Telecommunications (Security) Bill — New Clause — Review of Telecommunications Companies Based in Foreign Countries — 8 Nov 2021 at 21:37

The majority of MPs voted not to require the government to review any suppliers to telecommunications providers which have been banned on security grounds by the United States of America, New Zealand, Australia or Canada with a view to considering action in the United Kingdom.

MPs were considering the Telecommunications (Security) Bill[1][2][3]

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.

Lords amendment 5 stated[5]:

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • Review of telecommunications companies based in foreign countries
  • (1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
  • (2) After section 105Z29 insert—
  • :“105Z30 Review of telecommunications companies based in foreign countries
  • Where a Five Eyes partner bans the operation of a vendor of goods or services to public telecommunications providers in its country on security grounds, the Secretary of State must—
  • (a) review the United Kingdom’s security arrangements with that company, and
  • (b) decide whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action with regard to the United Kingdom’s arrangements with that company.””

Explanatory notes to the amendment stated[5]:

  • Lords Amendment 5 would amend the Communications Act 2003 to require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with a telecommunications vendor, and consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action in respect of that vendor, where a Five Eyes partner has banned that vendor on security grounds.

Section 15 of the Bill[5] provides that

  • A designated vendor direction may impose requirements on a public communications provider with respect to the use, in connection with a purpose mentioned in subsection (4), of goods, services or facilities supplied, provided or made available by a designated vendor specified in the direction.

The proposed new clause appears poorly titled, in that the title doesn't correspond with the content of the clause, and the reference to "security arrangements with that company" is surprising as it presumably means "in relation to the use of that company's goods or services by telecommunications companies operating in the UK".


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con268 (+2 tell) 1075.1%
DUP3 0037.5%
Independent0 2040.0%
Lab0 122 (+2 tell)062.3%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 1050.0%
SNP0 21046.7%
Total:271 161068.6%

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

Henry SmithCrawleyCon (front bench)no

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive