Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — Report — Amendment 7 — 29 Jun 2020 at 20:00
Moved by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
7: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause-“Review of this Act’s impact on the Electronic Communications Code(1) Within six months of months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the impact of this Act on the Electronic Communications Code (“the code”) contained in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003.(2) A review under subsection (1) must include assessments of whether the code-(a) is sufficient to support access to 1 gigabit per second broadband in every premises in the United Kingdom by 2025, and(b) should be amended to-(i) introduce rights of access to telecommunications operators akin to those available to suppliers of(a) electricity,(b) gas, and(c) water,(ii) provide additional development rights for operators to support the provision of telecommunications infrastructure,(iii) encourage telecommunications operators to undertake infrastructure works alongside other works being carried out in a locality, where this is practicable.(3) In undertaking the review, the Secretary of State must consult-(a) telecommunications operators,(b) organisations that represent tenants and telecommunications consumers,(c) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent owners of interests in land who are likely to be affected by amendments to the code, and(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(4) A review under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which it was commissioned.(5) The review must make a recommendation on whether the Government should introduce legislation to amend the code in accordance with its findings under subsection (2)(b).(6) A Minister of the Crown must lay the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of this Act on the Electronic Communications Code. This review, which would assess the code’s suitability to support universal access to gigabit-capable broadband by 2025, could make recommendations for future amendments to the code.
Ayes 279, Noes 227.
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 is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Lord Butler of Brockwell||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Cameron of Dillington||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Carey of Clifton||Crossbench||no|
|Viscount Colville of Culross||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Craig of Radley||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|The Earl of Erroll||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Hogan-Howe||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Jay of Ewelme||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Kakkar||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Laming||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Pannick||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Powell of Bayswater||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Richards of Herstmonceux||Crossbench||no|
|Lord Stirrup||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Lord Vaux of Harrowden||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Baroness Falkner of Margravine||Non-affiliated||no|
|Lord Holmes of Richmond||Non-affiliated (front bench)||no|
|Lord Taylor of Warwick||Non-affiliated||no|
|Lord Tyrie||Non-affiliated (front bench)||no|