← Back to House of Commons Debates
The Telecommunications (Security) Bill - New clause 3 and amendment 1
25 May 2021
Lead MP
Chi Onwurah
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & Technology
Other Contributors: 22
At a Glance
Chi Onwurah raised concerns about the telecommunications (security) bill - new clause 3 and amendment 1 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 the clause be read a Second time. This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy on the security of telecommunication networks and services, and allow for a debate in the House of Commons on the report.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Provision of information to the Intelligence and Security Committee; New clause 3—Network diversification.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Welcomes this Bill, and the additional safeguards it provides. However, expresses concern about the significant gap in Parliament’s oversight of these new powers when designation notices or designated vendor directions cannot be laid before Parliament for security reasons. Calls for any such information to be provided to the ISC for scrutiny.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Stephen Flynn supports the Government's efforts in addressing foreign investment in national infrastructure but calls for assurances that the UK government will cover costs and ensure a secure replacement strategy. He also emphasises the need for full consultation with devolved Governments on telecommunications matters, particularly regarding 4G/5G roll-out issues in rural Scotland.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Intervened to express concern over how much deeper the relationship can go with a country that sanctions UK parliamentarians for raising human rights abuses and security concerns.
Jamie Stone
Lib Dem
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Supports the bill for protecting UK interests. Emphasises the importance of cooperation with other nations that share similar ideals and interests. Highlights connectivity issues in rural Scotland, advocating for better infrastructure to support tourism and health services. Urges Ofcom to be nimble in addressing emerging threats.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Supports efforts towards resilience and diversifying supply chains in national security. Cites South Korea's approach to 5G infrastructure as an example for UK. Raises concerns about companies headquartered in China potentially accessing UK data under different regulatory frameworks, citing TikTok and Hikvision as examples. Questions the robustness of current legislation against threats from China.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports new clause 1, which obligates Ofcom to report on resource adequacy and assess network providers' security measures annually. Emphasises the need for regulation of telecommunications providers due to their critical role in society. Suggests that private companies may provide minimal information unless legally required and stresses the importance of adequate funding for regulatory functions. Supports new clause 2, advocating for appropriate provision of information to Intelligence and Security Committee, highlighting the necessity of informed scrutiny by MPs. Considers the balance between transparency and confidentiality, especially in national security contexts. Endorses amendment 1 to clause 14, requesting Secretary of State to consult devolved government ministers during reviews and report drafting processes, particularly relevant for Northern Ireland's cyber-security advancements.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Highlights the need for national security powers within the Bill. Raises concerns about the vulnerability of modern communication systems due to global interdependence and technological interoperability, stressing that commercial organisations are not inherently virtuous in protecting public interests. Argues for greater regulation and scrutiny of Ofcom's new responsibilities under the legislation.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Supports Mr Hayes by highlighting that the difficulty in removing Huawei as a supplier stemmed from the limited number of viable alternatives, underscoring the importance of diversification to avoid total dependence on any single supplier.
Bob Stewart
Con
unknown constituency
Expresses concern over the supply chain risks associated with suppliers like Nokia and Ericsson, which source components from China, indicating that even non-Chinese suppliers may not be entirely secure.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Supports the Government but raises concerns about oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by DCMS, Ofcom, and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee regarding national security. Expresses doubt that these organisations can effectively oversee matters involving commercial companies and classified information due to lack of necessary security clearances and meeting facilities.
Acknowledges Bob Stewart's concerns but does not provide a detailed position or argument.
James Sunderland
Con
Workington
Supports the Bill, emphasising its importance for better domestic and international security, placating allies, diversifying 5G providers, and enhancing Ofcom’s regulatory powers. Expresses support for new clauses and amendments but agrees with the Government that some matters are outside this Bill's scope.
Nigel Evans
Con
Chorley
Announced that there will be three Divisions on new clauses 1, 2 and 3. Requested to be informed of any additional votes.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Mr. Lewis agrees with the Minister but expresses concern that provisions may need to be included in each individual Bill if changes occur, suggesting a memorandum of understanding should be adjusted instead.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Mr. Shannon seeks assurances on how cyber-security will be protected in Northern Ireland and asks for confirmation through Hansard that such protections will be implemented.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Emphasised the need for Ofcom to have adequate resources to meet future challenges, expressed disappointment with the Government's response regarding ISC scrutiny and network diversification.
Announced the voting procedure for the debate without taking a stance on any specific amendment or clause.
Matt Warman
Minister of State for Digital and Culture, Media and Sport
Defended the Bill as crucial for national security, thanked Members for their contributions, provided reassurances regarding Ofcom's role, diversification plans, and ISC scrutiny, and expressed hope for continued cooperation.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
I support the Bill as a necessary measure to protect our telecoms national security interests. However, I am concerned that the Government have allowed ideology to undermine effectiveness when it comes to this Bill. The market failed, but Ministers did not notice; they thought that security could be left to the market.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah): this is a Bill to try to block hostile states and organisations from breaching our national security, and its intentions are absolutely on target.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
This is a Bill that we will support. We will give it close scrutiny moving forward, and I hope that the Government will work on good terms with the Scottish Government moving forward in this regard.
▸
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.