← Back to House of Commons Debates
Telecommunications (Security) Bill - After Clause 23 - Network Diversification
08 November 2021
Lead MP
Julia Lopez
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & Technology
Other Contributors: 20
At a Glance
Julia Lopez raised concerns about telecommunications (security) bill - after clause 23 - network diversification in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4. This motion aims at rejecting the proposed diversification measures suggested in Lords amendments 1 to 4. The amendment seeks to ensure network security by discouraging reliance on any single supplier and promoting a diversified supply base.
Nigel Evans
Lab
Constituency Unknown
Discusses Lords amendments 5 and Government motion to disagree. Raises concerns about the lack of diversification in network supply, questioning how Parliament will monitor progress on diversification commitments.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Questions the government's ability to ensure yearly assessments of network diversification and seeks clarity on benchmarks for evaluating diversification efforts. Expresses concern that without such measures, market-led decisions may dominate.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Raises doubts about government's ability to deliver on diversification commitments based on past failures in dealing with Huawei. Questions why there should be confidence in future policy.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Welcomes new Minister to her place and highlights early resistance by UK Government against Huawei as a costly decision. Emphasises the importance of consulting closely with intelligence allies before taking decisions that affect network security.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Supports Lords amendment 1 for improving transparency in the use of powers by the Secretary of State. Argues that parliamentary scrutiny is essential to ensure proportionate and accountable power usage. Emphasises the importance of formalising monitoring with Five Eyes countries, enhancing security, and promoting diversification of supply chains.
Questions whether there are feasible alternatives to the current two suppliers for telecommunications networks. Suggests that building up alternative capabilities quickly may be necessary.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Agrees with Chi Onwurah's point about the importance of an industrial strategy group to advise on expert issues. Laments the loss of such a group which could have helped in formulating effective strategies.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Argues that this is fundamentally a national security issue rather than a market failure. Points out the aggressive business tactics of Huawei over nearly 15 years, which have driven other companies out of the market.
Agrees that this situation did not come as a shock to the Government. References a previous report by the Intelligence and Security Committee on critical national infrastructure from 2013, which highlighted similar concerns.
Julian Knight
Con
Solihull
He highlighted the extensive personal data that can be accessed through modern mobile apps and emphasised the need for national security measures in telecommunications. He supported amendments 1, 2, and 3, which allow Ministers to introduce new codes of practice when necessary. For Lord's Amendment 4 on network diversification, he believed it set a strong marker but was hesitant to support due to potential challenges. He was sceptical about the necessity of Lords amendment 5.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
He criticised the Government for their handling of Huawei, suggesting they have learned nothing from past mistakes. He argued that Lords amendment 5 was unnecessary given existing relationships with intelligence partners and pointed out economic losses due to delays in 5G rollout. For Lords amendment 4 on diversification, he noted inconsistencies between the other place and this House's positions.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
He emphasised that the Bill is primarily a national security measure. He supported the Intelligence and Security Committee’s view that amendments 1 to 3 were beneficial, though they overemphasized Lords amendment 5 on Five Eyes relationships. For Lords amendment 4, he noted it strengthens parliamentary scrutiny and provides an annual review of diversification strategies' impact on national security.
Kevan Jones
Lab
Durham North
Supports Lords amendment 4 on diversification strategy as vital. Unimpressed by government assurances and wants commitment to ensure parliamentary scrutiny through ISC memorandum of understanding.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Supports Lords amendment 4 on diversification strategy and acknowledges reservations about lack of a role for ISC in providing parliamentary oversight. Supports revisions to clause 3 in Lords amendments 1-3.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports the Bill as necessary for national security and attracting investment, particularly mentioning Northern Ireland's role in cyber-security. Questions economic benefits of the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell
Con
Romford
Supports Lords amendment 5 to strengthen ties with Five Eyes allies and ensure protection against companies intertwined with authoritarian governments. Cites Huawei example as a cautionary tale.
Chingford and Woodford Green
He supports Lords amendment 4 due to the need for diversification in telecommunications, which prevents over-reliance on vendors like Huawei. He also emphasises that this is a safety measure against rogue nations and encourages consideration of other companies banned by Five Eyes partners.
He believes the amendments are unnecessary as there has been extensive scrutiny throughout the Bill's passage. He emphasises faith in the security agencies' work and their global expertise, suggesting that further amendments could undermine this trust.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
She supports Lords amendment 5 as a safety net to maintain trust with Five Eyes partners. She cites the example of Hikvision, whose continued operation in the UK despite US sanctions highlights the need for such amendments to protect national security and intelligence sharing.
Julia Lopez
Con
Hornchurch and Upminster
She believes the current legislation provides a strong regime for handling high-risk vendors but acknowledges the need for ongoing scrutiny through secondary legislation and public consultations. She emphasises that MPs and Peers have had ample opportunities to scrutinise the Bill.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.