Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — Clause 1 — Access and Permission for Communications Network Operators to Install Services — 10 Mar 2020 at 15:15

The majority of MPs voted against ensuring a request from any legal occupant of a property for a electronic communications service (rather than just a request from a "lessee") entitles a network operator to use a new process to seek a court order giving them access and permission to install the service.

The rejected amendment which was subject to this vote would have left the law in an internally inconsistent state, but its intended effect is clear, so would be expected to be interpreted in-line with the intent or had it been accepted further amendments could have been made to provide consistency.

MPs were considering the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after “lessee in occupation” insert
  • “, or a person who is a legal occupant of the property and who is in a contractual relationship with the lessee or freeholder,”.

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

  • This amendment is intended to expand the definition of persons who can request an operator to provide an electronic telecommunications service to include rental tenants and other legal occupants who may not own the lease to the property they occupy.

The explanatory notes to the Bill summarise its effect as follows:[2]

  • The Bill provides a bespoke process for telecoms network operators to gain access to multiple dwelling buildings (blocks of residential flats and apartments) in order to deploy, upgrade or maintain fixed-line broadband connections, in cases where a tenant has requested an electronic communication service but the landlord has repeatedly failed to respond to an operator’s requests for access.

The rejected amendment sought to ensure the Bill has its intended effect.

Clause 1 is the operative clause of the Bill.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con338 (+2 tell) 0093.2%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 182 (+2 tell)091.1%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 40100.0%
SDLP0 1050.0%
SNP0 41087.2%
Total:343 242091.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive