To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans Parliament has, if any, to apply for Friendly WiFi certification.

My Lords, Friendly WiFi provides certification showing that public wifi meets essential safety standards by filtering harmful content. Parliament places the upmost importance on ensuring the online safety of all who use its wifi. Given that the highest level of filtering and blocking technology is in place across all our corporate wifi services, I am informed that Parliament has no plans to apply for this certification.

I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for that Answer. This scheme is a kitemark, of which there are several on the parliamentary website. This shows that the 80,000 children who access the Parliamentary Estate will not be able to access or see age-inappropriate material. Of course, our Parliament completely complies with this certification. My frustration on this Question—which I have been addressing for three years now—is that, if local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council, Newcastle City Council and many others, and major retails such as Ikea and Starbucks, and the Tate and major providers of public transport, can all see the importance of this scheme, why would Parliament not want to be seen to sponsor and help to promote a national scheme which is about improving online child safety? I wonder if this House might be able to nudge this along.

My Lords, it is my understanding that Friendly WiFi certification is designed to reassure the users of publicly advertised wifi networks that essential safety standards are met and harmful content is blocked. It was intended primarily for retailers, hotels and transport companies, which advertise their wifi in this way. Parliament and government departments do not widely promote their wifi networks in the way that the universities, libraries and retailers mentioned do. The primary intention of the parliamentary wifi is to support visitors to the estate who are attending or supporting parliamentary business.

My Lords, is it not the case that the House authorities can already block access to inappropriate sites? When I was in the other place, my opposite number the Australian Chief Whip presented me with a 12-foot bullwhip, and the Ministerial Code required me to find out its value. When my private office went online to try to find its value, they were blocked for accessing inappropriate adult material.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has dealt with why the Parliamentary Digital Service believes that we have the highest level possible, both in this area and in cyber defence. Parliament has a guest network that can be accessed by visitors and members of staff on their personal devices; there is a separate wifi for parliamentary devices. Visitors logging on to the guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked.

My Lords, now that another George has asked a terrifically funny question, may I ask a serious one for a change? When any of these changes, ideas and alterations around the House are introduced, the last people to find out about them are the Members. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker give an assurance that he and all his colleagues will make sure that there is first a full consultation with Members before there are any changes made to the arrangements around the House?

My Lords, clearly in general terms, and particularly as this is so much a self-regulating House, we do need to ensure that the authorities are working with Members. I can think of a number of recent issues that have drawn great concern, not only from those involved in governance but from the House more generally. I take the noble Lord’s question very seriously, because we all have a duty to work together to make sure that we get the best results for the best working of this very important House of Lords.

My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s lead in asking a serious question. Having a fast and reliable wifi service in Parliament is vital for us to carry out our parliamentary duties but also for visitors in particular to have a safe and productive experience when they visit Parliament. Can the Senior Deputy Speaker reassure the House that our systems are entirely secure? When I was sanctioned by the Russian Government, I was grateful for the proactive work and advice on cybersecurity from the Parliamentary Digital Service and Parliamentary Security Department. In this heightened time of cyberattacks, can the Senior Deputy Speaker assure us that our systems have both entirely robust mechanisms and contingency arrangements for the very valid worries of serious cyberattacks from Russia and many other countries like it?

The noble Lord raises another very important issue. Parliament already has extremely strong cyber defences beyond filtering and blocking technology. Parliament is clearly a high-profile target that is under cyberattack every minute of the day, and our specialised cyber defences protect against these. I should also say that the filtering software in place to ensure safe wifi across Parliament categorises new content continuously as it comes online to ensure ongoing protection.

My Lords, when I asked my noble friend about the background to this question, I was both puzzled and quite surprised by the answer and information that she gave me, given the number of public bodies and others that have signed up to this scheme. Although I appreciate the points made about the quality of the techniques that we currently have, surely it is in the interests of children that it can be perceived that Parliament is supporting a scheme that is of much wider applicability than just to us. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker say that it is surely to the advantage of Parliament and the wider public to show that the institution of Parliament is promoting this scheme?

My Lords, again, it was the Prime Minister of the day who forwarded and promoted this scheme. As I say, my understanding is that the Friendly WiFi scheme is primarily directed at retailers, hotels and transport companies—all the areas I have mentioned—specifically because of the access to wifi in that regard, whereas visitors logging on to our guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked. The protection of children is clearly essential; that is why anyone logging on realises immediately that inappropriate material will be blocked.

My Lords, will the Senior Deputy Speaker pass on to the officials in the PDS our gratitude for providing a really effective system that keeps us safe, as well as the very effective helpline service?

The noble Earl makes a very generous point. I had a meeting with the managing director of the Parliamentary Digital Service yesterday, and one thing that he particularly said to me was that it is in its mission to ensure that the workforce has the right technical skills to deliver the services that Members and the wider parliamentary community rely on for efficiency and effectiveness.

My Lords, if Parliament is not going to apply for this Friendly Wifi certification, could the Senior Deputy Speaker use some of the time that is now available to try to ensure that every single Member of your Lordships’ House has an effective working landline delivered to their desks throughout the building? At present, the landline situation in many buildings, particularly in Millbank, is absolutely disgraceful.

I have to say that this is one of the areas of concern that I pick up constantly. I am assured that work is in progress to ensure that we have a telephone that we can pick up and put a call through on, and it will work.

My Lords, while we are on the subject of provisions in this place, may I express the hope that at last the front door is more family-friendly than it used to be? I have also heard that we are now planning another potentially traumatic change in that area in relocating and transforming the bag security search. If that is the case, may I follow up on the characteristically serious question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and ask: are we going to be consulted about it, is there such a plan, what are the costs and budget involved, and when will we hear about it?

Perhaps I should be formal and say that the Companion is very clear about asking supplementary questions that do not engage the main Question. However, I will say on this occasion in good will that I spent 10 minutes with the Yeoman Usher this morning looking at the door, ensuring that noble Lords and their visitors were able to enter and exit without due alarm. However, I use this opportunity to say that it is clear that we need to work with noble Lords to ensure that all in the parliamentary community are safe. I have picked up on the point that the noble Lord makes, and I shall make sure that there is, as always, proper consultation, if it is the case that there are going to be elements of security matters that affect the House. This is an issue on which, if we had our time again, we should have worked far more closely with noble Lords on ensuring that important security issues are properly discussed—mindful of the sensitivity of those issues because, clearly, we have adversaries who wish us ill. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously and will report back to him.