. My predecessor, Chris Bryant, engaged actively with Ofcom to reflect the fact that many people were feeling that the coverage checker that was available was not reflecting exactly what they experienced. The improvement in data quality metrics—again, that is what has been seen in the last report—shows that there is more to do on quality as well as coverage.
Q24 Chair: I am sorry. I am asking two questions. One is about the experience of somebody with only one network, which is what most people have. What are your ambitions for what somebody should be able to experience having only one network? If I have my mobile phone, what kind of good coverage level should I be able to experience?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We do not have a single per-operator ambition.
Q25 Chair: Let me try to put it another way. My favourite walk is along the fantastic Northumberland coast from Craster to Low Newton-by-the-Sea. In the 15 years that I have been in Parliament, I have never had decent coverage on that walk. It is not highly populated. Should I at some point expect to have decent coverage somewhere like that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: As we move to 5G and others, you will not necessarily have more coverage.
Q26 Chair: Are you saying that with 5G I should have better remote rural coverage?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I am not sure that you necessarily will.
Chair: No, I do not think I will.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The coverage level of 95% for 4G is very comparable with other countries.
Q27 Chair: Again, that is for all mobile operators. I am saying that I do not have four mobile operators on my phone. What can I expect? We do not have an ambition for that.
Kevin Adams: We do not have a specific Government ambition. The ambition that we have, which you have quoted, has already been met and surpassed. Clearly, the ambition is for that to continue to improve. Under the Shared Rural Network, we are addressing some of those not-spots. We are trying to improve on a number of fronts. We have not defined a specific Government ambition beyond that.
Q28 Chair: You have reached the ambition of 95%. I am really trying to get to whether you feel we should be happy with mobile broadband coverage. It seems like you feel we should be. I have to say to you that my constituents are not. Most constituents are not. I am talking about mobile broadband coverage. We will come to fixed broadband coverage. The Government do not have an ambition to improve the experience of citizens who have a mobile phone with one operator.
Kevin Adams: We do not have a published target. Clearly, we have a strong ambition, which is why we are doing a lot of the work that we are doing, including through the mobile market review and the statement of strategic priorities that you mentioned to encourage a competitive pro-investment environment. There is a lot of work we are doing to improve that. There is a lot of investment planned. With the announced Vodafone-3 merger, there will be £11 billion of investment in the coming years. There is a lot going on. We have a clear ambition for that to improve, but we do not have a published target.
Q29 Chair: You have an ambition for the mobile broadband experience to improve, but you will not tell the Committee by how much or by when or how it will be measured.
Kevin Adams: Other than the targets that we have discussed, I do not think we have a published target.
Q30 Chair: Perhaps we can exchange letters to get more clarity certainly on the definition of quality and population.
Kevin Adams: On the definitions that you mentioned, I believe Ofcom defines what counts as good coverage.
Q31 Chair: It defines good 5G coverage.
Kevin Adams: It defines good mobile coverage. It has just updated that to reflect what consumers expect from their phones.
Chair: Yes, it did. A lot of consumers do not experience the level of coverage that the Map Your Mobile app suggests. My question was specifically about high-quality 5G coverage, as set out in the strategic priorities. That is not what Ofcom was defining.
Q32 Freddie van Mierlo: My interest is very much in broadband roll-out. Baroness, you were just getting into Project Gigabit. Could you outline your assessment of the level of success that the Government are having against their target of 99% coverage by 2032?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Over the next few years, we have a funded programme for the extent of the spending review period. That is £1.8 billion. The good thing about Project Gigabit is that it is looking at where we need to add coverage alongside the commercial roll-out. Operationally, BDUK is really effective in assessing and entering into contracts to fill those gaps. They have run good projects in the past. Some of those have encountered issues due to needing to rework plans as some of the providers have changed their plans. There are some elements that are fairly fluid.
In terms of coverage, we are seeing a very good ramp-out of fibre coverage across the country.
Q33 Freddie van Mierlo: On the current trajectory, with everything that is planned as part of Project Gigabit, will we meet the Government’s target of 99% by 2032?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: As far as I can see, we have good funded plans to keep the momentum through the period of the spending review. We will take the next funding decisions at the end of that spending review period to complete the project. We will see where the commercial market is and the funding needed to complete that.
Q34 Freddie van Mierlo: The reason for my questioning is that I have looked at the open market review data for Oxfordshire, which is where my constituency is, and we are 8% off target. By 2032 it is expected that at least 8% of Oxfordshire will not have a full fibre connection. In my constituency, which is more rural than Oxfordshire overall, it is 12%. What further interventions are the Government planning, given that they already know there is a significant gap towards its target?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The priority is to continue with the plans as we have today.
Q35 Freddie van Mierlo: Those plans will not meet the target.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: When we come to the next period, we will need to look at how we can fill any gaps that there are against the target.
Q36 Freddie van Mierlo: You already know that you will not meet the target. Why are you not already planning what the next step is?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: You mean the steps post 2030.
Freddie van Mierlo: No, I mean post Project Gigabit.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: You mean post this Project Gigabit.
Q37 Freddie van Mierlo: Yes. Project Gigabit will not deliver the level of coverage that the Government want to achieve. What is the successor programme to achieve that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: My understanding is that Project Gigabit will continue. What we have sight of is the funding for the next few years.
Q38 Freddie van Mierlo: The original funding assigned under the Conservatives was £5 billion. Some of that was removed under the spending review. What is the current funding level for Project Gigabit?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do not know the status of the £5 billion. I do not think it was a funded £5 billion. It was maybe an allocated £5 billion. We have allocated £1.8 billion over the spending review into Project Gigabit.
Freddie van Mierlo: When does this spending review period run until?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is until 2030.
Q39 Freddie van Mierlo: In the two years from 2030 to 2032, you are expecting to be able to cover the 12% gap in my constituency.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Our aim is 2032.
Q40 Freddie van Mierlo: It seems ludicrous that you will deliver 12% of capacity in my constituency in what will be some of the hardest areas to reach—they are the ones that are left over—in two years following the end of this spending period. What you should be doing is planning already how you are going to fill that gap, but that is not happening.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: At the moment, we are planning the roll-out over the next few years. That is what we are planning, where we have actual funding and where we have visibility on the commercial plans.
Freddie van Mierlo: Perhaps you could write to us to say exactly how you are going to meet the target of 99% by 2032, given that the funding already allocated is woefully inadequate for meeting that.
Chair: Can we just have clarity, Freddie? The 99% target is for 2032. Your point is that in your constituency it is not going to be 99%. Is the target for the country or per constituency?
Freddie van Mierlo: It is for the country, but, if you leave out 12% in my constituency or 8% in Oxfordshire, you are going to need extremely high success rates elsewhere in the country to compensate for that. Oxfordshire is not alone in being way off target.
Q41 Chair: Do we have a prediction of the extent to which the target will be met by constituency or local authority?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: BDUK is constantly updating its plans for every constituency and for contracts in many areas. I write to many Members—
Q42 Freddie van Mierlo: The contract is fixed in my constituency. I have already reached out to both BDUK and the provider that is rolling out in my constituency. They cannot add premises to it. The budget is fixed. They have already determined the 9,000 premises that are going to get it. It is not a continual ongoing process. It is now fixed for the next period.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: After these contracts, as further funding becomes available, they will be able to—
Q43 Freddie van Mierlo: Yes, that is what I am asking. What is that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: That will be after this spending review.
Q44 Freddie van Mierlo: So that is by 2030.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q45 Freddie van Mierlo: You are not going to reach the 2032 target.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do not know that we are not going to.
Freddie van Mierlo: You are not going to. You cannot fill 12% of capacity in two years.
Chair: Shall we ask for a letter on the plans for between 2030 and 2032?
Freddie van Mierlo: Yes, please. If I may, I also want to talk about uptake. Where we have roll-out of full fibre coverage in my constituency—I am sure this is true elsewhere in the country—we do not see everyone taking it up just yet. What is the Government’s ambition in terms of the take-up of full fibre broadband as well as the roll-out of it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Take-up is absolutely critical for people to make use of the productive capacity and growth opportunities, even in their own homes. In terms of the investment that is being put in, we and the companies are very keen to see further uptake.
Q46 Freddie van Mierlo: Are you doing anything specifically to encourage uptake as people switch from the old system to a full fibre system?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The availability of full fibre is the first step. Many companies will use this; lots of households will use it.
Q47 Freddie van Mierlo: The models of these companies will commercially fall down if people do not buy it.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q48 Freddie van Mierlo: Whose responsibility is it? Is it the companies’ responsibility to push and promote this new technology or is it the Government’s responsibility? Are you doing it together?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are creating a situation where people can have access to full fibre. It is our responsibility to make sure it is available, that the regulatory framework is there, that Ofcom regulates that and that we provide this potential access for people. Kevin, I do not know whether you wanted to add to that.
Kevin Adams: I would add a couple of things. The direct answer is that it is primarily the responsibility of the companies. Uptake is increasing. It is now about 56% or 57% and it continues to increase. As it continues to increase, as we get closer to achieving our targets and as it becomes more ubiquitous, I suspect it will get critical mass and more things will become available, which will encourage accelerated uptake.
There are things that we are doing to help people feel comfortable and safe in switching from copper to full fibre, such as the charter and so on—you may want to talk about that—which can give consumers greater confidence that it is a safe process.
Q49 Freddie van Mierlo: Around 50% of people have taken it up where it is available. Does the slower uptake risk the Government’s agenda in terms of growth and other capabilities that people may want to use in their home? For example, full fibre may well be quite useful for the Government’s ambitions on health, as we want to get more people treated in their homes and have more support in the community. Is there a need to push uptake in order to achieve the growth and other ambitions of the Government?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I would not put it as “push”, as you say. It is part of our infrastructure. You make a very good point about the future of the health service and capabilities that will become available, but I would not characterise it as pushing. This capability is there, and uptake is for households and families to decide on.
Q50 Freddie van Mierlo: If the Government want to have more online consultations for GPs, for example, and a person does not have the ability to have a good-quality connection in their home and does not want or feel a need to change, what happens to the Government’s ambitions on health?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: For all this digitisation, I think of it more as showing opportunity and encouraging people, not forcing people to go digital. That is not the approach at all. We may come on to talk about some of the work on digital inclusion, but some people feel quite fearful and uncertain about the uptake of some of these technologies. It is not for us to say, “You have to interact in certain ways”.
A lot of these new technologies are augmenting or enabling better connection. As you probably know, if you get your test results on the NHS app, that can enable you to have a better conversation with your nurse or your GP in person. You could perhaps have it online. It is not our approach to say that you can only access it in a certain way. We want to take people there and we want them to see that these are really beneficial ways of interacting where you get better services.
There are some areas, such as the PSTN side of things that Kevin mentioned, where there are phases of modernisation. There will be some of those, but, in general, in terms of service provision, it is about helping people see the benefits of different service provision.
Q51 Freddie van Mierlo: Finally, I just want to ask one more question. One of the reasons why some areas are being left out is that residents themselves do not want the infrastructure being installed because it requires the use of poles or new poles. That is very understandable in rural areas, especially areas of outstanding natural beauty or national landscapes.
There is a lot of frustration because the existing poles are not being reused. In particular, that is the case for electricity poles. In my area, it is SSE. That is because the companies have to apply to the electricity infrastructure provider for each pole that they want to use. There is a lengthy period in order to do that, and it is costly. If there is ever a fault with the system, they need to make another application. Someone risks being without coverage. It is basically not possible.
Are the Government doing something to address that particular issue in order to ensure that, where there is roll-out, people want it in their area and do not see poles as a barrier to doing that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: That is a very good point. Many constituency MPs—my predecessor also made this point—have a great role in having this conversation locally about the benefits of the build-out of local infrastructure. If you want better connectivity and coverage, that does mean better infrastructure. That is one thing.
The second thing is about the reuse of existing infrastructure. We have engaged with Ofcom and with the industry on the reuse of existing infrastructure.
On other planning-type reforms specifically, those are things that we are looking at. I will double-check that very specific point—it is a very good one—to make sure that is in our list of areas. We are very keen to make sure the planning system is enabling the build-out of mobile and fibre infrastructure, taking into account things such as areas of national beauty and other things. Back in July we had a written ministerial statement, which I am sure you all saw, setting out all the areas that we wanted to progress in order to support the growth or the build-out of this infrastructure.
Chair: We need to move on now, but access to poles is clearly a part of physical infrastructure access and we will be coming back to that later on.
Q52 Adam Thompson: Good morning, all. Thank you for joining us. I want to move on to talk about competition. In lots of public service provision, particularly in communications, competition is something that is quite complex and can be quite difficult to achieve. Baroness Lloyd, in your thoughts, is Ofcom doing enough to promote competition in the broadband market?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: As we set out in the statement of strategic priorities, the Government have seen the benefits of competition in the broadband market. In the SSP we stated that we want to build on the progress that we have seen and the resulting investment in infrastructure. We also highlighted some of the things that Ofcom needs to have in mind as we move into the next phase of this so that we continue to see the benefits, taking into account that we are in a slightly different phase of the broadband market. As we said in the statement of strategic priorities, this appears to have been quite well managed.
Q53 Adam Thompson: Fair enough. That is very reasonable. Is there anything more that Ofcom could be doing to further promote competition in that regard?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: A lot of these judgments—this is why it is an appropriate job for the regulator—are quite detailed and fine judgments, based on evidence from what they are seeing in the market. In the telecoms access review they will be setting out their approach as to how they take that forward. In general, we have seen the benefit of this model of competition and investment both in terms of the investment and the prices that UK citizens see for data.
Q54 Adam Thompson: I am glad to hear that. The language that has been used is “sustained competition”. How will DSIT or Ofcom define when sustained competition in broadband is achieved?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Kevin, do you want to answer this one?
Kevin Adams: Ofcom, in the telecoms access review, decides that. DSIT, in the statement of strategic priorities, sets the strategic framework for Ofcom. In the draft, as the Minister said, the emphasis on competition is the cornerstone of the approach. There is a lot more in the SSP around supporting growth and innovation around the spectrum and maximising opportunities for growth through security and resilience, but competition remains the key feature.
The draft that we consulted on, recognising that it is now being reviewed, re-emphasised the importance of physical infrastructure access to enabling competition, regulatory predictability and a framework that supports long-term investment.
Q55 Adam Thompson: I want to understand the idea of sustained competition, though. Will DSIT or indeed Ofcom be able, on a specific day, to point to that sustained competition and say, “Yes, we have ticked that box. We have got that now”? Do you have an idea of when that might be? If it has already passed, are you happy with the level of competition?
Kevin Adams: The framework suggests that there are different levels. There will be some areas where there is already sustained competition and other areas where there is not. There will not be one moment when the country switches. It will depend on the area. There are three categories or tiers. That will be for Ofcom.
Q56 Adam Thompson: In that case, does Ofcom have a means by which it can measure that? Can it say, “We have achieved this in this area, that in this area and that in this area”? If not, how can we ensure that it does?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Those tiers are part of the telecoms access review. That is probably more a question for Ofcom.
Q57 Adam Thompson: Speaking of the telecoms access review, what input does DSIT have into that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Our main influence is through the statement of strategic priorities. That is one of the lines of division in roles and responsibilities. We are aware of what is happening, but our formal role is through setting the SSP.
Q58 Adam Thompson: In the telecoms access review, they have set out a number of proposals. Do you or does DSIT as a whole have commentary on how you feel about those proposals?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are mindful that that is something that they are running. In parallel we are running our review of the statement of strategic priorities.
Q59 Adam Thompson: In which case, how is DSIT going to maintain some accountability or oversight over that process?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Stepping back, Ofcom is the regulator and it has a lot of the governance over all its regulatory decisions. You will be aware that that there is currently the question of the succession of the chair and so on. That is the governance that is in place for Ofcom.
Q60 Chair: Just to follow up on the points that Adam was making, Ofcom sets out three different layers of competition, as you said. Area 2—this is where there is a potential for sustainable competition but it has not yet been realised—is 90% of the country, according to Ofcom. The area where there is actual sustained competition is 0% of the country, according to Ofcom. Do you see a point where we will stop having the potential for competition and we have actual competition somewhere in the country? Do you see that point coming? Is that an ambition?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The reason that there are those tiers is in anticipation of there being changes. It allows for the potential that that might happen. I would not want to talk about the time horizon for that or get into the weeds of that.
Q61 Chair: We could always be in the situation of having the potential for competition but no actual competition. The Government have no particular ambition for a level of competition across the country.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: That is correct.
Q62 Chair: I do find that surprising, given how important competition is for driving innovation, take-up, consumer choice, et cetera. The Government are stepping back from any responsibility or ambition to drive competition across the country.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We have an ambition to drive competition, but, just like with other areas of competition policy, we do not set specific levels or metrics ourselves. The Government do not.
Chair: I understand that, but we have a situation where 90% of the country has the potential for competition, but none of it actually has any competition. We have no guidance or ambition from the Government as to how that should change.
Q63 Samantha Niblett: For full disclosure, I represent a semi-rural constituency that covers everything from urban in the Derby city overspill to rural and semi-rural, with a small town that has pretty patchy coverage to say the least. What is DSIT doing to address geographic differences between urban and rural areas in broadband take-up and access?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: In broadband, the general approach to the fibre and broadband roll-out is to look at where there are commercial plans and where there are not. That is where BDUK will come in and make an assessment of where they can support roll-out through the BDUK Project Gigabit contracts, using all the mechanisms that it has at hand.
Q64 Samantha Niblett: If it is left to a commercial organisation to decide whether it is commercially beneficial to roll out, it feels like that will probably leave large gaps in access between urban and rural areas. How does that fit in with the aim of promoting digital inclusion?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: That is where BDUK comes in. Where there are no commercial plans, BDUK will supplement that with its own contracts. We do not want to publicly subsidise connections where it is not needed. That is why the work of BDUK is so important in making sure it is really additive to whatever the commercial plans are. Together, the commercial plans and the BDUK Project Gigabit plans are about making sure that there are not huge discrepancies in access to fibre across the country, either within urban areas or in rural areas.
Q65 Samantha Niblett: You said “not needed”. How do you define “not needed”? If nobody lives there, I can completely understand why it might not be needed, until you are taking a walk in the countryside and you fall and break your leg, and you then cannot get in contact with anybody. Despite the fact that nobody lives there, you may well need your mobile phone to have a connection.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The “not needed” that I was referring to was whether public subsidy is needed. Project Gigabit essentially looks at the price of the connection for additional households. It will make a calculation about whether that is within the scope of what they can fund. There are various levels of connection guidance for what the price of connection should be. That is what guides the decision-making in Project Gigabit to ensure that it is getting the best value possible for the work it does to supplement or work alongside commercial roll-out plans.
Q66 Samantha Niblett: Circling back to something that Chi mentioned, in regions where competition in broadband providers is not possible, what are the Government doing to protect consumers?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Both Ofcom and the Government are very keen that consumers have clear and transparent information about what contracts they are getting, and that it is presented plainly.
You will have seen recently, in respect of the recent contract price rises, that the Secretary of State and then the Secretary of State and the Chancellor wrote to Ofcom to ask for a review of what is currently the situation, the 2025 regulations and so on. When consumers are entering into contracts, they should know exactly what they are entering into. If there are changes to agreed terms in that, they should have clear routes of exit so they can make good decisions about what package is best for them.
Q67 Samantha Niblett: If you have a great contract that tells you where you stand with your broadband provider but your broadband provider is in breach of that contract, you do not have the choice to go to an alternative broadband provider if you do not have competition. It feels like a bit of a vicious cycle. It is great to have clear contracts in plain English, but if you are still getting a pretty appalling service, you are still going to be without broadband, if you do not have competition. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question, I appreciate.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Hence why, going back to the previous discussion, it is very important that we try to get as much competition as possible.
Q68 Chair: Thank you for that. In terms of the access to broadband, just to come back to this point, you are agreeing that it is important to get as much competition as possible and that will drive consumer choice, but it is not important that the Government set out a target for levels of competition.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: As soon as I said “as much competition as possible”, I wondered whether that was the right phrase. We need effective competition to reach the goals that we have set.
Q69 Chair: You have not set goals for competition, though.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I mean reaching our goals of coverage and accessibility.
Q70 Chair: You are implying that competition goals are inherent in your goals for accessibility and coverage.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes, I am saying that it plays an important role.
Q71 Chair: You will not set out how important it is or what the target for it should be.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes. There is no target.
Q72 Chair: We have established that there is no target for competition. Moving on, as I said in my declaration of interests, I have an interest in physical infrastructure access. A number of companies and organisations have written to me to ask why it is that Openreach is allowed to charge for access to its physical infrastructure on a per-meter basis, because that is effectively making it much more expensive if you live far away from an exchange. It is effectively a tax on being rural. Why is that allowed to happen?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The physical infrastructure access review is also part of the remit of Ofcom. It is also looking at this question as part of the telecoms access review as well.
Q73 Chair: You are saying it is Ofcom. Ofcom may well say that subsidising differences between rural and city dwellers is a Government decision. I said it was effectively a tax on being rural. Is that not something that Government should be addressing: the fact that it costs more to get access to decent broadband if you live rurally than if you live in a city? Just as you have one price for stamps whether you live in a city or you live in the middle of nowhere, is it not something that Government should be addressing, to try to equalise the costs associated with getting access to decent broadband?
Kevin Adams: The way it is currently calculated by Ofcom is that it is per distance. That is one reasonable way of calculating it.
Q74 Chair: Why do you say that is reasonable?
Kevin Adams: As I understand it, as Ofcom sets the rules, there is a cost to maintaining that network. The costs are worked out by doing a calculation of the percentage of that network you are effectively using. In terms of what the Government have done, in the draft statement of strategic priorities we have asked Ofcom to set out a greater transparency in how it calculates and sets PIA prices. We are looking at responses to that. That will hopefully provide some greater clarity.
Q75 Chair: I do not really see that. I can understand—and thank you for explaining—that the cost of rural access to broadband is higher because the distances are greater. That is almost the definition of rurality. What I am trying to understand is whether the Government have an intention of doing anything about that, to support rural consumers who have just as much a right—and perhaps a greater need—for access to good broadband as urban consumers.
Kevin Adams: We have already mentioned lots of things the Government are doing to promote competition, and to help access to broadband in rural and urban areas. There is an awful lot the Government are doing. We have encouraged greater transparency on PIA, because there have been questions around how it is calculated, but obviously that is for Ofcom.
Q76 Chair: Let me put it another way to the Minister. If somebody is living in a rural hamlet, miles from an exchange, is it right that they should have to pay significantly more to access decent broadband than someone living in the centre of Newcastle?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Do you mean broader than the PIA pricing?
Q77 Chair: The PIA pricing is one of the things that is driving the cost of broadband, particularly for alternate competitors.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: There will be different pricing across the country by different providers, and it will reflect lots of different considerations. One is the cost of provision. Another is the extent of competition. There will be lots of different reasons why pricing is different.
Q78 Chair: Just to put my question again, the Government think it is right that somebody living rurally should have to pay more for broadband because they are living rurally?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are not setting prices for telecom operators. We are not going to specify those prices.
Q79 Freddie van Mierlo: I want to understand how competition is going to be achieved in areas where the infrastructure is being delivered by alternative new companies. In my area, a lot of it is provided by companies such as Gigaclear, Swish and Airband. They own that infrastructure. Is the plan to either force them to share or to get more companies to install infrastructure in areas where it was already really difficult to install? What is the plan? How is competition going to be achieved in those instances?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I may have to revert to you on that, because my understanding is that that is one of the issues under the telecoms access review. You may have to ask Ofcom. These things interact. The tiering of the competition was set up for a particular reason, because of the incumbent. That is something that is very much on Ofcom’s mind.
Q80 Chair: As you say, Minister, the telecoms access review should look at the issues that Freddie is raising, but what the Committee is interested in understanding is the Government’s commitment to competition, and specifically, when it comes to physical infrastructure access, helping to equalise the experiences of our constituents, whether they are in a rural or urban constituency, through having greater alternative competition and access.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The Government set certain objectives through the statement of strategic priorities. The regulator has a huge amount of expertise and a huge amount of insight about the market and about particular remedies in competition policy, and has responsibility for the telecoms access review and for the PIA product. That is what Ofcom has as its tools as the regulator.
Q81 Chair: I can understand that, but, as Freddie was saying, if an altnet is going to have to pay 100 times as much to access Openreach’s pipes and ducts for a rural constituent than for an urban constituent, then they are going to be charging that rural constituent significantly more. That does not seem fair to me. It also does not seem like it is going to advance the Government’s priorities of growth and digital access.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: You do raise good questions. As we have said in the SSP, we want there to be more transparency in the PIA use and methodology, but these are tools that Ofcom is using.
Q82 Daniel Zeichner: I would like to take us up into the stars and the heavens. What is the role of mobile and satellite in achieving the Government’s vision for UK broadband?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Project Gigabit is a technology-neutral scheme. At present, most of the access to digital infrastructure is through either mobile or fibre, or residual networks. What we are seeing is a huge expansion in the potential for satellite. We are seeing a lot more integration interest from telecoms companies in using satellite. We will see much more of it in the future, in all sorts of areas.
There are some schemes that the Government are currently trying out that use satellite. In the statement of strategic priorities, in the section on spectrum, we talk about the importance of Ofcom thinking about spectrum for all of our space ambitions.
Q83 Daniel Zeichner: I represent Cambridge. As you can imagine, there are lots of people with imaginative ideas as to how some of those rural issues could be approached through some of these technologies. Of course, we have seen Starlink achieving considerable reach. We had the debate around OneWeb. The Government have an investment in OneWeb. What does the Government see as their role through OneWeb?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: You are right that we did make a very significant investment in OneWeb. I do not feel terribly prepared to answer that question today on our role in OneWeb. I may have to come back to you.
Q84 Daniel Zeichner: It would be helpful if you did, because I am advised that, whereas Starlink does have residential customers—of course, Starlink is quite a controversial enterprise, particularly given the current world geopolitical situation—we have a stake in OneWeb, but it does not appear to offer services directly to residential consumers, who are exactly the kind of potential consumers we have just been talking about. Why not?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I will definitely come back to you on that question.
Kevin Adams: You asked about the role of satellites. Just to add a small point to what the Minister said, we have obviously been talking a lot about our priorities to get fibre to 99% of the country. That does acknowledge that there will be some premises that are without fibre at the end of that programme, as that 1%. We definitely see satellites as part of a potential mix of solutions to make sure that everybody has a good internet connection.
We are seeing quite a lot of innovation in the satellite space. We also have some funding programmes that we are spending on R&D and on advanced communications technologies. That includes exploring satellite usage. One area where we are seeing satellites increase now is how they interact with mobile phones. Many of the mobile network operators have announced partnerships with satellites. That is really useful and has a really key role, for example, in emergency situations, enabling people to be able to contact the emergency services. We are seeing good opportunities from satellites there. It is a really interesting and growing part of the mix, but at the core we will absolutely be making sure there are good mobile and good fibre connections to everybody.
Q85 Daniel Zeichner: If I could just continue the point, I am really pleased you said that, because we are struggling to get the vision from you that we actually want universal access. Would it not be better to have that vision and then try to find some of the technologies that will make it happen, rather than saying, “We are just going to leave it to the market and see what happens”?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are obviously not leaving it to the market. The BDUK programme—the £1.8 billion of public funding—is supplementing the market. The Shared Rural Network programme has been supplementing the market. It is not all being left to the market, but the investment in telecoms is a huge issue for the private sector. It is definitely a partnership.
Q86 Emily Darlington: We are talking about satellite, we are talking about mobile and we are talking about fibre. In your strategic priorities and in your work, how much are you thinking about UK sovereignty and security within those discussions with the sector, but also with our own security services, to determine how secure our telecoms network is here in the UK?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is a very important part of how we think about our telecoms network. Telecoms is obviously regulated under the Telecommunications (Security) Act, and the code of practice and the guide under that. We have launched a review of the telecommunications security code of practice, just to take account of the changes that we are seeing and to make sure it is fit for purpose. There are different threat levels and different sorts of cyber-threats. That is out for consultation right now. We will be finalising and updating that shortly.
We work extremely closely with the National Cyber Security Centre. It is a great source of technical expertise for us. It is a big part of our considerations. The programme on removal of Huawei products is obviously well under way as we speak.
Kevin Adams: That is absolutely right. I would just add to your point, thinking about the telecoms system more broadly. The Government are also doing a lot on subsea cable security. We are reviewing legislation. Yesterday, the First Sea Lord announced more details about Atlantic Bastion. We are also doing a lot of work in relation to our data centre capacity, where we are doing very well, and attracting a huge amount of new investment. In terms of the capability within the UK, there is a lot there.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Specifically on data centres, the new Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill would expand the critical national infrastructure, under the orbit of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, to include data centres. To your point, that is now hugely integrated with the telecoms infrastructure sector, and is a really important part of that.
Emily Darlington: Can I just point you to some of the things the Committee has recommended around data centres and the use of whether there is enough sovereignty within it?
Chair: That is something that we have discussed with the Secretary of State last week. What we would like to see, when you write to us about the OneWeb investments, is how that fits into an argument for sovereignty when it comes to critical services.
Q87 Martin Wrigley: Chair, thank you for bringing me in despite my horrific lateness. I do apologise. Thank you very much for coming to see us, Baroness. I would like to talk about telecoms masts on land. I met with a group of landowners recently who are very concerned about the extension and the decreasing rent. In fact, a recent survey has found that 35% of site providers for telecoms equipment are seriously considering no longer hosting the equipment on their land, due to dramatic rent cuts, legal pressures from operators and a breakdown of trust. What are the Government doing about it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is obviously incredibly important that those who provide land and the operators can come to good agreements, both initially and while the mast is being hosted. We have supported conversations between those site operators and the landowners. The thing that we can all observe is that masts and capacity has increased over recent years. We are seeing more coverage of the masts throughout the whole of the UK. What we are seeing at the moment is still expansion of mast coverage.
Q88 Martin Wrigley: Can I just come back to you on that? Clearly, with 5G, you need more masts. You need more sites, because they are smaller sites. I built the first round of the Orange network here in the UK, so it is something I know quite well. However, I am not so sure I believe the coverage figures. We have been asking questions about this. You are quoting a figure of around 90% coverage for 5G, which is just plain wrong, because it is measuring outdoor coverage from any operator. It is not actually from all the operators. The 54% figure is actually for at least one operator. We are right down in those numbers. When you say coverage is increasing, I am not sure it is increasing as much as you want. Why are the Government using these figures that even Ofcom is saying are not quite accurate, as far as user perception is concerned?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: On user perception, you are right that we need figures that accurately reflect what people’s experiences are. I do think that the revisions that Ofcom has made—which may be largely as a result of the interactions of my predecessor to understand what good coverage is, as opposed to what any coverage is—has improved that. Sourcing more data from crowdsourced data points or other sources, not just the operators, will really improve that. It is really important that the Map Your Mobile information is as accurate as it can possibly be. That is just one point on the importance of this data being accurate. There have been improvements. Ofcom has set that out in its Connected Nations report, which came out last month.
We are making decisions, based on the data, on what is good quality as well as what is any coverage. On the like-for-like figures, which is all you can do for the time series, which is more important, we are seeing better coverage than we were. On a like-for-like basis it has been significantly increasing.
Q89 Martin Wrigley: My constituents in Devon would probably say it is worse. It is much worse. 4G signals are harder to get than 3G signals were. 3G has been switched off. 5G is even harder. All of those cell sites shrink when they are heavily used. The increase in black spots and not-spots is significant. Even in the more urban, populated areas, the phone signal is getting worse. I would dispute that the coverage is actually improving.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Obviously, we do not want a situation where there are a lot of not-spots or no-spots, or that people’s experience of mobile coverage is worsening. That is obviously not the intention in the slightest. The reason for trying to improve the data quality is so that we actually get what people’s experience is. Equally, as I was saying, the reason that we are trying to get more actual crowd-sourced data is so that we actually know exactly what the situation is. We are getting that now. That will enable us to really know more what is going on.
Q90 Martin Wrigley: If this 35% number for landowners actually losing towers is to be believed, we are on a downward spiral.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do not know that that will be the case. I absolutely hear what you say—people are concerned about the changes—but equally, the new regime has been in place for many years, and applies to many sites now. The regime has had various different phases, and the vast majority of sites are now on the new model. Only a relative minority of sites are on the old model, to which the changes would apply. I think it is 10% to 15%.
Q91 Chair: Are you planning any changes or any review of the existing model for PSTI?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are proposing to continue the PSTI.
Q92 Chair: You are proposing to continue it as it is.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Chair: I am afraid we have to move on now, because we have spent a lot of time on digital infrastructure and coverage. We have digital inclusion to look at and consider. You have a clear message that we want a better understanding of the Government’s ambitions and plans when it comes to digital infrastructure, both in terms of the investment and the ambition.
Q93 Dr Sullivan: Putting aside the literal physical cables in the ground and geographical issues, the digital inclusion plan is going to be incredibly important. The Government have set out their mission for much of their Government services to be digital. They set out five actions that are first steps. Can you report back on how far along those five steps are?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: We are very pleased with progress on the digital action plan. We set out some first steps that we will be taking. Just to pick up on one of them, the digital inclusion innovation fund, which we have launched, is community-based funding. That is designed to work with local partners, local authorities and voluntary organisations, and to look at supporting people and different cohorts.
What was interesting in the digital inclusion action plan is that it set out the population groups who find it particularly hard to access digital services, whether they are old people, people with disabilities, those not in employment and so on. This digital inclusion action plan is targeted at supporting people in those groups to get online, and in different ways, so that we can see what works and what we can expand in that way.
We are also working very closely with other Government Departments such as DHSC, as they roll out their ambitions in terms of the analogue to digital shift that Wes Streeting has talked about, and also with the private sector. This is an area where there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience. Digital skills are not something that are always a standalone. There are obviously standalone digital skills you can get, but financial literacy and being literate online means also being aware of how to protect yourself against scams. A lot of the banks have very good programmes to support their customers about being confident online, and being confident about how to navigate things without being subject to fraud, scams and so on.
Q94 Dr Sullivan: In that transition there is sometimes frustration, when you get caught in an endless loop of, “The computer says no”. Will there also be opportunities for people to actually speak to another person?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I was at one of the projects we were funding yesterday, They are in Bromley-by-Bow. Their digital skills are all person to person. It is built on the trust of someone who you can talk to about things. They run classes on energy bills and energy efficiency, but as part of that you are learning about how to navigate that online. Likewise, it is financial literacy. That is very much, first of all, having a trusted person in the community you can rely on. Secondly, it is your peer network, so you can learn from each other.
If you were referring to digital services and public services, what we want to do is just continue to think about what accessibility really means. That will mean different things to different people, whether it is physical accessibility or assistive technology, or whether it is about having a place to go to talk to someone. The NHS—or health services—is a really good example of where technology and digital services can really augment the human experience. It is a complement to it. It may shift your interaction, but it is not a complete either/or. It will just mean that some things that may have come on paper in the past will come online. You will still interact with clinicians and people who can talk you through your health needs.
Q95 Dr Sullivan: Can I just seek some assurances for some of those groups who may have difficulty or are at a disadvantage, such as those fleeing coercive control and abuse in that sense? It is just to have some reassurance that you are also listening to those groups of people that, when you have two-step or three-step authentication to log into personal data through mobile phones and through email addresses that may not be available anymore, that is being taken into account?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: You raise a very good point. Those kind of things are taken into account. It will be for every different service to think about how that particular example is taken into account. Lots of different parts of Government, local authorities and the private sector are taking it into account. That is a very good point about raising awareness. That is something we should take into account for that kind of vulnerable person.
Q96 Dr Sullivan: Is DSIT holding the reins, as it were, for One Login and this digital transformation? You mentioned about other Departments also taking it into account. Are you then holding the reins and making sure that there is a standardised expectation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: For things like gov.uk and One Login, that is what we do. I will ask Jenny to introduce herself.
Jenny Hall: I am Jenny Hall. I am the digital and data policy director at DSIT. I am here in my capacity as the official leading on digital inclusion.
Yes, my colleagues in the Government Digital Service, which is part of DSIT, are responsible for owning the Government service standard, which all online services have to comply with. They are responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with that standard, part of which is making sure it is accessible to everyone.
To your point of specific groups, it is incumbent on the service provider—the Department, DWP, or the NHS, for example—to understand who is using their services, and to make sure that they are accessible to that. You are right: DSIT sets the standard and holds the reins, as you say.
Q97 Dr Sullivan: What happens if they do not do something? What powers do you have, or bullying tactics? We should not be talking about bullying, but what can you do? We hear this a lot from women and men fleeing abuse: that Departments do not talk to each other and there is not this joined-up care, which this is designed to do. What do you have in your arsenal that you can use?
Jenny Hall: Online Government services have to pass this service standard in order for them to be then hosted on gov.uk and to operate. The teams then monitor compliance with that over time, and work with the service assessment teams and Departments to ensure compliance.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: One of our aims in the digital inclusion action plan was to have more services hosted on this site, which is basically a measure of those coming up to that standard.
Q98 Dr Sullivan: Will one of the measures of the digital inclusion action plan be how accessible it is? What other measures are there? How are you measuring how inclusive it is?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The question of measurement is a very good one. There are lots of measures out there of people with basic skills, as you were saying—the physical infrastructure and then the skills. We said that we would do our own measurement from next year to try to come up with a standard of what digital inclusion means, because there is no common framing of that. That is what we will be doing next year.
Q99 Dr Sullivan: That is interesting. Where will that be published, once you have decided that? Is that an internal thing?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It will be public. It will be released, yes.
Q100 Dr Sullivan: Do you have any idea when?
Jenny Hall: This was one of our five first-step actions. The work is literally happening right now. It is a specific survey that is due to be rolled out imminently. We are expecting the results in spring/summer next year. That is the moment where we would have those headline national indicators that we have been looking for.
In the meantime, we are working to monitor and track some of the constituent parts. We have spent a lot of time today talking about access, for example, but also working with our colleagues at the Department for Education to map skills training, or a variety of other metrics that are out there from Ofcom, the Good Things Foundation and others. We will keep tabs on the constituent parts in the meantime, while we are working to pull that national picture together.
Q101 Emily Darlington: It is fantastic to welcome you all here. It is fantastic that we have two women discussing tech, and there is a woman Secretary of State. You can probably guess who on this Committee do a lot of work to make sure that we have women’s voices in these places that have tended to be male-dominated, not just because we are 51% of the population, but because it actually creates better digital services. Does the Minister share our passion about the voice of women in tech? How many in her team and the digital Government team are actually women helping to develop these digital services?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do share your passion. Services are immensely improved by having different voices in the room, having women in the room, and having all sorts of perspectives in the room. That is absolutely the case. I am also very happy to be the DSIT responsible Minister for disability; I am collaborating with Stephen Timms on that side of things as well.
Specifically in terms of women, the Secretary of State has also set up a Women in Tech taskforce. She is very keen that we continue to promote that. In my own area, what was CyberFirst, which is now the TechFirst programme, supports women and girls in tech skills. We are starting very much at the beginning of the pipeline with those of all ages, but secondary school and then into other STEM subjects is really crucial. In things like cyber-security, getting different perspectives about where threats might be coming from is incredibly important. I have met some apprentices who have come through these programmes. That is really important. I am not responsible for GDS myself, but we can come back to you specifically on that part of the Department’s activities.
Q102 Emily Darlington: That is fantastic. You anticipated my next question, which was about the digital skills agenda. It is fantastic to hear what Liz as Secretary of State has been talking about in terms of the Women in Tech taskforce. Some of us were with Women in Tech last night for a Christmas reception here in the House of Commons, fantastically hosted by our colleague, Samantha Niblett. What we overwhelmingly heard is the challenges that women in tech have, and the desire to be part of this transformation programme, but also the real risks of not having women’s voices in these spaces in terms of the design, not just of Government Digital Services, but digital services right across the country.
I just wanted to hear a little bit more about your digital skills agenda, how it is targeting young people, women, girls, and people from different ethnic minority backgrounds. I am particularly interested in what you were saying about your role in disability. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: In terms of TechFirst, there are different programmes to encourage girls to up their skills. Some are competitions that are run at school level, and then there are sponsorships through undergrad and other areas. That is one area. We are also working with the DfE on essential digital skills and that qualification for adults, and making sure that that is updated, because, as you all know, digital skills are not a static situation or static skillset. You need to constantly check that it is meeting the needs of today.
We are working with the DfE. The curriculum and assessment review had very positive things to say about digital skills and about things like the computer GCSE, making sure that that is attractive for young men and young women to take part in. There are all sorts of interventions that we are making in terms of the V-level. Digital skills are through all of these areas. Skills England and Phil Smith are very engaged on this as well. There is nothing between us on this. We are all very aligned. This is really critical.
The disability group that Stephen Timms is moving forward is basically how we, across Government, make sure that the needs of people with disabilities are taken into account. Things such as the GDS standard will be something that we as DSIT can make sure that we are really attentive to, so the One Login in gov.uk is really accessible to people. We are enabling people to access services, but also work and independence, through all of these areas.
Q103 Emily Darlington: Everything that you are saying is really encouraging. I really appreciate what you say about having Government services that enable people with different disabilities to actually potentially access it in a better way. People with disabilities are using tech in more and more innovative ways, and it would be remiss of us as a Government not to equally match that ambition.
I wanted to move into some broader digital skills. We have done a big report on this Committee about misinformation. I attended a YouTube session at one of the schools in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, which was about the difference between misinformation and disinformation, which I thought was quite interesting. I was really encouraged by the engagement of the young people in that, but quite concerned. Disinformation has a particularly nasty philosophy at its root, which is about destabilising our democracy and creating division. Do you believe that we are doing enough to give everyone in Britain the skills that are needed to identify misinformation and disinformation, and that we are doing enough to combat it online?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: This is a very live and important point. Media literacy is incredibly critical. You are right to identify it as something that we should focus on. For example, the curriculum and assessment review highlighted the critical importance of the role of schools, and the role of making sure it is early as well, because people are exposed to this at very early ages. We also have movement on citizenship, so it is very much a holistic approach. You are right to identify it. We have set out areas where we can incorporate it more. That is the right thing to do.
Jenny Hall: It is contained within the essential digital skills standards. Being able to identify misinformation and disinformation, and having the confidence in how to deal with it, is part of that digital skills framework. Yes, it is absolutely baked in as something that is really important, exactly as you set out.
Q104 Emily Darlington: Are you working with the Minister for the Online Safety Act to make sure that we are also addressing the source of this misinformation and disinformation, rather than just expecting people to be able to identify increasingly amazing AI deepfakes? Quite frankly, to the naked eye, I do not think any of us can tell the difference.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Sorry, what are you asking if I am working with the Minister for Online Safety on?
Q105 Emily Darlington: It is on both the skills side and the legislative side, on how we attack particularly disinformation that is trying to destabilise and cause divisions within our country.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I do work closely with the Minister for Online Safety. I have not spoken to him specifically about disinformation and misinformation.
Q106 Chair: Emily, your point is that if young people cannot be entirely protected from misinformation and disinformation through digital skills, then perhaps legislative outcome options might be considered by yourself and the Minister for Online Safety.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: I can certainly talk to the Minister for Online Safety about this.
Q107 Samantha Niblett: You mentioned the digital inclusion innovation fund. I was just wondering how the impact and lessons from projects funded through this fund are collected, measured and shared. Do you have any plans beyond March 2026?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The monitoring and evaluation is an important part of it, because they are quite different schemes, and it was set up partly to understand what works well in what context. We do have a plan to do that. In terms of the learnings from it and what is next, we have designed it so that we can have a look at what happens and then decide what further action we take. We will wait until these are completed, and then we will take further action to know how to either set up similar schemes at scale, or whether where we embed some of the lessons in other areas.
To take financial literacy, because I was talking about it before, if there are learnings from that, we might be able to embed them in other areas. If there are areas that we need to put into other things such as the digital service standards or interactions, we can mainstream those learnings, or we might want to continue with specific projects. It depends quite a lot on what we learn from this set of interventions.
Q108 Samantha Niblett: Was there a particular reason why it was such a tight timeframe? It is a slightly loaded question, because I got very excited when I heard about the digital inclusion innovation fund, and I spoke to somebody at Derbyshire county council. I said, “Have you applied?” They said, “No. We looked at it, but the timeframes were far too short”. Essentially, they just could not tick enough of the boxes. You had to be a really established digital inclusion provider to stand a chance of being able to apply for the funding. My concern is—and I do not know this as a fact—if Derbyshire county council as a local authority could not tick the boxes, then my constituents in South Derbyshire probably lost out on this opportunity.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: There was a lot of interest. We were keen to get it up and running as quickly as possible. The timeframes were in order to get it on the ground and out in this financial year. That was the reason for the impetus behind it.
Jenny Hall: We did have enormous interest from qualified providers for it, but this is exactly one of the lessons we might seek to learn before doing anything further. As the Minister said, we were keen to get this off the ground and to get impact quickly. Are there adjustments we might make going forward? Yes, potentially. We will absolutely look at that.
Q109 Chair: You talked about the digital inclusion action plan, which is absolutely central to digital inclusion. You talked about working across Government and the oversight that you had. Can you just tell me how many times the ministerial group responsible for this has met?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The ministerial group last met in May. We are looking to meet again in January.
Q110 Chair: Is the aim for it to meet twice a year?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The aim in the plan was to meet quarterly, but it has not met quarterly.
Q111 Chair: Do you think you will be able to make up for that next year?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes. I have been thinking about that. There are obviously good reasons to meet on a regular basis, but equally there is also measurement in terms of action taken and collaboration. I do not feel we have missed out in terms of moving the agenda forward through not having met as a group, but I will equally be keen to meet in the first quarter of next year, take stock on where we are in the first year, and make sure we set goals for next year, having completed the first year’s five steps that we set out.
Q112 Chair: Digital transformation is obviously a central part to this Government’s agenda. Given that the aim of the group is to embed digital inclusion in all the Government’s five missions, we would perhaps have expected that there was more collaboration and meeting in order to achieve that.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: To many of the points made around the room today, there is not a paucity of engagement on the digital agenda by other Government Departments. They are all thinking about how to embed digital services and digital skills. We are in touch in a bilateral sense. There can obviously be really important points to draw out from the bilateral interactions that we want to feed to everybody. It may be ones around, for example, what we have learnt about particular standards, and making sure they are highlighted for others. It could also be about journeys, encouraging people to adopt digital technologies, and what you do with those.
Q113 Chair: Will we see the outputs of the meetings?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: It is a ministerial group, so you will see the outputs in the action that we take.
Q114 Chair: We will see it in the actions, but we will not have the outputs in any formal sense or understanding. Just quickly, what input has the expert group had so far in informing the Government’s work on digital inclusion?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: There is a meeting with the digital inclusion action committee next week. I have met with the Chair at various events, but next week’s meeting is the first meeting that I will attend. They are supported by the Department.
Q115 Chair: Have they provided input?
Jenny Hall: They have not formally, but we engage with them very regularly. They are doing work themselves that will then feed in once they have done the work.
Q116 Chair: We would like to be kept informed of their input, as they are representatives from local government, local authorities and industry leadership. On industry leadership, how much of the plan is being delivered by the private sector?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: There were lots of commitments by the private sector, for example on the pledges and elements like data provision. There are a lot of industry commitments.
Q117 Chair: As MPs we are all aware of big tech companies—I will not mention any names—that are going into schools or offering to support small businesses in digital skills. Do you think you have the balance right? How much responsibility is there for the private sector in delivering these digital inclusion skills, versus Government and the public sector?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: There is a lot. If we move on to the AI side and the commitment on the 7.5 million, a large part of that is with employers. There will be some elements where it is more appropriate for the voluntary sector to partner with us. It really depends on what the cohort is.
Q118 Chair: I just want to get an idea of whether you are happy with the overall balance, particularly given that our inquiry into algorithms and harmful content did criticise the approach to misinformation of a number of these large tech companies. Is there a risk that, by relying on them so heavily for digital skills, you are compromising the effectiveness of the programme?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Tech companies are very important in this agenda. They have a lot of skills and expertise themselves that they can support others with, whether they are small businesses, big businesses or individuals. There are also other companies who use digital skills themselves, who are adopting digital skills, who will be working with their workforce to upgrade digital skills. They may be healthcare companies or they may be financial services companies.
We also signed the IT reuse for good charter, which is around devices. Some of them are tech companies. It is great that they are signed up. Some of them are not tech companies. That is also good. Once we have made more progress on our own scheme inside Government, we would like to encourage more Government Departments, for example. They are not all DSIT. You do not have to be a tech company.
Q119 Chair: I was not implying that; I am just trying to understand whether you are concerned about an over-reliance on the tech sector to deliver digital skills. It is just a yes or no.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: No.
Q120 Chair: You are happy with the level of partnership, as it were.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: Yes.
Q121 Daniel Zeichner: I will very quickly take you back right to the beginning, when you talked about your strategic priorities. I was delighted to hear you talking about security. Obviously, there have been some high-profile assaults on major retailers and manufacturers this year. I just wanted to get a sense from you about your role in responding to that, and where it sits in relation to other Government Departments.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: In terms of critical national infrastructure, we have the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill that is coming shortly. That expands to areas of critical national infrastructure that are not covered, for example, such as managed service providers and data centres, some of which are accessed by companies. That is one aspect.
The other aspect is that a number of Secretaries of State wrote to the FTSE 350 companies who are not classified as critical national infrastructure on their roles, both as board and as management, in managing cyber risk. They included some suggestions for how to do that, based on the best practice from the National Cyber Security Centre and others.
Likewise, in terms of small businesses there is some really sensible advice from the National Cyber Security Centre on measures that small businesses can take, which often comprise the supply chain for larger businesses. It is an essential part of improving the resilience of the entirety of our economy and our ecosystem.
One of the things that we are really encouraging larger companies to do is to think about their supply chains and use Cyber Essentials, which is a standard that the National Cyber Security Centre has developed. It is a really good way of protecting against any cyber-threats that we know about. We are obviously also cognisant that cyber-threats can evolve and change, but these are the core measures that need to be taken to be resilient against any threat.
Q122 Daniel Zeichner: Who leads on it in Government? Is it your Department?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra: The Cabinet Office has a role, but we lead on large elements of cyber-security policy inside DSIT. There are also other roles and responsibilities in Government.
Daniel Zeichner: This is something we may want to come back to.
Chair: Yes, cyber will be something we want to come back to. We hear that bell and we know that our time is up, but I want to thank the Minister and the officials for joining us this morning and for responding to our questions. Thank you very much for your time today.