Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what industry submissions on cost were received during the consultation on the revised Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2026; and whether they will publish that underlying data.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The Telecommunications Security Code of Practice provides technical guidance for public telecoms providers on how they can comply with their security requirements as set out in the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 and the Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations 2022.
The government is committed to continuously evaluating the effectiveness of the UK’s telecoms security framework, and the Draft Revised Code of Practice strengthens security guidance to public telecoms providers to reflect evolving technology and emerging security threats.
The government ran a consultation on proposed updates to the Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022 from 28 August 2025 to 22 October 2025, and an additional cost survey which ran from 25 November 2025 until 28 January 2026.
Cost related feedback received from the consultation, and the additional cost survey, informed the resulting assessment on costs to industry included in the explanatory memorandum for the Draft Revised Code of Practice, published on GOV.UK on 3 June.
Indicative estimates suggest potential one-off implementation costs of the proposed updates to the Code being in the order of £1.9 million to £3.2 million per provider. Estimates for the ongoing annual costs are approximately £285,000 to £445,000 per provider. The Government considers these costs to be relatively minor, given the critical importance of good security and the current scale and revenues of the UK telecommunications sector.
Underlying cost data from individual providers has not been published, to protect commercial confidentiality and mitigate the risk of exposing vulnerabilities in UK telecoms networks.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Social Market Foundation, Clearing the Air, published on 3 July 2024, which suggested that restrictive software licensing practices may cost the UK public sector £60 million a year.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
While HMG has not issued a formal, comprehensive assessment of the Social Market Foundation's July 2024 report, Clearing the Air, its findings remain highly pertinent to ongoing digital market regulatory efforts.
This report was submitted as evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to support its in-depth investigation into competition within the UK's public cloud infrastructure services market. These insights are currently being reviewed to help shape future public sector commercial practices and guidance.
Furthermore, public sector procurement continues to align with the Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT) Playbook. The playbook establishes essential policy reforms aimed at safeguarding against vendor lock-in and maximizing value for money.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 28 April (HL16450) and the Written Answer by Baroness Lloyd of Effra on 29 April (HL16530), how much the UK gave to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation as membership contribution; and what percentage of the overall budget this represented, for 2025–26, 2020–21, 2015–16, 2010–11, 2005–06 and 2000–01.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The figures are set out below:
Financial Year | UK Membership Contribution | % of Budget |
|---|---|---|
2000-01 | £600,000 | 19.0 |
2005-06 | £20,000 | 0.7 |
2010-11 | £20,000 | 1.0 |
2015-16 | £20,000 | 0.8 |
2020-21 | £25,000 | 1.1 |
2025-26 | £35,000 | 2.3 |
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what representations, if any, they have made to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation about the fact that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation has not published its financial statements in any year since 2000, with the exception of the financial year 2019-20.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The Commonwealth Telecommunication Organisation (CTO) is an international organisation, and the United Kingdom is one of 33 Member States. The CTO Secretariat presents statements of annual accounts to its governing Council, which consists of CTO Member States. From 2000 to 2019, annual financial audits of the CTO were carried out on time, presented to successive CTO Council meetings, and formally approved. Audited reports for 2019-20 and 2020-21 were approved by the CTO Council on 24 February 2023. An audited report for the financial year 2021-22 was approved by the CTO Council on 23 April 2026. Audited reports for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 will be presented shortly. The CTO Council has agreed to reappoint its Auditor to conduct the audits for 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the judgment in PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12 on the ability of UK designers to enforce registered design rights; and what consideration they have given to implementing legislative changes to broaden the scope of protection afforded to particularly novel and innovative designs.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
Following the judgement in PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12, the UK IPO issued guidance to help applicants define their intended scope of protection when registering a design.
The government has undertaken an in-depth review of the legislative framework for designs, followed by a wide-ranging consultation which took place in the autumn of 2025. The consultation included proposals to improve the validity of registered designs, make the designs system more accessible to designers and small businesses and improve access to enforcement. A government response to the consultation will be published later this year.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, as a condition of receiving public funding or access to public compute through the Sovereign AI Fund, AI companies are required to demonstrate lawful access to copyrighted works used in the training or development of their AI models, including by providing evidence of licences from rightsholders or reliance on a specific statutory exception under UK copyright law.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. Use of copyright works to train AI in the UK requires a licence unless an exception applies. Companies supported by the Sovereign AI Fund are expected to comply with applicable UK law.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is currently possible for the Sovereign AI Fund to award (1) equity investment, or (2) access to the AI Research Resource supercomputer network, without assessing whether the training or development of AI models by the AI companies concerned complies with UK copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. Use of copyright works to train AI in the UK requires a licence unless an exception applies. Companies supported by the Sovereign AI Fund are expected to comply with applicable UK law.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, when deciding to award (1) equity investment through the Sovereign AI Fund, or (2) access to the AI Research Resource supercomputer network, an assessment is made of whether companies’ training or development of AI models complies with UK copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. Use of copyright works to train AI in the UK requires a licence unless an exception applies. Companies supported by the Sovereign AI Fund are expected to comply with applicable UK law.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many prosecutions have been brought under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 for the intentional copying of a registered design since the offence was introduced; and what assessment they have made of the practicality of extending similar criminal sanctions to the intentional infringement of unregistered design rights.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
Since the criminal offence for unauthorised copying of a registered design was introduced by the Intellectual Property Act 2014, there is one reported case on record which included a conviction for an offence under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949.
The government included a call for evidence on extending criminal sanctions to the unauthorised copying of unregistered designs in the consultation on changes to the UK designs framework which closed on 27 November 2025. At this stage, no decisions have been made and the evidence received is still being analysed. A government response to the consultation will be published later this year.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the Intellectual Property Office’s design registration fee structure to lower the cost for individual designers and small businesses filing single-design applications; and what assessment they have made of the impact on the overall size and usability of the register of the current discounts for bulk electronic filings.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
Fees are reviewed regularly to ensure the UK intellectual property framework remains accessible. The recent increase in statutory fees was a general uplift which did not alter the structure of designs fees.
The outcome of the recent consultation on changes to the UK designs framework may require a re-examination of the fee structure for designs, however the government is aware that users of the UK designs system value the low-cost of registering designs compared to other jurisdictions.