Chinese Espionage: Parliament
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Sikka(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a series of questions—at Question Time there is typically just one—which I suggest that we discuss when we have the Statement repeat from the other end, because my honourable friend the Security Minister will be on his feet on this very issue within the next two hours.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, if China is considered to be a security threat, will the Government end ownership of UK infrastructure by entities connected with the Chinese Government? That kind of infiltration formed part of the previous Government’s privatisation policies.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, which has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, about the role of Chinese investment in our country. The reality is that we consider both that there is an element of security threat but also that we have the potential to compete, challenge and co-operate with China. China is the second-largest economy and our third-largest trading partner; we have to have a level of engagement.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord SikkaWednesday 20th November 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 View all Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 45-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2024)
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Sorry, I did not realise. I was just beginning to enjoy that.
Just to finish off—not long to go now—the question is: why should these criminals be allowed to remain in charge? These things are not minor infractions. Last time we debated this, the Minister said that there were
“significant consequences for a company’s investors. Investors would not have the confidence to invest money if the special administration regime could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify any performance issues”.—[Official Report, 4/11/24; col. 1373.]
That is, again, a very strange argument that we should allow criminals to continue because somehow it might upset the market. On that basis, it would open the doors to criminal activities everywhere—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am so sorry, but we have reached time. Thank you.