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.
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.
Lords amendment 5 stated:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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".
-  Parliament's webpage on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, Parliament.uk
-  Telecommunications (Security) Bill, as introduced to the House of Commons on 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, as introduced to the House of Commons on 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, 27 October 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Telecommunications (Security) Bill, as introduced to the House of Lords, 26 May 2021, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, 27 October 2021, Parliament.uk
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.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||268 (+2 tell)||1||0||75.1%|
|Lab||0||122 (+2 tell)||0||62.3%|
|Henry Smith||Crawley||Con (front bench)||no|