Covid-19 Update

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I took action to tackle this variant before it was designated even as a variant under investigation, because I was worried about what was happening in India, so in a way the hon. Lady makes my point for me. On the delta variant, we acted before it was recommended as a variant of concern by the scientific process. In fact, I have kicked off a review of that process, because I think it is the process and the scientific advice that should advise me that a variant is of concern. But having looked at and seen the data in India, we took action even before it was recommended.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

The tremendous effort by the Secretary of State and his colleagues in delivering 71 million doses has clearly made a difference, and it is why we are not going backwards today. I have previously raised the cause of the wedding industry in Arundel and South Downs, so will he accept my thanks for saving summer for this vital sector, but would he kindly support the Culture Secretary to ensure a successful summer of motorsport?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I work very closely with the Culture Secretary on making sure that these events pilots can go ahead. We are working very closely with F1. I am delighted that we will be able to see the Wimbledon finals go ahead, on a pilot basis, with 100% capacity. It is fantastic to see the crowds at Wembley. We are making progress, and these freedoms have returned. We are not yet able to make the full step 4, but we are making the progress that we can.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I asked for specific advice on this when we saw the increased transmissibility of the B117 strain—the so-called Kent variant. Exactly this question was reviewed. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect of me, I follow clinical advice on PPE guidance and the clinical advice remains unchanged.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House with his statement today. Will he join me in congratulating the Henfield heroes at Henfield Medical Centre? They have already vaccinated more than 1,000 patients, who very much appreciated not having to travel 40 miles to the previous clinic in Storrington. I am grateful that artificial limits on the number of centres per primary care network have been relaxed in rural areas.

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to everybody at the Henfield Medical Centre doing this incredible work. It is really uplifting being in a health centre. If Members have not been to a vaccination centre as a Member of this House, I would highly recommend it because it is such an uplifting experience. I am really glad that it is being carried out ever closer to home for people as we expand the number of vaccination sites, of which there are now more than 1,400 across England.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s leadership in his local area and community in demonstrating how important it is to get the jab, as so many colleagues across the House are doing? It is wonderful that we have total unanimity in this House on the importance of the vaccination programme, and the work that people are doing—on all sides of the House and from all backgrounds—to promote the vaccination effort really makes me very proud; it is humbling.

Of course I will look into the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will ask the Minister for vaccine deployment, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), to call him to talk specifically about it. There are two different routes through which people can get a jab: the mass vaccination centres or GPs. People are often invited to both, and that is okay. They can take one or the other, whichever is most convenient. If they get an invitation to a vaccination centre that is a bit of a distance away and want to wait for a closer one, they can do so. That closer invitation from the local GPs will come. A lot of people appreciate the opportunity essentially to go as soon as possible, which is why we have two different routes. I understand the importance of making that clear to everybody and ensuring that they are as deconflicted as possible. I hope that we can make sure that this process goes as smoothly as possible, and that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can make that work.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

Sussex today reached the twin milestones of vaccinating 85% of its over-80s and every care home bar the small number with recent outbreaks. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Siobhan Melia, Adam Doyle and their teams in NHS Sussex, and all the many GPs and the army of volunteers in Arundel and South Downs?

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely; I am very happy to congratulate everyone in Arundel and South Downs and across Sussex, who have done a magnificent job so far. There is a lot more still to do, but they are doing a great job. I particularly pay tribute to those who have volunteered their time; they can often end up standing in the car park in the cold for an eight-hour shift. The spirit that is being shown in Sussex and right across the country is really uplifting, and we all need something that is uplifting in these difficult times.

National Security and Investment Bill

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

As the true party of small business, Labour is calling for greater guidance and support for our innovative small business sectors, so that the Government do not once again allow SMEs to fall by the wayside. Any business, whether small or large, needs certainty, and the publication of comprehensive guidance and an early understanding of compliance will allow many SMEs to navigate their way through these new requirements. But above all else, guarding national security should not mean abandoning those SMEs, because they are the engine of national innovation and local economic growth in so many parts of our country. That means that the Government should establish a dedicated SME unit within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that can guide and mediate for those businesses as they progress through the national security screening process. National security is and must always be our highest priority; it is Labour’s highest priority. In the post-Brexit world, we want to be a country that is as open and positive as possible towards investment from international partners only if they share our values and objectives of supporting and rebuilding Britain.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

May I first take the opportunity today to congratulate our friends in the United States? They are one of our longest and most enduring partners, including in the domain of investment, where we are each one of the largest investors in each other’s economy. In fact, 1 million people in the UK go to work every day for an American company, and 1 million Americans work for British companies.

Unlike many of the other speakers in this debate, I want to talk about investment. This Bill should not be about the NHS or employment law or foreign policy, but it is—or at least it should be—about the world-liberating, poverty-alleviating force that is the global movement of capital to make a profitable return. We are all deeply vested in its continued success. The UK economy is one of the most open in the world, and our prosperity depends on that. The salaries and pensions of one in every three nurses, doctors and teachers depend on the cyclotron of capitalism that combines our world-leading science and intellectual capital with human talent from all over the world to invest in and create economic activity here in the UK. So I am pleased that the Minister, who I know is a great friend of business, has once again confirmed that the Government will always enthusiastically champion free trade and provide the warmest of welcomes to overseas investors. He is right to remind us that, since 2011, over 600,000 new jobs have been created in our economy, thanks to over 16,000 foreign direct investment projects.

In putting forward new clause 5, Opposition Members put forward a veritable laundry list of subjective factors that are at odds with the clarity and certainty that investors need from this Bill. They would put the UK into a concrete overcoat at just the moment of our greatest opportunity. From the buoyant top, we would plummet to the depths of the world rankings in attracting international investment. It is almost as if Opposition Members do not want the British people to taste the fruits of the successful Brexit that they tried to thwart.

From an external perspective, the British economy is a highly attractive investment prospect: a stable, pro-free enterprise democracy with tariff-free access to European markets, close links to the faster-growing Commonwealth countries and native use of English, the universal language used by the fastest-growing sectors and economies of the world. The opportunity is the stability of Switzerland, combined with the dynamism of Singapore.

As net zero champion, I see examples daily of entrepreneurs and investors pursuing opportunities in the expanding clean growth sector. British-based firms are exporting electrolysers to Europe and fuel cells to Asia. The City of London is a world-leading hub for green finance, while our airports and airlines are the same in sustainable aviation. Elsewhere, similar opportunities exist in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, the life sciences, satellites, aerospace and FinTech, where the UK science and research base positions us very strongly. It is not just rhetoric; economists rightly forecast that UK growth this year will outstrip the US, Japan and the EU.

I urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments to the Bill and to allow it to go forward today. Having allowed the golden goose of the UK economy to continue to prosper, we can engage in a legitimate debate about how best all may share in the fruits of that success. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have Members sitting here in the Chamber—under the cover of masks, so I cannot see their mouths moving—making comments about things that people are saying virtually. It just does not work and, quite frankly, it is not fair. We really must watch the level of behaviour while we are trying to balance this difficult situation in the Chamber.

Covid-19

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I reassure my hon. and gallant Friend that, while there may on occasions be challenges with the post, we are persistent in our determination, and the NHS is persistent in its determination, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to get this jab. Where someone does not respond, or does not turn up for an appointment, we will keep trying, because it is really important that everyone has the opportunity to have that injection, which could save their life.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Argar]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I will make some progress.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I know he will want to make progress. One group is further away from receiving a vaccine: undergraduates who would otherwise be returning to college today. A significant proportion of their education has been disrupted already. Is there any hope that the Minister can offer to the nation’s undergraduates?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I seem to be taking multiple interventions today from people I have known in a past life in different ways and forms, which is always a pleasure. He will be aware that the prioritisation and roll-out of vaccines in that context are guided by the clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which, as he will appreciate, at the current time, and rightly, is clearly focused on what will do the most to save lives. We have seen—I will turn to this in my speech shortly—that age is the single biggest determinant of risk of death, so it is right that we are prioritising those most at risk as we roll out the vaccine. When I come to them later, he will hear about the very ambitious and deliverable plans, which he heard about from the vaccines Minister yesterday, to ramp up the roll-out across our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my friend and Sussex colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Like her, I wish to speak for one group whose plight has been systematically under-represented in this House from the start of the covid pandemic.

A constituent, Bella, who is a student at the University of Bristol, wrote to me eloquently:

“I’m the first person to go to university in my family. I have spent my whole life looking forward to it and worked incredibly hard to earn my place. Online learning is not the same as the teaching that took place before. Student life has been halted. There are no societies, limited access to libraries, minimal mental health support and—further still—we are now not even able to return to our accommodation at the beginning of the second term. To say I’m disappointed would be an understatement. Yet, we must pay the same in fees.”

This Government have a proud tradition of broadening access to and driving opportunity through higher education. We are on the side of the strivers and for the individual, whose aspirations we should always support against the vested interests and the status quo.

For students such as my constituent Bella, and many hundreds of thousands like her, I would like to see the Government do three things. First, they should support undergraduates to be able to go back to college now and stay back, with a structured return, underpinned by the triple security of a rigorous and robust testing regime, compliance with social distancing and the new restrictions on international arrivals.

Secondly, I would like the Government to extend the summer term by the same number of weeks that are forgone now, in order to provide additional teaching, exam or even simply social time, procured via an agreement with the leadership of Universities UK in return for Government support for universities to retain their full tuition fees for the current year.

Finally, although it is very much subordinate to getting universities open again, I would like the Government to look once more at the possibility of a financial support package for students, who as consumers are currently getting a very poor deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

I start by echoing the remarks of the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), and by reflecting on my gratitude. As I have sat and listened to the speeches today, what I have heard is the gratitude of the whole House to all those who work on the frontline with such determination. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, there are people throughout the health and social care system going above and beyond every single day, and for that we are truly, truly grateful. Wherever they work, we have rightly congratulated them—whether it is those working on rolling out the vaccines, which includes the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), or those who have come forward to volunteer to add to our effort.

I also thank those diverse and important elements of our healthcare system that very often do not get our thanks, but are the glue that sticks all the different parts of the system together. I am talking about the community health teams, who are tired. They have been working hard on the frontline, going into people’s homes, working in primary care, ensuring that, when people are discharged, they are looked after and cared for. Then there are the practice nurses, who are valiantly vaccinating every single day, and our allied health professionals—the physios, the speech and language therapists and the health visitors. Healthcare is still standing up while this pandemic rages, and those individuals are having to work with this virus in order to keep our services going. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said that people should still please go to their health provider if they have something that they are worried about, and they will still help.

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend is making exactly the right point in thanking our dedicated health care professionals who, both in the length and the breadth of their contribution, have been very significant. I went to the Pulborough Medical Group late last week to see one of the first vaccine roll-outs in my constituency, and I saw how complex it is, how dedicated the staff are and how fundamental teamwork is to dealing with every aspect of what is quite a complex vaccination process. There are other GP surgeries in my constituency that I would also love to see avail themselves of the vaccine, but would the Minister join me in thanking them and the many others across the United Kingdom?

[Jo Churchill]

I would be happy to join in my hon. Friend’s remarks. For me, when I visited one of the surgeries in Woolpit in my constituency, it was also the gratitude of those older members of our society who were being vaccinated. As one nursing member of staff said to me, “It’s just the gratitude of people”. They have heard more thank-yous in 10 months than they have across their careers before.

I think people are seeing this as a light at the end of the tunnel, as many speakers have said, but I also think we must be careful. While we are rolling out the vaccine, the way we can thank those right across the health service is to stick to the rules and to make sure that transmission between people is as minimal as possible and that we stay home. That is the way we can help them, because even when people have been vaccinated, there is a period of some three weeks before it starts to ensure that that individual is protected. There was a tweet by the Archbishop of Canterbury today who said that we wear a mask and keep our distance to protect our neighbour. We do all these things to protect others, making sure that through the course of this pandemic we follow the instructions. I do not feel they are confusing—stay at home, go out for one piece of exercise a day. It is pretty clear, and that is how we can help our health service, which is finding things tough at the moment.

National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which I think was made in the proper spirit of the Committee, by seeking to improve the Bill, help the Secretary of State, and help those who will be affected by the Bill to understand it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that there is a trade-off.

During the expert evidence sessions, we heard both from those who felt that there should be a definition of national security and from those who felt that there should not. However, if my memory serves me, they all tended to agree that there should be greater clarity about what national security could include. For example, Dr Ashley Lenihan of the London School of Economics said:

“What you do see in regulations is guidance as to how national security risk might be assessed or examples of what could be considered a threat to national security.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 38, Q42.]

We also heard that in the US the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018 provides for a “sense of Congress” on six factors that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and the President may consider—the term “may” is used well here—in assessing national security: countries of specific concern; critical infrastructure, energy assets and critical material; a history of compliance with US law; control of US industries that affect US capacity to meet national security requirements, which is very important; personally identifiable information; and potential new cyber-security vulnerabilities.

My argument is that if we look at examples from elsewhere, we see indications of what can be included in national security without having a prescriptive definition. That is exactly what the new clause tries to set out. It states:

“When assessing a risk to national security, the Secretary of State may have regard to factors including”,

and then it gives a list of factors, which I shall detail shortly.

The question, “What is national security?” is entirely unanswered, for Parliament, for businesses looking for clarity, for citizens looking for reassurance, and if hostile actors are seeking to take advantage of any loopholes in how the Secretary of State construes national security. I do have sympathy with the argument that we should not be prescriptive and limit the Secretary of State’s flexibility to act by setting down a rigid definition of national security that rules things out. That is the spirit of the new clause. It does not rule out the Secretary of State’s flexibility or set a rigid definition; it simply does what other countries have done well, as our experts witnesses have said, by giving a guide on some factors that the Government might consider, while allowing many more to be included in national security assessments. This is critical in order to give greater clarity to businesses puzzled by the Government’s very high-level definitions of espionage, disruption or inappropriate leverage.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The hon. Lady appears to be advancing two arguments simultaneously. On the one hand, I understand the argument about clarity, which is indeed something that many people would look for in this Bill. However, she also talks about flexibility and that we should not seek to tie the Secretary of State down to a particular, prescriptive definition at any point in time, which I think members on both sides of the Committee would agree on. Given that, I am genuinely confused as to why she would seek to advance this new clause, although I find its actual wording wholly unobjectionable. Perhaps the Minister will reply on this topic, because I think the record of these proceedings could provide that clarity without needing to press the amendment to a vote.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I found very helpful. If he believes me to be presenting both sides of the argument at once, perhaps that is because the Minister has been doing the very same thing so often during the past few sittings. As the Minister has often said, there is a balance to be sought between flexibility for the Secretary of State and clarity for the business community and other communities. This new clause goes exactly to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, and strikes that balance. That is why—I will say it again—the new clause does not prescribe what national security is, but it does not leave a vacuum into which supposition, uncertainty and confusion can move.

The new clause gives greater clarity to citizens worried about whether Government will act to protect critical data transfers or our critical national infrastructure. Are those areas part of our national security, even though they are not covered by the Government’s proposed 17 sectors? The new clause provides assurance in that case and—this is important—sends a message to hostile actors that we will act to protect British security through broad powers applied with accountability. It should be clear that we also need to consider how this Bill will be read by the hostile actors against whom we are seeking to protect our nation, and this new clause will send a clearer message as to what may be included in that.

The factors highlighted in this new clause are comparable to guidance provided in other affected national security legislation, most notably the US’s Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018. Paragraph (a) would protect our supply chains and sensitive sites, in addition to acting against the disruption, espionage and inappropriate leverage highlighted in the Government’s statement of policy intent. We have heard from experts, and have also seen from very recent history—namely, that of our 5G network—that our strategic security depends not only on businesses immediately relevant to national security, but on the full set of capabilities and supply chains that feed into those security-relevant businesses. We cannot let another unforeseen disruption, whether pandemic or otherwise, disrupt our access to critical supply.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) look strategically at our national security, not with a short-term eye. We have heard consistently from experts that national security and economic security are not altogether separate. Indeed, they cannot be separated; they are deeply linked. A national security expert told us that a narrow focus on direct technologies of defence was mistaken and that instead we should look to the “defence of technology”. That was a very appropriate phrase, meaning not specific technologies of defence, but defence of technologies that seem economically strategic today and might become strategic for national security tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful again for those comments. The hon. Lady has referred again to what is in the explanatory notes. Unless somebody has changed the rules, the explanatory notes are not part of the eventual Act of Parliament. In borderline cases, they may be used by a court to help to interpret what the intention of Parliament was when it passed a Bill, but as a general rule, the intention of Parliament is stated by the words in the Act as it is passed. If it does not say in the Act that a Secretary of State can take those factors into account, there will be an argument that will have to be heard and tried in court, if need be, that a Secretary of State should not have taken those factors into account.

[Andrew Griffith]

I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the process by which the courts look at the definitions for judicial review, but one of the dangers of trying to write them down—I accept that it is “may” language, not “must”—is that the court will look at them. We could inadvertently circumscribe the degree to which the Act can be used. I know that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I have to say that, in practice—he might be familiar with how the courts work, particularly for judicial review—that is absolutely a legitimate consideration. That is one of the reasons why I would argue that the new clause should not be accepted.

[Peter Grant]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am also looking at the following words:

“factors including, but not restricted to”.

Are those words completely without meaning? If they are, why is it that the Library has dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation currently in force that have those exact words included in them? Those words are there explicitly to make sure that the list is not intended to be comprehensive. The fact that the word “may” is in there is because it allows the Secretary of State to take the factors into account, but it does not require them to do it in circumstances where it is not appropriate.

The final aspect that I want to look at is the very last factor in new clause 1: money laundering. Everybody knows that money laundering is bad and that it is a threat to our economy; it is a threat to honest businesses and all the rest of it. If the only concern that the Secretary of State had about an acquisition was that it was intended to facilitate large-scale money laundering in the United Kingdom, can we be sure that a court would accept that, and that alone, as evidence of a threat to our national security? I hope it would. The way to make sure it would is to put it in the Bill right now.

We know there are very strong connections between the acquisition of huge amounts of property, particularly in London, by people who got rich very quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, large-scale money laundering and organised crime, with the money sometimes being laundered through London, and the growing effectiveness of the threat that the present Russian regime poses to our national security. The Intelligence and Security Committee report from about a year ago highlighted that very clearly.

We know that money laundering can become part of—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I am pleased to speak to the two new clauses, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. Throughout our debate on the Bill, Members have spoken—sometimes with a surprising degree of cross-party consensus—of the need to find the right balance between protecting our collective national security and allowing beneficial investment into the United Kingdom to continue. New clauses 2 and 3 aim to give some recognition to the fact that among the Bill’s potential detrimental effects may well be a disproportionate detrimental impact on smaller businesses and early start-up ventures.

Smaller businesses often lack the resources to have their own in-house team of lawyers or other trade law experts, and they certainly cannot afford the services of the very experienced experts that gave evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago. They may be more adversely affected than a bigger business would be by delays in bringing in investment, because they do not have the same resources to fall back on. Compared with bigger businesses that may have more international connections, smaller businesses are unlikely to be as well informed about which possible investors or partners are likely to raise security concerns. There is a danger that small businesses could commit time and resources to negotiating deals, acquisitions, mergers or investments that a bigger business with a more global perspective would immediately know were non-starters. Small businesses may spend a lot of time on abortive deals and negotiations.

All the way through, I have said that these things may happen. I am not trying to reignite arguments about “may” and “must”, but at the moment nobody really knows what the impact of the legislation will be. We cannot possibly know until it has been in place for a few months, or possibly even a bit longer. What we do know is that when this legislation comes into force, we will rely massively on the growth of existing small businesses and the launch of new ones to drive our post-covid recovery. Big businesses will not do it, and they certainly will not do it on their own. We have all got a responsibility to avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of small businesses who want to start to grow. If we do find that we have unintentionally put those obstacles in the way, we need to be able to remove them.

New clause 2 makes two simple requests—it has two simple requirements. The first is that the Secretary of State reports back to Parliament on impacts the Act has had on small and medium-sized enterprises and early-stage ventures, giving Parliament the chance—should it need it—to consider whether we have created unintended barriers to small businesses. The second requirement is for the Secretary of State to provide guidance to those same companies to give them a bit more certainty about what they need to do to stay on the right side of the law without having to spend money on expensive consultants or legal experts.

New clause 3 tries to minimise the potential damage that the Act could do to small businesses, particularly in the early days when they may be unused to some of the impacts. Clause 32 creates a new offence of completing a notifiable acquisition without reasonable excuse and without the proper authority of the Secretary of State. New clause 3 seeks to recognise that small businesses in particular may find themselves in the wrong side of that clause in the early days of the legislation, not through any malice or wilful neglect, but simply through ignorance, lack of experience or being too busy trying to run their business to be keeping an eye on what is happening in the Houses of Parliament. New clause 3 would effectively provide a grace period of six months in which a small business can put forward the fact that the legislation is new to be taken as a reasonable excuse, which would mean that neither they nor the directors were liable to criminal prosecution. It is critically important to bear in mind that nothing in new clause 3 would do anything whatever to dilute or reduce the effectiveness of the Bill in doing what it is supposed to do. It would not have any impact on the ability of the Secretary of State to take action to protect our national security. It would not have any impact on the exercise of powers either to block an acquisition or merger or to impose conditions on it, should that be necessary. It would not change the fact that if a small business during that six-month period completes an acquisition that should not have been completed, that acquisition would be just as void under the law as any other acquisition.

I understand that new clause 3 is a slightly unusual clause for a piece of legislation, but it would allow us to make sure that the Bill continues to protect national security to the fullest extent it can, but at the same time that we do not have businesses being scared to act in case they end up on the wrong side of the law. We would not have the possibility of the courts having to take up time dealing with prosecutions of small businesses or directors who genuinely meant no harm, but who just—

[Andrew Griffith]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the zealous promotion of free enterprise and the cause of small businesses, but would he extend his support to any new taxation measures, new business regulation or employment measures that are advanced by the Government? While I support the thrust, the principle and the philosophy from which he clearly speaks, I do worry that the new clause could create somewhat of a precedent, and I am not sure that all of his colleagues have fully thought through the profound implications for the application of the law on business in this land.

[Peter Grant]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been a supporter of small businesses significantly longer than he has perhaps. I did make it clear that this is a way that we can protect small businesses without in any way compromising the integrity of the Bill. There is nothing in the new clause that will in any way weaken the effectiveness of the Bill and protecting our national security. I would be happy at another time to debate the reasons why, for example, employment measures in Scotland should be taken by the Parliament and Government elected by the people of Scotland rather than somewhere down here, but that is not a debate for today. I expect, Sir Graham, that neither you nor anybody else would be too pleased if we started to take up time this afternoon on that subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Opposition’s new clause 5 deals with high- and low-risk acquirers. It would require the Secretary of State to maintain a list of hostile actors, including potential hostile states and allied actors, to allow different internal security to be applied based on the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer. I will attempt to explain the exact thinking behind the proposal.

There has been widespread agreement inside and outside the Committee that we face a geopolitical context in which many—if not all—threats emanate from a set of hostile actors or states. In fact, the Government’s statement of policy intent for the Bill recognises that

“national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers… owe allegiance to hostile states”.

Throughout this process, the Committee has heard from various experts, including experts on China, as well as from lawyers, intelligence chiefs and think-thank experts. They have told us that origin and state of origin should be important drivers of national security screening processes. Indeed, a number of our allies—most notably, the US—exempt some countries, including Canada, Australia and the UK, from some of the most stringent mandatory notification requirements, and include country of origin among the factors to be considered in assessing security.

In that context, it is perhaps quite concerning that the Minister and the Government have not caught up or been thinking about that. In previous expositions, they have simply maintained that national security is not dependent on a particular country. When we debated a similar provision earlier in this process, I think the Minister said the Government were “agnostic” about the country of origin. That could be a mistake, because national security is not exclusively dependent on a single country. It is short-sighted and, frankly, dangerous, not to see threats that are materially country-specific.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, the former head of MI6 told the Committee that, essentially, we need to wake up to the strategic challenge posed by China in particular. I will explore that a little more with some specific examples from around the world of China beginning to tap into start-ups long before they are mature enough to be acquired. In Sweden, for example, between 2014 and 2019, China’s buyers acquired 51 Swedish firms and bought minority stakes in 14 additional firms. In fact, the acquisitions included some 100 subsidiaries.

More worryingly, in 2018, Chinese outfits, two of them linked to the Chinese military, bought three cutting-edge Swedish semiconductor start-ups. There is the 2017 example of Imagination Technologies—a top British chipmaker—which was acquired by a firm owned by a state-controlled Chinese investment group. Before that, a Chinese firm also bought KUKA, a leading German industrial robot-maker.

[Andrew Griffith]

Although this is interesting, I fear we are drifting a tiny bit off the new clause, which does not refer to geography. Given the Opposition’s desire to continue to shade in any ambiguity with greater clarity and the definition in new clause 5, will the hon. Gentleman give his definition of what “regular” would constitute?

[Sam Tarry]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The word “regular” would clearly need to be defined in a way that did not overburden the new part of the Department that would oversee the regime, but that would provide the information on a basis that enabled the Minister to make decisions, and to be scrutinised on those decisions regularly enough that the regime was effective and did not lead to oversights.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

It is very important that tracing happens, and the data, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is fed through to councils where that data agreement has been put in place. The best approach is for councils and the national system to work well together.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Will the Health Secretary and his colleagues accept my congratulations on making sure the UK is one of the first countries in the world to have a deployable vaccine? Does he agree that businesses and their employees in the UK pharmaceutical sector, which invests over £4 billion a year of private risk capital, are heroes every bit as much as our wonderful NHS employees on the frontline?

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely, and my hon. Friend gives the lie to this idea that we should somehow split public and private. I want to pay tribute, on behalf of all those in the House who believe in private enterprise, to everybody: the major global pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the small entrepreneurial start-ups such as BioNTech and all those who have come to the aid of the nation. If they do it and make a profit, if they do that to save lives, that is fine by me.

National Security and Investment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I am reluctant to continuously mention China, because this is not an anti-China Bill per se, but we heard in oral evidence of the real concerns about Chinese influence in our higher education institutions. He is right that the Department for Education may have an important input to make about securing our future national security.

In defining the agencies that need to be involved in this multidisciplinary approach, we could look at the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has nine voting departments, two non-voting agencies and additional White House representation on its decision-making committee. I know that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has done some work on comparisons with other countries, in particular our Five Eyes allies. There are models to take.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

In the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South, to expand a little on what multi-agency would mean, would the hon. Lady rule out the Low Pay Commission, for example?

[Chi Onwurah]

I welcome this debate. If by that the hon. Member is asking whether I think human rights have a relationship to national security, that was very well debated yesterday in relation to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. A number of his colleagues strongly made the point that there is a relationship between modern-day slavery and our national interest and national security. I do not have the expertise to identify what the agency should be. The Low Pay Commission is not an organisation that I had considered, but I am happy to take his advocacy for its being part of this multidisciplinary approach.

National Security and Investment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I do not know who the person who has just walked in is, but only Members are allowed in the room. Please leave immediately.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I apologise, Sir Graham.

[The Chair]

Apology accepted.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The way we do it in England is that the national system and the local systems work together. The first proportion, the majority of cases, are dealt with by the national system and then the local systems come into action. Between them, they reach a very high proportion of cases. It is that teamwork that is the best way forward.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Today, there are thousands of people working in hundreds of private businesses contributing to the testing endeavour. Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to them and does he agree with me that they are key workers in every respect?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I would. In contrast to some of the comments from the Opposition, although sotto voce now, it is about teamwork between people in private businesses and people in the public sector working together in the national endeavour to defeat this disease. It is a big team effort and let us not divide people where they should be brought together.