National Security and Investment Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has indicated his desire to speak.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I agree entirely with what he had to say and with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord West of Spithead, too. It comes down to a very simple proposition: throughout, we have been very clear that if the Government would simply amend the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to include reference to the Investment Security Unit, there would be no need for any amendment to the Bill. That remains the case now. The question why the Government are not doing this.

The Minister in the other place said on Monday night:

“The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 154]


If that is the case, what is the impediment to adding the ISU into the memorandum? I think it is that the Government do not interpret the ISC as having a remit that extends beyond what the intelligence services themselves have offered by way of information to the Investment Security Unit in BEIS, to the point where —as the noble Lord, Lord West, quite accurately summarised—the scrutiny of how national security is being maintained in the decisions that become part of the interim or final orders made under this Bill.

The Government’s problem may be that they think that if they were to include the ISU in the memorandum of understanding, they would effectively create some duplication between the scrutiny of the order-making power by the BEIS Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s scrutiny. That need not be the case. It is perfectly clear already, within the memorandum of understanding that was quoted by Dr Lewis in the debate on Monday night, that the ISC’s work in looking at the intelligence services

“‘will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments…by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.’”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 160]

It seems to me that the resolution is very simple—the Government should simply add the Investment Security Unit into the memorandum of understanding. It is clear from what the ISC’s chair and members have said that they would not expect to duplicate the work of BEIS —the primary scrutiny of BEIS’s work—in implementing this legislation, but there are specific questions that relate to the use of intelligence and highly sensitive intelligence materials.

I was not comforted by reading that the chair of that committee in the other place has been told by the Secretary of State that he will brief him on privy counsellor terms. That tells us that the chair of the committee may know something, but the BEIS Select Committee in the other place will not generally know it. Its members will not be able to discuss that information and they will not be able to report on that basis. There is clearly a deficiency, as Dr Lewis quite rightly said—a scrutiny gap—in relation to the use of top-secret material on a routine basis in informing decisions made under this legislation. The inclusion of the ISU in the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee will close that scrutiny gap.

Horizon 2020

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The important thing to stress is that the EU has not yet determined Horizon Europe and the most important sticking point remains the budget. It is the Government’s commitment to have an association agreement to ensure that scientists and all within that area going forward are able to participate fully and are able to get full value for money, just as the EU will get full value from us through such an association agreement.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend may be anticipating that Horizon Europe’s budget, as it is discussed in the year ahead of us, may well be less than €100 billion. There are many stories suggesting that it will be in the region of €88 billion to €90 billion. The question then is whether in the course of the months ahead we should be seeking participation in Horizon Europe on the basis that the funds that we provide—I think we have provided about 11% of the funds of Horizon 2020—would be additional to what the European Union commits from its own budget, thereby getting Horizon Europe potentially back to €100 billion in total.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We have been a vital participant in the Horizon programmes and their predecessor framework programmes. There is no doubt that going forward our participation will make them work better, and the negotiations must therefore deliver against that objective.

Nuclear Power: Emissions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is quite right: each of our ambitions in these areas has a finite lifespan, and it is important to make sure that, each time we replace them with the next generation, the carbon footprint decreases. We would like to see it significantly decrease, which is why offshore wind remains vital and why nuclear has a significant part to play.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the Wylfa project on Anglesey has been suspended, as we have heard. Would my noble friend agree that it is clear that Governments will need to invest in new nuclear? Will the Government look at promoting that project with Hitachi through a government commitment to invest sovereign capital, thereby reducing the cost of capital and offsetting some of the risk?

Nuclear Power Stations

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Duncan of Springbank

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is right to rejoice in the success that Wales has had in pumped storage. There are moves afoot on the part of a number of companies to expand existing hydro plants. The future is of course dependent on how we can mitigate some of the costs involved in such large-scale projects, but they will fit into both categories if we can find the right balance of incentive to encourage these sorts of developments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the Question relates to the resilience of nuclear electricity generation. Given the relative lack of progress beyond Hinkley in renewing the nuclear fleet and its possible contribution to that resilience, what progress are the Government making on the introduction of more small modular nuclear reactors for electricity generation?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My noble friend is right to remind us that not all nuclear reactors need to be on a large scale. Small modular reactors certainly have a place in our strategy. We are putting forward up to £80 million to develop this kind of technology, to help us to tackle the issue. It will help us to make a substantial difference to our climate change initiatives.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Duncan of Springbank

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing back this important amendment before your Lordships’ House. I do not think I have ever drunk as much tea as I have in the past week or so as I have met various noble Lords and noble Baronesses, but it has been worth it.

I shall be a little more specific in the words I read out because we need on this occasion to give noble Lords the exact words that I hope they require. Before doing that, I should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner—to say that he has been spirited would perhaps be an understatement—and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who is right about there being legal advices and legal advices, but I would much rather have his advice than that of others.

Let me tell your Lordships a little more about the effect Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU will have after we leave. It is right that we pay tribute to the Faculty of Public Health and the 62 organisations that have contributed to keeping this issue at the forefront of your Lordships’ House’s discussion. An important coalition has been assembled. I would like to think that there is now genuine recognition on all sides of the Brexit argument that public health must be at the epicentre of our engagement. There should be no back-rolling in any of the health standards. The Faculty of Public Health has been at the forefront of public health, and will continue to be so. That is important to put on the record today.

Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently of the importance of Article 168, notably its role in a successful defence to the legal challenge brought by tobacco manufacturers against the introduction of plain packaging. We therefore recognise why noble Lords are keen to confirm the Bill’s effect in that area. The Government should have been clearer on this matter in previous debates and I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to provide that further clarity.

The Government fully expect that, after exit, Article 168 will continue to be influential to the interpretation and application of retained EU law. This may include the determination of legal challenges to which Article 168 is relevant, including the consideration of public health legislation before exit day. As was noted on Report in this House, although Article 168 is not a directly enforceable provision of the TFEU, it has nevertheless been influential on EU and domestic law in the area of public health. I reassure the noble Baroness that when retained EU law is interpreted and applied, any such influence will be preserved by this Bill.

The Bill is intended to capture EU law as it stands at exit day and, as we have previously discussed, incorporate it into domestic law. Clause 2 preserves domestic legislation that implements or relates to EU law, including that in the area of public health. It is preserved,

“as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day”.

This will include, for example, the effect given to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 by the tobacco packaging case, which, in a sense, echoes the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Similarly, Clause 3 incorporates direct EU legislation, such as EU regulations relating to nutrition and food safety into domestic law,

“as it has effect in EU law immediately before exit day”,

and Clause 5 provides that any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that were recognised and available in domestic law immediately before exit by virtue of Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act,

“continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly)”.

I had to get that exactly right; I hope it is. Therefore, any rights or obligations that have been drawn from Article 168 will be preserved as part of retained EU law.

Clause 7 is also important because it ensures that retained EU law is interpreted in accordance with relevant pre-exit case law. This means, for example, that domestic law implementing EU public health requirements will be interpreted by reference to relevant EU law, including Article 168. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote on PoliticsHome on 18 April:

“Our guarantee of equivalent or higher standards of health protection and health improvement when we have left the EU is unequivocal”.


The influence of Article 168 of the TFEU on retained EU law, and existing duties such as those in the NHS Act 2006 and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will enable us to do this.

I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot therefore accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Circumstances have not enabled me to participate in previous debates on this subject but I want to put one point to my noble friend. He has instanced the debate on standardised packaging; I was responsible for the initial consultation. That policy did not stem from a European Union initiative but from one in this country or, one might say, from my conversations with Nicola Roxon, the Australian Health Minister. We do not therefore depend on the treaty for the function of the European Union to lead on public health. We have done so inside Europe, as we have across the world, on issues such as the tobacco control regime, and I hope we will continue to do so. The practical, rather than legal, issue is how effective our continuing co-operation with other European Administrations, national and EU, will be in combating public health threats—for example, the spread of infections. That kind of activity is much more practical than it is legal.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for that helpful intervention. He is, of course, absolutely right that the judgment did draw upon an aspect of Article 168, but of course the principal driver was not the EU component; that was rather a contributing component and as such it will be available as a contributing component going forward. The second point my noble friend raises is an important one and I hope it will permeate much of the discussion we have had and will continue to have. There needs to be ongoing collaboration with our colleagues and friends in the EU; that must continue. We must learn lessons where we can, not just from the EU but more broadly. I would like to think, again, that where good ideas emerge in the wider world of public health we grab hold of them, take them to heart and move forward on that basis.