National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. He will be pleased to know that, as he will have gathered from its passage through the Commons, the Opposition are fully supportive —we might even say “at last”. We will, however, be wanting to make a few changes to ensure that it works even better than the Government envisage.

Today’s debate, not unusually for your Lordships’ House, will bring together an experienced group of speakers with expertise in industry, defence and security. I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Woodley, who will speak from his own knowledge of the field. Some of his former trade union members, whom he represented, worked in defence sectors and thus played their role in the defence of the realm.

We hardly need to repeat that national security is the number one priority for any Government. We welcome the changes the Bill makes to ensure that investment, whether in companies, land, assets or know-how, never jeopardises our security. Our only surprise, as my honourable friend Chi Onwurah pointed out in the Commons, was that the impact assessment

“regrets that national security is an area of market failure requiring that the Government do something about it.”

As she said about that quite astonishing claim:

“National security is not a private concern first and a Government afterthought second. National security is the first reason for Government. It is not undersupplied by the market; it is outside the market altogether.” —[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/21; col. 998]


Putting that to one side, we welcome the new and updated regime for intervening in business transactions that might raise national security concerns. We applaud both the requirement for automatic pre-acquisition referrals in some areas, as well as a voluntary notification system and the ability to call in acquisitions of sensitive entities and assets where it is thought they need a national security assessment.

I do, however, wonder whether sufficient thought has been given not just to tangible or IP assets but to the brain power which is vital to dealing with the security threats of today. It is not simply a matter of retaining domestic control over key assets, but also of ensuring that we grow and nurture the skill sets needed for this rapidly changing technology, where we need ability and domestic capability here in the UK. Could the Minister reflect on this when he comes to reply? Could he also comment on whether crucial national infrastructure is likely to be covered in the automatic notification part?

The Bill as it stands should be capable, subject to some issues over capacity which my noble friend Lord Grantchester will address when he winds, of protecting vital security interests. Our questions are twofold. First, they are about the security capability and cross-departmental working within BEIS. Secondly, they are about parliamentary scrutiny, which appears woefully thin.

Much of the business department’s work is to foster and promote inward investment, for the best of reasons. The UK has twice the direct foreign investment of France or Germany. That is good for our economy but potentially risky for security. Because of that dual responsibility, it is surely challenging to give the business department almost the opposite role to that of a cheerleader for investment: to check and sometimes prevent such investment. Indeed, it almost looks like a potential case of moral hazard. Can the Minister confirm that, at least, there will be strict Chinese walls within the department?

Perhaps even more fundamentally, it is hard to see how the Minister’s department can be close enough to departments dealing with land use, defence, supply chains, higher education, foreign relations, transport, science and medicine to be fully aware of what is happening across those areas. Traditionally it has been the Cabinet Office that handles such significant cross-departmental or multiagency working.

Having looked carefully at the draft Statement setting out the three types of risk to be considered by the Business Secretary—the target risk, a trigger event, and the acquirer risk, according to the Minister—it is clear that while judgments as to degree of ownership or control of a business fall within his department’s expertise, some of the other security judgments listed, such as the hostility of a particular state or knowledge of our security services, are not among those traditionally made by business specialists. The backgrounds and expertise of the advising personnel will need to be drawn from across other departments, and many of them will require high-grade security clearance. The decisions taken will be serious and could impact on our international and diplomatic relations, including with close allies.

I recognise that this remit has been with the business department to date, but the increased remit of the Bill—the sheer number of cases and their increased sensitivity—makes the future quite different from what was correct in 2002. Is the Minister therefore confident that the passing on of intelligence and advice from around Whitehall will work smoothly in the new set-up?

Allied to the nature of this work is my second question, which is about whether the Bill allows for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions which will fall to the business department. A strong case was made in the Commons for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be given an explicit role in scrutinising the working of the Bill; indeed, its chair spelled out very clearly how it was well within the committee’s terms of reference to handle it.

The response of the Minister in the Commons was rather disappointing, to say the least. He said that the Intelligence and Security Committee could ask for extra information or invite the Minister to attend if it wanted. However, as a Nobel laureate commented

“they do not know what they do not know.”

Indeed: the committee will not know what it has not been told until and unless it sees a report. The Intelligence and Security Committee, with its security clearance, would be able to do a proper job on behalf of Parliament in seeing how these powers are—or indeed are not—being used.

We need therefore to amend the Bill, along the lines suggested in the Commons, to ensure that reports are made to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on whether this would be best achieved via a government amendment.

We welcome the Bill, which, as I said, is in some ways sorely overdue. We will scrutinise it seriously and call for changes to be made, particularly in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring that the new unit has the skill set, working methods and resources to ensure that its decisions are timely, cross-departmental and forward-looking, so that it safeguards our future security. I look forward to working with the Minister as we take the Bill through the House.

National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it was clear at Second Reading, and again today from when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, began, that everyone across the House agrees that national security is the number one priority.

The discussion therefore is twofold. First, will what is, and is not, covered in this legislation be clear enough? Secondly, is the balance between security needs and the desire for economic growth, research, innovation and freedom to invest, correctly delineated? On the first issue, it is obvious that the new regime must be based on the best advice coming from across government, as well as on emerging and current threats, and the behaviour and developments of our adversaries. We will come in the next group to the definition of national security.

This first amendment is focused more on the second question that I posed. Will the unit take sufficient account of technology investment, research and innovation, and business opportunities, particularly for SMEs? From everything said at Second Reading and even today, that is an important discussion. We should not expect the Bill, nor its new unit, to be the generator of investment, research and development—that is for an industrial strategy—but the Government must have a careful eye on whether the workings of the Bill have a detrimental impact on technology investment and innovation, while ensuring that the economy does not override security interests. That is a difficult judgment. If it were not, there would never be any problems for the Government to solve.

I read today—others may already have been aware—of possible changes to the listings regime to help the City compete with New York, Amsterdam and Frankfurt in attracting fast-growth companies by creating an “agile” new economy focused on innovation and technology. We welcome such moves and attention being given to making Britain a more attractive place in which entrepreneurs can take companies public.

We hope that the proposals emanating from one of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on relaxations on the use of dual-class shares, to allow founders to keep control over their companies by giving them deciding votes on decisions such as corporate takeovers, could work in harmony rather than at variance with the objectives of the Bill. I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss those interplays as we go forward.

In the meantime, we will consider future amendments that will look at whether the right procedures, definitions, timelines and so on strike the right balance as to workability in making those fine judgments between security and economic interests. However, this amendment is calling for the Secretary of State to be required to have regard to those other interests. The Minister will say that, of course, he or she is bound to do so. However, it is a question on which some assurance is needed and we look forward to the Minister’s view on that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for their introductions to this debate. I thank them for proposing this new clause and for enabling a further discussion on the purpose of the Bill.

Amendment 1 seeks to establish an objective for the Bill and include a number of elements to which the Secretary of State must have regard when using his powers. Let me say at the start that the intent behind this amendment is to provide a clear statement of the scope of the Bill, to prevent so-called mission creep and give certainty to businesses and investors, while avoiding the pitfalls of attempting to define “national security”. However, the legal effect of the amendment presents us with a number of challenges.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security in respect of economic and social harm, which is reasonable. It is indeed possible that economic or social harms could give rise to risks to national security, but so could other harms such as physical or military harm. For example, a hostile actor could use control over a piece of critical infrastructure to put UK citizens in physical danger or they could acquire companies in the UK defence supply chain and thereby degrade our military capabilities.

The absence of other harms in the factors listed by the amendment suggests that the Secretary of State may not use his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security from those harms that I have outlined. It is also unclear how he should have regard to the factors in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. As the amendment does not say that they are to be regarded as part of national security, that would suggest the scope of the Bill is being expanded beyond national security. It is important to note that the government position on the issue of defining, wholly or in part, “national security” remains consistent with when amendments in a similar vein to this were discussed at Second Reading and in the other place; I have discussed that with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, previously. The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. That reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. It also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account in assessing national security risks on the face of the Bill.

While it is crucial for investor confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is clearly a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in this regard, given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. National security risks are multifaceted and constantly evolving. What may not constitute a risk today may well do so in future. We may find over time that such specificity becomes outdated. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, it is enough of a challenge to ensure sufficient specificity in the objectives of the Bill, especially with regard to concepts such as those referenced in the amendment.

While I have nothing but gratitude for the noble Lord’s intention—to provide a specific objective for the Bill—it is primarily for the reasons I have set out that I am unable to accept the amendment, and hope that in the light of that he feels able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “security” insert “, including public order and public safety”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 13 and 83. Perhaps I will take a little more time than usual over this because it is one of the central issues on which we wish to hear the views of the Committee and, indeed, the response of the Government.

Given that national security is clearly the Government’s priority, it is important that to make the Bill work everyone involved in its provisions and their interpretation are clear about how the Government see national security—its range and depth, if I may put it that way. Therefore, Amendment 13 seeks to establish the issues which should be taken into account because clear rules will be vital for businesses seeking funds, researchers, investors and the unit having to take decisions. They need to work on basically the same template.

Let me take a moment to say that the Government have published 112 pages today—the Minister expected someone to say it, so I may as well say it now—but his letter covering the first amendment arrived as he was speaking to it and the Written Ministerial Statement did not even refer to a policy statement that I gather has also been put out, according to my up-to-date information. I think the Committee will understand that we have not had time to digest this and we may therefore have to try to look at some important issues in that.

One of the points relevant to Amendment 13 is that this response states that several respondents indicated that “national security” should be clearly defined. We are therefore interested to know whether the Minister will listen to those concerns which, in a sense, is what Amendment 13 is seeking to do. It is not trying to define exactly what is national security nor, by implication, what is not. It is setting out how people tasked with scrutinising potential investments may approach the first question—“Might this risk our security?”—by listing the sort of factors to be considered. The “have regards”, while not an exclusive list, indicate to officials, the Secretary of State and those handling investments the matters which should be considered in any decision.

We absolutely agree that neither the Government nor Parliament should prescribe or limit what national security covers, as is long-standing practice, and therefore do not seek by this amendment to curtail the Secretary of State’s flexibility to act, but we nevertheless think that the other parties involved who will be impacted by this legislation need to know the range of issues which will be among those considered by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 13 provides a framework which is neither rigid nor exclusive. It simply does what other countries have done, what experts have recommended and what we have heard that people submitting comments to the Government have also said. The Law Society argues that without something like this, there is a risk that a Secretary of State could become exposed to political influence, and the Investment Association says that a better understanding of national security could help calm investors. Therefore, the amendment indicates factors that the Government might consider, such as the impact of a triggering event on defence capabilities or how a hostile actor might be enabled to gain access to critical infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will accept that Amendment 13 provides such a framework and flexibility to help alleviate the concerns that have been raised, particularly in the defence sector.

We are also keen to ascertain whether critical infrastructure is included in the Bill. As we know from the ISC report published last year, Russia has

“undertaken cyber pre-positioning on other countries’ Critical National Infrastructure.”

It would therefore be useful if the Minister could clarify whether that is covered in the Bill.

Later this month—the rumour is a week tomorrow but certainly while the Bill is in this House—we will see published the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. Perhaps the Minister could confirm its publication date and that it will indeed be a week tomorrow. He nods—I think I am not going to get a yes that question. Can he also outline how the results of the analysis of that review will feed into the work of the new unit and its decisions on what constitutes a security threat? Will the review focus on the private sector and on the role that the Government see for business, as well as on how the interests of innovation both in academia and in business should be promoted?

Amendment 83, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have added their names, highlights the relationship between the review just mentioned and the objectives of the Bill and seeks a government statement on it. Given that the Government have said that the review will include the

“long-term strategic aims for … national security”,

there are questions about how these would align with the Bill’s new regime and how we are able to keep an eye on technological developments in the private sector while keeping pace with security challenges. What we do not want to see is an important new national security regime buried in BEIS which does not link with the UK’s wider and longer-term security concerns and priorities.

The ISC noted

“the extent to which economic policy dictated the opening up of the UK to Russian investment”,

whereas the Bill seeks to put security first and our investment needs second. As I said on the earlier group, it is an important but not always easy judgment to make. It is therefore essential that the Government’s view on security is considered by the BEIS unit and that Parliament is able to see how that is happening by way of the statement suggested in the amendment. That statement should focus both on how the Government will align the provisions in this Bill with the outcome of the integrated review and on how the UK will respond to identified threats, including new technology, biological weapons, cyber and misinformation. The reference to new technology is key since new weapon capabilities could as easily be developed in the private sector as in an MoD lab. The Government will need to procure these assets while preventing certain foreign states also purchasing them.

I return to Amendment 2, which probes whether public order and public safety are included within the Government’s view of national security. The similar German regime captures “public order” as part of its national security, while the Japanese regime applies equally to “public order and public safety” and to national security. Is the UK regime narrower than the approach taken by these other jurisdictions? Perhaps the major issue we want clarified within that is whether an investment which could have an impact on the working of our democracy would be covered.

Last year’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia stated:

“The UK is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation … Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’ … It is clear that Russia … poses a significant threat to the UK”,


including “interference in democratic processes”.

With regard to elections, the discussion at the time of the publication of the report, which of course was written a whole year before it was published, was more on bots, messages, and so forth, the report noting that

“Russia has carried out malicious cyber activity … including attempting to influence the democratic elections of other countries”.

The Government’s own response concluded that

“it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/20; col. 71WS.]

However, an external force intent on interfering with our elections could instead invest in the electronic gear that stands behind our pencil and paper voting, and perhaps pose a threat that way. Given, as the ISC report notes, the

“fusion of government and business”

in Russia, a business providing advanced IT for elections could have very close ties to that regime, or indeed to any other regime. Indeed, the Government’s response to the ISC noted that the Defending Democracy programme in the Cabinet Office includes consideration of

“direct attacks on electoral infrastructure.”

So the thinking is clearly there. Perhaps the Minister could therefore clarify whether foreign investment in democratic electronic infrastructure would come under the remit of the Bill. It is partly about what we think of as national security.

When the ISC covered this, it noted that

“the issue of defending the UK’s democratic processes … has appeared to be something of a ‘hot potato’, with no one organisation”—

I assume it meant within government—

“recognising itself as having an overall lead.”

Could the Minister outline how such responsibility and oversight will sit within the BEIS unit, such that investment in any democracy-related hardware or software could be included in its remit, and explain how the Government will overcome what the ISC describes as

“nervousness around any suggestion that the intelligence and security Agencies might be involved in democratic processes”,

given the committee’s view that

“Protecting our democratic discourse and processes from hostile foreign interference is a central responsibility of Government, and should be a ministerial priority.”?


The answer to the questions may indeed be no, but to have a discussion on national security and the future of our democracy and our safety without considering this seems to us to miss out a vital ingredient. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for bringing forward this group of amendments. I will speak in particular to Amendment 13.

In preparing for this stage of the Bill we have received a number of briefings from outside bodies. Every single one has said, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the trawl is being done far too widely. The Government would not be drawn on that at Second Reading, and it is absolutely appropriate that we try to pin them down through this form of probing amendment.

In leaving the parameters drawn as wide as they are, it is fair to say that all those who have briefed ahead of today would prefer to see a strict definition of what national security is. Am I right in assuming that national security for the purpose of the Bill covers everything that is not defined or covered elsewhere? Water treatment, the water supply and air traffic are covered by other legislation, so does that mean they are not covered by the purpose of the Bill? Are we wrong to assume that the Bill covers critical infrastructure in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, set out? It would be helpful to know whether we have to work on a process of elimination rather than on a specific reference point such as a definition, as is set out in Amendment 13, which is quite wide in its own right, given its number of “have regards”.

The Law Society of Scotland states that

“national security itself is not defined within the Bill. We note that the Enterprise Act 2002 definition refers to EU legislation”.

Are we right to assume that that definition still applies, or can we safely assume that, because we have now left the European Union, it is no longer valid? A steer from the Minister would be very helpful in summing up this debate.

The Law Society of Scotland goes on to say that

“: it might be helpful to introduce a stand-alone concept appropriate to the current context. An exhaustive definition is likely to be neither possible nor desirable but a general delineation of the concept together with detailed additional guidance as to how this is likely to be applied would be helpful.”

Does the Minister intend to do that as the result of this amendment to date?

I, too, received the letter from the Minister within the last half hour, when I was on another call. In the normal course of events, I would have studied such a letter quite closely to enable me to prepare for today, so it is a matter of some regret that we have not had a chance to read it. Perhaps the Minister will cover its main points in replying to this little debate on this group of amendments.

I believe that either we should adopt something like Amendment 13 in the course of proceedings or the Minister should bring forward some definition of the Government’s own drafting during the proceedings, before the Bill leaves the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If the acquisition in question poses a risk to national security, yes, there is the general power, but the point I was making is that, with regard to areas of political and national infrastructure, there are also separate powers in different pieces of legislation that would help to protect in those areas.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

First, I thank everyone for their contributions, which I found extremely helpful and thoughtful. In particular—this will not surprise the Minister—the Minister confirmed that it would be possible to call in any threat to democracy or anything like that. I am sorry he did not feel able to answer on when exactly the integrated review will be published, but we live in hope.

I was a bit disappointed that the Minister said that he did not want to define national security because it was long-standing government practice not to. My heart sank at that point, thinking that the Minister must have a better reason. Luckily, he did and he gave us answers other than, “It’s always been done that way”, which always seems to me a really bad answer. I am not saying I was completely persuaded by his answer, but it is a thoughtful and useful way of thinking about how we approach this. I hope it is not just because the Government would fear a JR if there are words that could be challenged over whether something should or should not have been brought in.

My fear is about the difference between the list and the call-in power. As the list will be mandatory, people will know what they have to do. Where investors, researchers or companies will probably have the biggest fear in respect of the call-in power is that they will not know in advance. I hope that we will come to the possibility of either safe harbours or a quick turnaround—though that does not get over the call-in power—because that seems the area of greatest uncertainty. We will probably have to return to that. In a sense, it is the same issue when it comes to critical national infrastructure. I guess I should leave it to those far more experienced in infrastructure to know whether those comments are helpful.

We heard a thoughtful and challenging response to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that we start at the back end: we discuss the assets; we discuss the acquirer; we look at the definition of control—which is the end part of the Bill—and use that to define national security in the front part of the Bill. I am bemused by whether that is the right way round; it may be, but by the time we have defined it, we may have got to it. It seems an odd way round to do things to have a Bill that has “national security” in its title and then to have to work through “Well, if it is that sort of asset owned by that sort of people to that sort of percentage” to decide that it comes into the category of national security. However, I want to read more carefully what the noble Lord said because the elements appear to be there, but it seems slightly upside down. The noble Lord also said:

“We know that Ministers are going to have regard … to that kind of issue.”


If we do, what is the harm in writing them down? He may know that Ministers would have regard to those issues, but will everyone else know what they are?

I have a lot more to think about having heard the wisdom expressed today. It is possible that we will want to come back to this issue on Report—maybe in a more refined way; I am sure that those who have read the Commons debates carefully will have noticed that my words were not all of my own drafting. I thank everyone who has contributed—more sincerely, perhaps, than in other debates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I think that I understand its intentions entirely. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in their elucidation of what the amendment is about. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has entirely misunderstood the essence of this amendment.

Earlier in Committee today we were trying to get some sort of definition of national security, and I think that the noble Lord, Lansley, in his inimitable way, managed to unpick that rather successfully. As far as national security is concerned, it is a mission impossible to try to carry everything in one bundle in a definition. This tries the other way on and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, it is designed to avoid mission creep. It is trying to make sure that the definition of national security is not used as a blanket term to cover damage to the economy and society. It has the huge benefit of simplicity; it tells us what is not in national security rather than what is in it. It clarifies that certain factors such as employment, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities, and protectionism will not be taken into account when assessing national security. If there was mission creep in the way that was described, it would undermine legal certainty and damage investor confidence in the way that we have heard from a number of noble Lords.

The Government have kept assuring us that this is not, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, a national interest Bill but a national security Bill. That is exactly what this amendment is trying to ensure—that we do not have that all-encompassing national security definition used by lobbyists or others to try to bring things into the net. I have seen it happen in the United States. The CFIUS is absolutely that kind of spider-like operation that brings in all sorts of spurious transactions. I very much hope that we will keep this provision absolutely focused, and this amendment is a very good way of doing it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the approach of this amendment. As we have all made clear, the new regime must focus on protecting national security. The clue is in the title of the Bill. The definition of national security has to take best advice from across the Government about the threats and behaviour of our adversaries.

While I hope the Government will monitor the impact of the Act on technological investment, innovation and SMEs—which I hope a different part of the Government is actively supporting—those interests, along with employment, investment and competition, cannot and should not trump national security, albeit that I hope that the Government would consider mitigating any detrimental domestic impact of placing security first if that were needed.

Clearly, concerns about any political pressure, rather than any disregard for the issues listed, give rise to this amendment. The tone and the purpose of it are ones that we share.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling the amendment. It seeks to clarify that certain factors, namely employment effects, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities and the desire to protect UK businesses from international competition, cannot be taken into account in assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to national security risks. I was surprised to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh are now differing on some things. That is most unusual; it is something to be encouraged for the future.

My noble friend articulates a reasonable concern here: that a regime used to screen investment for national security purposes could be used to screen investments more widely. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State, in his opening speech at Second Reading in the other place, argued that the Bill should include an industrial strategy test—I was therefore surprised to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, supporting this amendment.

As such, I have some sympathy with the aims of this amendment. I can, however, reassure my noble friend that the Bill is about protecting national security, nothing more and nothing less. The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. As I said on previous groups, this reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. The Bill also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account when assessing national security risks. Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in power are proposed to be set out in the statement that we have provided a draft of and is provided for by Clause 3.

The draft statement, published upon introduction of the Bill, includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks. This includes certain sectors of the economy, and the types of acquisitions that may raise concern. It does not currently state anything which the Secretary of State intends not to take into account with regard to national security. This is a conscious choice. If the Secretary of State were to start listing areas of the economy or types of acquisition that he considered unlikely to present national security concerns, I suspect that this would result in a long and dense document of little use. We judge that it is therefore more helpful for businesses and investors to set out where the Secretary of State is more, rather than less, likely to use the call-in power.

I understand, however, the concern that without a definition extraneous factors may be taken into account. My reassurance for my noble friend comes from the courts. Were the Secretary of State to seek to use the powers in the Bill for a purpose beyond national security, his decisions could be challenged in the courts through judicial review and could not be successfully upheld. It is with this judicial oversight in mind that the Secretary of State is constrained in delivering the purpose of the Bill. I am therefore confident that the Bill as currently drafted contains sufficient safeguards against inappropriate use of the regime, and that the Government are already providing a good amount of information for parties affected by the regime on its likely areas of focus.

I hope that my explanation, taken together with these points, provides sufficient reassurance to my noble friend, and that she therefore feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, government Amendments 37 and 75 are technical and Amendment 12 covers the ground of Amendment 11, so I will speak to the latter. I am broadly supportive. Clearly, this is an issue about “may”—my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked the same question. If “may publish” means “may not publish”, where are we in this process, given that the statement is such an important part of setting out the modus operandi of the whole Bill? This is quite an important area.

I support Amendment 11 but it will be important to listen to the Minister’s response to decide how this might go forward in the next stage. I believe that some degree of accountability should not be left as an option to the Secretary of State; there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make that statement and, as the Government have said, to have the ability to remake it.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s Amendment 12 to make changes to the sectors statement in respect of feedback from stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm whether all the suggested changes that come back in that consultation will actually be published?

I will make a comment about the document that has arrived in front of us today because, in a sense, it gives a very good description of how good consultation works—never mind the timing; we have made that point—in relation to the degree of change that looks as if it is going to happen as a result of conversation on that particular issue. However, it then feeds into what happens if, had this been the statement, changes were wanting to be made. For example, what we have heard today, as a result of some very good consultation, is that the definition of AI has been narrowed significantly to focus on three high-risk applications: identification of objects, people and events; advanced robotics; and cybersecurity.

The interesting thing is what happens after you have had a consultation that has got the Government to rethink and that may then have other implications. In this case, with those changes, does this change the Government’s estimate of the number of notifications that that might give rise to, in relation to the change in definition? It is that sort of issue that might come up, and it would want the dialogue that I think is being referred to in the amendment, in relation to whether there is a second stage—if it is turned down, so to speak—about having to go on further. As such, how we handle the feedback is about both the transparency of what has come back in and the full implications of any changes that that has made.

We keep coming up with the figures where, even though the Government have increased the assumption of how many notifications there would be—less than 1% or so—the CBI and other commentators feel it would be much greater. As such, that degree of dialogue is needed in relation to consultation over these very big issues. Some assurance about the results of such a consultation, as well as a second stage, seems very helpful, along the lines in the amendment.

On the Government’s Amendment 75, it would be interesting to know what advice led to the change—we are not questioning it but wondering why it has been made—to extend the regulatory power from a notice or serving an order to include all documents as well. It would be helpful, certainly to me and possibly to other Members of the Committee, to know what other types of additional documents will thus be added to this regulatory power—could the Minister spell that out?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 11. With the permission of the Committee, I will speak first to the three minor technical amendments that the Government wish to make to the Bill: Amendments 12, 37 and 75. Briefly, before I begin, I reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State must lay and publish a statement before using the call-in power.

Amendment 12 is to Clause 4, which concerns consultation and parliamentary procedure for the statement pursuant to Clause 3, in which the Secretary of State sets out how he expects to use the call-in power. At present, Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to meet the requirement to carry out such consultation as he considers appropriate, in relation to a draft of the statement under subsection (1)(a), before Clause 4 is commenced.

However, it does not make it clear that the Secretary of State is able to make any changes that he considers necessary in view of the responses to that consultation under subsection (1)(b) before the clause is commenced. Amendment 12 clarifies this point, ensuring that stakeholders will be able to see a revised draft statement before it is laid before Parliament.

Amendment 37 is to Clause 11, which provides an exemption for certain asset acquisitions which would otherwise be trigger events. Subsection (2), however, provides that assets that are either land or are subject to certain export controls should not fall within the exemption, and subsection (2)(b) sets out the relevant export control provisions. One of these provisions, Article 9 of the Export Control Order 2008, was revoked on implementation period completion day as a result of EU exit by Regulation 4 of the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which I am sure all Members are very familiar. The amendment would remove the reference to this revoked provision from Clause 11.

Amendment 75 is to Clause 53, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to the negative resolution procedure, prescribing the procedure for giving notices and serving orders under the Bill. At present this clause enables the Secretary of State to specify how a notice or order must be given or served, but does not make it clear that these powers are intended to extend to all documents given under the Bill. The amendment would clarify that point, ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations in Clause 53(1) in relation to the procedure for service of documents for all the different types of notices, orders and other documents under the Bill. These are relatively small tweaks to the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will see fit to agree to them.

Amendment 11 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I will begin by briefly setting out its context. Clause 4 sets out a consultation requirement and parliamentary procedure for a statement about the exercise of the call-in power which must be published before the Secretary of State may issue a call-in notice. It requires the Secretary of State, before publishing the statement, to carry out such consultation as he thinks appropriate in relation to a draft of the statement, to make any changes to the draft that appear to him to be necessary in view of the responses, and to lay the final statement before Parliament.

My noble friend’s amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Secretary of State may publish a new statement if either House resolves not to approve the previous version that he lays before Parliament. The apparent stumbling block that the amendment seeks to remove is that the Secretary of State is under a duty to carry out such consultation as he thinks appropriate in relation to a draft of the new statement, and make any changes to the draft that appear to him to be necessary in view of the responses to such consultation. However, I point out that the Secretary of State must carry out such consultations as he “thinks appropriate”, according to Clause 4(1)(a).

The Bill therefore provides the Secretary of State with some measure of flexibility in deciding whether, for how long and how widely the draft statement should be consulted on. Therefore, the Bill as drafted does not in appropriate circumstances prevent the Secretary of State from publishing a new updated statement, reflecting the debate in Parliament, almost immediately without first undertaking a consultation if he does not think that a consultation is appropriate.

In short, while my noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that a new statement may be laid speedily if either House resolves not to approve the previous version, the Bill as drafted already allows for this. I am grateful that he has afforded me the opportunity to make the functioning of this clause clear. Therefore, in the light of the explanation that I have been able to provide, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, there are distinct common factors in both these amendments. The proposers do not believe that the current way of approving regulations under Clause 6, purely the affirmative procedure, is satisfactory. That is because of the importance of the regulations under Clause 6. As we heard, they underpin the necessity for mandatory notification for certain types of transactions in 17 sectors and they can be changed. We heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Fox, that the definitions of these sectors are highly complex.

My noble friend took the example of artificial intelligence, a technology I have taken considerable interest in. As he explained, machine learning technology permeates almost every single sector and every use for both consumers and businesses one can think of—fintech, edtech, regtech, you name it. Artificial intelligence permeates those, and the new description of the AI sector published in the government response today states:

“In narrowing the definition, the definition now provides further clarity for businesses and investors”.


However, the definition still covers:

“the identification of objects, people, and events; advanced robotics and cyber security.”

That is pretty broad.

The policy statement published today is also extremely helpful in emphasising the importance of Clause 6 regulations. The policy statement says:

“Under Clause 6, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to:… a) specify the description of a qualifying entity for the purpose of identifying a notifiable acquisition; …b) amend the circumstances in which a notifiable acquisition takes place … c) exempt acquirers with specified characteristics … d) make consequential amendments of other provisions of the Bill resulting from provisions set out in paragraphs (b) and (c).”—[Interruption.]


I hope that I am having some impact on the Minister, my Lords. The policy statement goes on to say:

“For the commencement of the regime, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations only to specify the sectors subject to mandatory notification.”


I underline “only” because you would have thought that was significant enough in itself. This is obviously a self-denying ordinance, but it is not a very large self-denying ordinance when you are dealing with the intricacies of those 17 sectors.

My noble friend Lord Fox has rightly quoted the Constitution Committee’s 2018 report The Legislative Process: Delegated Powers, which talked about the rubber-stamping of the Government’s secondary legislation. He also referred to my long life, and in my already long life I have been responsible for overturning a statutory instrument. The Blackpool casino was very much wanted by the citizens of Blackpool, so the SI for east Manchester was defeated by three votes in the House of Lords, and one of those votes was from the Archbishop of Canterbury—the former Archbishop of Canterbury, I am glad to say. It was I who put the Motion, and we passed it by three votes to deny the Government the right to build the casino in east Manchester. Unfortunately, the Government never came back with a proposal for Blackpool, and that is a sad piece of history. I do not know why they did not; it would have been a great place to build a casino.

However, that does show that, on a simple proposition, it is possible to have an effective debate. When you are dealing with 17 sectors and 111 pages of text, which are going to be the subject of this regulation, that illustrates that the form of affirmative resolution proposed in this Bill is not fit for purpose. This kind of super-affirmative procedure means that there would be a genuine debate on the regulations and the 17 sectors and their extent.

I have huge sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because of course one wishes to see consultation among stakeholders. In an ideal world, one would like to see both that and the super-affirmative resolution. But, to be frank, consultation is not the same as, or a substitute for, proper parliamentary scrutiny. These are crucial regulations, and it is right that they are opened up for full debate in this way. I am probably going to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, by saying that he said earlier we will have some debates about the sectors—well, not really, unless this amendment is accepted.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have just been hearing, these notifiable acquisition regulations are significant and require proper oversight, not just from both Houses of Parliament but also from experts involved, and with the opinions of those experts being made available to legislators. It will obviously be important to ensure that the stakeholders to be consulted are knowledgeable and, if I may say it, at the cutting edge of technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I forgot to declare at the beginning that I used to work for the Wellcome Trust. It was 20 years ago, but I think it should still be noted.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response but I do not think that she has quite got to grips with the full concern about this. It is not so much that there has not been consultation about the current sectors; there has been an extensive consultation and the Government have come back with their views and have explicitly said that they may change them even further. Yet they are still going to return to Parliament with a pure affirmative process. It is not as if parliamentarians will be able to change it. The stakeholder discussion and consultation is going forward as she said, but there is no guarantee that when that set of regulations is passed there will be proper debate in the House, nor will there be thereafter if the sectors are changed and made more specific, less specific, added to—whatever. There is no guarantee that consultation will take place.

The Minister said that there are the right incentives. That is a bit thin. If that is the guarantee of government consultation, it is not very solid, and even then, Parliament is entitled to have a view about the width of those sectors in the light of changing circumstances. It might have different views about new risks emerging, to use the Minister’s phrase. Therefore, it would be entirely legitimate to have that debate if those regulations were revised. The Minister has not got the nub of the concern in all of this.

National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that Her Majesty’s Government have underestimated the potential workload that this unit will get, but I am not convinced that his solution to reducing that workload is the right one. We have heard many speeches but I would single out those of my noble friend Lady Bowles, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as reasons why we should not be separating out one set of companies due to their nationality. The noble Lord made the point clearly that the criterion should be: is it or is it not a national security risk, rather than, does it or does it not come from Hampshire or New Hampshire? That should be the rule running through this.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, when moving into caveat territory, started to explain why singling out foreign companies becomes an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. First, what is one, and is it a shell company? Is it listed on NASDAQ but actually resident in Beijing? Those kinds of complications start to point to the Government’s analysis that all companies are in. Clearly, it will be easier for the company whose owner your friend meets in a pub to get through the process and not be called in, compared with one that hails from the Far East, for example. Surely, the process should be the efficiency with which the unit can deal with and dismiss issues quickly, rather than accidentally filtering out things that we should not.

On the concept that, “Our friends are our friends, so we include them as ourselves”, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the wider point about access to the technology. Access can be cut off by our friends as much as by ourselves or, indeed, by external companies. I am sorry, but I am going to repeat the example I gave at Second Reading. A British company with a US-based subsidiary took the technology to the United States, started to produce it and made one small amendment to that technology. The use and sale of the technology back to the UK was then blocked by the Department of Defense under export controls, because it considered it to then be United States strategic technology. I am sure that such things happen all the time—this example is just one that I happen to know about.

Regional agnosticism, the gospel according to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is the sensible approach here, and I hope that the Minister can explain his views on this issue.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we have some sympathy with the intention here, which is to seek clarification about whether certain investors or countries should be more or less encouraged to invest here, although this may not be exactly the right way to achieve that. Such clarification is clearly needed and is sought in a different way by Amendment 91, which we will reach next week, I think, and which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord West.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

15A: Clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Amendment 15A would delete Clause 6(2)(b), because otherwise that paragraph means that someone increasing their interest in a qualifying entity from under 15% to over 15% would then turn it into a notifiable acquisition.

This amendment asks a simple but significant question: why has 15% been chosen and what is the rationale for it? The people we spoke to were a bit bemused by the figure. I think someone mentioned in Committee last week that 15% appeared somewhere else, but those we spoke to across a range of areas could not find, and did not know, where that 15% came from. There is obviously no particular evidence behind it. I am not sure whether it appears elsewhere in legislation, but I am sure the Minister will know the answer and outline the thinking behind that figure.

Not just for pubs but for other early stage start-ups and developments, this could certainly be an impediment to an investment just at the point when it is needed. For these small start-ups there seems to be a more or less continuous need for money, but drip by drip as things develop. It is on a continual basis rather than a great big one-off deal; the more the work begins to show potential, the more extra money is needed. Any concern about suddenly hitting 15% in the case of a small company, particularly a new one, just when it needs the money could jeopardise access to funds when they are most needed.

I am not even absolutely certain about the purpose of Clause 6(2)(b), but, again, I am sure the Minister will elucidate in his reply. Clause 8(2) already describes shareholding thresholds for qualifying entities of a specialist description, where the figures of 25%, 50% and 75% are used, and Clause 8(5) does the same with voting rights. So the references in Clause 6(2)(b) to a 15% threshold for

“a qualifying entity of a specified description”

appear to go over very similar ground, unless the intention is to have two different classes of qualifying entities of a specified description, with the higher-risk one subject to the additional 15% level. If that is the case, it seems to add an extra level of complexity to the legislation. Dropping the 15% level could remove the regulatory burden from at least some fundraising that needs to go on. It might be questionable anyway how much control a shareholding of below a quarter would achieve.

Amendment 29A would delete Clause 8(8), which again is a bit unclear. Perhaps the Minister will be able to spell it out a bit more. It concerns the fourth listed case of a person gaining

“control of a qualifying entity”

as described earlier in Clause 8(1). However, Clause 8(8) is not part of the mandatory regime in the earlier Clause 6, which we are now looking at, because in Clause 8 only cases one to three are cross-referenced with reference to subsections (2), (5) and (6). It does not include subsection (8), so a bit more explanation would be good.

Clause 8(8) is perhaps there to allow for a broad range of call-ins than those covered by the mandatory notification regime, but the imprecision of the language is difficult. It talks of where it

“enables the person materially to influence the policy of the entity”.

As that is fairly broad, it could lead to a lot of excess voluntary reporting and it is hard to know what it means in practice. “Influence” is hard enough to define. Maybe “materially to influence” meets a legal threshold of which I am unaware, but it is quite difficult for a researcher or company to know what that means.

It is true that the CMA uses some of that language when we are talking about much bigger operations. However, it is probably not a phrase that is particularly familiar to most businesses or, indeed, to academia. As I said, it could lead to a lot of extra voluntary notification by parties in an attempt to get certainty. As we have heard, we are worried about too many voluntary notifications clogging up the system.

The reason why 25% in Amendment 17 was chosen might need some spelling out. It may well be correct, but it would be useful to know the thinking behind it.

I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will take that as a comment and not as a question. I continue to look at all aspects of the Bill to see how they can be improved.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The Minister referred to the meeting that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, very kindly held yesterday with the Wellcome Trust, and I very much welcome the reassurances that he has read into the record today. The shorthand for this is the nervousness in academia of bringing in assets—IP, information, ideas and software—rather than just entities. That was what we discussed at the meeting yesterday, and the Minister has now read into the record the reassurances he gave there, for which we thank him.

I thought that the suggestion—I was going to call it a wheeze—of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was rather crafty: if that is what you mean, why do you not say it upfront? However, from what the Minister said, there seems to be a difference between the objective and the subjective criteria. I do not know whether that is why the Government want them in different clauses, but there is a problem with the subjectivity of this phrase. It is not simply, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, just said, about material influence rather than material control, but also the policy, and it is hard to define what that means. It seems to me a very subjective test for the big change made in Clause 6. I remain unconvinced that we have got it clear enough.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for explaining where the 15% figure, to which the Minister referred again, comes from. The CMA uses it when talking about mergers, but we are talking here about big companies, not small ones. However, because there is no threshold, much smaller companies will be covered by this. It may be absolutely important for the takeover of very large companies whether competition is taken out of the market. The Minister knows that, as a consumer champion, I am always very happy for the CMA to look at the impact on competition. However, I have my doubts whether a regime defined for competition in consumer goods and access should be lifted and shifted—the Minister said that there will not be separate guidance—into something that will sometimes affect small start-ups and new developments.

I certainly know more about the subject than I did 43 minutes ago, for which I thank all those who have spoken on the amendment. As has been said, I hope that the Minister and his draftspeople will look at whether this is clear enough, necessary and appropriate for the sorts of investments we are dealing with. When the Minister gives a bequest in a will as the reason for including a particular provision in the Bill, that feels like clutching at straws to me. I hope there are better arguments than that, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it would seem, when looking at Clause 29 and listening to the reasoned arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government would be hard put not to agree with the objectives they set out for this amendment, so I suppose we have to listen to the Minister to hear why the Government think that the Bill already does the things which this amendment seeks to achieve, unless the Minister wants to explain why those objectives are wrong. There is a similar argument to be made about Amendment 72, which is more complex. Again, why would the Government not wish to achieve what this amendment is seeking to achieve? If they do, it is not clear in the Bill.

I dubbed Amendment 97 the Gilbert and Sullivan amendment, because you have the cousins, the sisters and the aunts all lining up in the connected parties list, or perhaps not. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would probably have made a fabulous argument, but in his stead the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, makes very good points.

Coming back to the substantive point about Clause 8, we have had a long debate on the group beginning with Amendment 15A, and a smaller, shorter debate that has focused on similar issues. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones called Clause 8 a hybrid, being both specific and broad. I hope the Minister and the Bill team will take from this that there is work to be done on this clause. It is quite clear from the debate we have had that tightening and clarifying are required to take the Bill into Report. Otherwise, I suspect there will be a lot of recalls coming from the sort of debate we have seen, particularly in the Amendment 15A group, but also, to some extent, from this one.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am still slightly reeling from having to find names of people long since in my past, but maybe Hansard can piece things together.

We have heard today, both in this group and in others, and in the representations that we have all seen, that there are considerable investor concerns about bits of the Bill, some of which Amendments 29 and 72 in particular seek to address. It is important to recognise, although it has been made clear by people in Committee, that the Bill marks a radical transformation of national security screening for mergers and acquisitions. It is a new and different regime, so it is essential that the Government not only maintain business confidence but gain more confidence from businesses and the investors in them. That was why, on the first day of Committee, we set out why we thought we needed a definition of national security to provide clarity for businesses and investors and to build trust in the regime.

However, as has been said in this group, one of the things that would help that confidence is better drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right when he says that more work is needed. I know it is the second day back at school, but it feels as if the homework has been self-marked and now needs a slightly more thorough look. As everyone has said, it is not that anyone has objections to the purpose of the Bill; the concerns are about the wording and perhaps the breadth of its scope.

Clause 8 defines the circumstances in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity, thus constituting a trigger event that may be subject to assessment under the regime. This is clearly a key part that must be got right. Amendment 29 would narrow the third circumstance to make sure that it does not capture minority investor veto rights, as has already been mentioned. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether it is expected that minority investment veto rights would be captured.

The group of amendments raises some broad questions about the number of cases in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity. We are interested in why other cases are not included. We do not necessarily want them included but want to work out the limits that brought certain things to be put in the Bill. It is quite interesting to know what is not there. For example, is an acquisition involving state-owned entities or investors originating in a country of risk to UK national security not a concern? It is not mentioned. Neither is a person who becomes a major debt holder and could therefore gain influence over the entity’s operation and policy. Is that not of interest? It is not that I want to include them, but I am really interested in how the definitions were put together. Maybe the Government, either in writing afterwards because it may be more detailed, or in answer today could spell out why these particular cases were selected and the sort of advice that was taken in the selection process.

Amendment 97, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has discussed, raises the question of why a former partner should remain a person of concern. Probably all of us here have had difficulties with being a politically exposed person, a PEP. We have found it very difficult sometimes just to open or become a signatory to a charity’s accounts because of being a PEP. A number of difficulties were had, but I think they have been got over now after some work in this House. It really did affect those of us who have step-children and former partners and siblings we never see, and things like that.

This issue needs a little more clarification and protection, if you like. No investor or anybody involved in this wants to get caught up by something which they could not have thought at the time was of any interest. I understand that it might look suspicious if somebody divorced their partner two days before to get rid of some assets, but this is a very wide net. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this clause is needed and needs to be drawn quite as widely. This is a net that would catch whales, never mind tiddlers.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by briefly extending my thanks to my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lansley for tabling the amendments in this group relating to the circumstances determining the control of entities in the Bill, as well as arrangements and the impact of final orders on contracts.

I am conscious of the complexity of some of the matters that we are debating. If I am not able to explain or elucidate these points fully in my comments, I will of course write to noble Lords. I will also be happy to discuss them with noble Lords outside the Committee. Some of these things are quite difficult to get straight across a table like this.

I will start by addressing my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s Amendment 29. For the purposes of the Bill, Clause 8 sets out the circumstances in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity. It explains the four ways in which control can be gained. Subsection (6) sets out the third trigger event:

“The third case is where the acquisition is of voting rights in the entity that (whether alone or together with other voting rights held by the person) enable the person to secure or prevent the passage of any class of resolution governing the affairs of the entity.”


I think that there is broad support for that concept. However, Amendment 29 seeks to narrow this so that only acquisitions of such voting rights over matters that are equivalent to those which require the passing of ordinary or special resolutions under the Companies Act 2006 would be a trigger event.

I sincerely pay tribute to my noble friend for seeking to ensure that the regime is as reasonable and proportionate as possible. I believe that his intent is very much to seek to exclude acquisitions of minority veto rights from constituting trigger events. However, the Government consider that the Bill already achieves this goal to some extent as subsection (6), which my noble friend seeks to amend, is of course subject to the qualifying provision in subsection (7), which explains how references to voting rights in an entity apply to different sorts of entity.

In the case of an entity that has a share capital, this means voting rights conferred on shareholders to vote at general meetings of the entity on all or substantially all matters. In the case of an entity that does not have a share capital—this is where some complexity arises—this means the voting rights conferred on members to vote at general meetings of the entity on all or substantially all matters. The important words in both cases are

“all or substantially all matters.”

I therefore suggest, with deference to my noble friend, that minority veto rights would be captured by subsection (6) only where such voting rights provide the holder with a right to vote on all or substantially all matters, which perhaps takes it rather beyond the worry that some people had about these minority rights being constrained.

I hope that this puts the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, at rest but, again, if a further discussion is needed to clarify how this works, I would be very happy to hold one. I also hope that the Committee agrees that it is only right that minority veto rights, in circumstances where they really are broad enough to cover all or substantially all matters, should be in scope of the Bill. For all intents and purposes, they are the same as majority rights if they are able to do that.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 30 in respect of Clause 8 and the definition of control of entities for the purposes of the Bill. This clause reflects the fact that there are ways of obtaining control over an entity other than just acquiring shares or voting rights at significant thresholds. As part of the new regime—I say without excuse that we have made this embracing because of the importance of national security—the Secretary of State must be able to scrutinise lower stakes of shares and votes or other rights or interests acquired by a person that allow them materially to influence the policy of the entity. This is consistent with the UK’s merger framework, and businesses and investors alike have welcomed our adoption of the familiar material influence concept that they have been accustomed to under the Enterprise Act 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to speak for any length on Amendments 31 and 33. I just hope that the Minister has a battery of Scots lawyers advising on these amendments because it sounds as if they could be of huge significance and the issues under Scots law may well have been ignored in the drafting of the Bill. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response, no doubt on advice.

I support, in particular, Amendments 34 and 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which he introduced so well. The common factor is that the existing wording of Clause 10(2) appears to catch intragroup investments where an ultimate parent company holds an interest indirectly through a wholly-owned subsidiary and decides to transfer the interest to itself so that it is held directly. Such transactions do not raise new or additional national risks as there is no change in the substantive control. For mandatory filings, as he also described, the initial acquisition will already have been notified and reviewed. Proposed Amendment 34 therefore makes sure that only those transactions where the initial investment took place before the commencement date are caught; they will thus not have been reviewed. Without this provision, each entity within a corporate group would need to make a separate notification for a single trigger event.

Amendment 35 deals with cases where corporate group companies comprise multiple, separate entities because Clause 10, as drafted, also appears to require each entity within the corporate group to make a separate notification for a single trigger event that takes place relating to the group.

These are well-crafted amendments and were well described by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who, as he said, is supported by the Law Society. We have a Law Society group of amendments here relating to England, Wales and Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will have huge pleasure in responding on this group.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no new information to bring to the Committee. As we have heard, a number of transactions appear likely to be caught under the Bill which are probably outwith the intention of the authors of the Bill. I think the Minister has to explain why these provisions are in it, rather than noble Lords who tabled amendments having to explain why the provisions should be taken out. We look forward to his explanation of that and, perhaps, his reassurance to the Committee that the Bill is really fit for purpose across the whole of the UK, including for the Scottish legal system.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, with thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken with such knowledge and eloquence on the amendments tabled, I will begin by speaking to Amendments 31 and 33 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The noble Lord, supported by my noble friend, clearly raises important questions on the juxtaposition of Scottish law with the powers that we are looking at in this group.

I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for having supported this and, if I may, rather than attempting to deal with these points on the hoof I will take them away. I commit to being in communication with noble Lords as to what needs to be done, if anything, in relation to them. More generally, perhaps putting the important Scottish points on one side for the moment, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the Bill has to work for every part of the United Kingdom.

These amendments concern Clauses 8 and 9 and the circumstances where acquisitions of control of entities and assets take place for the purposes of the Bill. They seek, I believe, to ensure that rights or interests in, or in relation to, entities and assets held by way of security are exempt from the regime, on the understandable basis that lending and debt arrangements do not give rise to control. Let me agree right away with the thrust of the concern expressed by the noble Lord and my noble friend. The Government do not consider that the provision of loans and finance is automatically a national security issue. Indeed, it is part of a healthy business ecosystem which enables businesses to flourish and grow in this country. Lenders need confidence that they can see a return on ordinary debt arrangements to provide that service, which is of course vital to the proper functioning of the economy. But we must recognise that there are, in a small number of cases, national security risks that can be posed through debt. I will come to this in a moment.

Access to finance is crucial for so many businesses and, to grow and succeed, they will often take out loans secured against the very businesses and assets they have fought so hard to build. That is why the Bill allows the Secretary of State to scrutinise acquisitions of control that take place when lenders exercise their rights over the collateral. The important point is that it is not where the lenders have hypothetical rights but where they exercise their rights over the collateral. This approach is needed because it will prevent hostile actors artificially structuring acquisitions in the form of loans which, following a swift and convenient default—let us put it that way—might otherwise allow them to evade scrutiny. This is a proportionate approach, and one that I am confident will keep finance flowing into UK companies and infrastructure while ensuring that our national security can be protected.

Amendments 34 and 35 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson relate to Clause 10, which, in combination with Schedule 1, sets out various ways in which rights or interests are to be treated, for the purposes of the Bill, as held or acquired. These include indirect holdings whereby, for example, a person holds an interest or right indirectly if that person has a majority stake in an entity that is part of a chain of entities, each of which holds a majority stake in the entity immediately below it, the last company in the chain of which holds the interest or right. That example is relevant because Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that intragroup investments are not covered by Clause 10 and, as a result, Schedule 1 as well.

My interpretation is that my noble friend wishes to prevent internal reorganisations within the same corporate chain of entities from resulting in trigger events by virtue of Schedule 1. I confirm to the Committee that, in the vast majority of cases, that will not have an impact but, depending on the facts of the case, internal reorganisations may be in scope of the Bill. That is because there may be rare cases in which internal reorganisations pose national security risks. That may be true even if the ultimate beneficial owner is the same before and after the trigger event: for example, if there are concerns about changes to the level of control acquired by other links in the chain as a result of the internal reorganisation.

Clause 10(2)(b), which the amendment seeks to amend, is therefore important, because it makes it clear that in circumstances where a person is already treated as holding an interest or right, when something happens that would be regarded as the acquisition of that interest or right by the same person, then it is treated as such.

This means, for example, that an ultimate beneficial owner at the top of a corporate chain transferring existing majority holdings held by entities lower down in the chain to those above them could be a trigger event if it can be regarded as an acquisition by virtue of Schedule 1.

Amendment 35 would insert a new subsection into Clause 10 to provide that only one trigger event arises where more than one person is treated as acquiring an interest or right due to the provisions of Schedule 1. I can clearly see that my noble friend is seeking to help the Government by looking to ensure that the investment security unit is not deluged by duplicate notifications by corporate chains each time a new acquisition is made by an entity towards the bottom of the chain.

I can assure him that we are carefully designing the notification process and forms so that, wherever possible in situations such as these, a single notification providing all the details of the entities in the same corporate structure can be considered together. That is different from his amendment, which would seek to provide in the Bill that only one trigger event takes place. I am afraid that the Government consider that this would introduce ambiguity into the Bill, as it would not make it clear which trigger event is the one which takes place, and which should be discounted.

Hostile actors could try to exploit such a provision to avoid scrutiny by using shell companies at the bottom of long and complex corporate chains to acquire sensitive entities and assets. If only one trigger event is considered to take place by virtue of Schedule 1, the entity immediately above it in the chain could notify the acquisition, while not necessarily disclosing the control acquired by more troubling persons higher up the chain. In these circumstances, the amendment would mean that these could not be treated as separate trigger events, whereas surely they should be.

With the arguments I have outlined and my undertaking to write to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh about the important Scottish matters they raised, I ask that the noble Lord agrees to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this is a particular Bill designed to do a particular thing. It is not a higher education Bill. While he may feel strongly about many of the issues, I will not comment on them, because they do not fall into the remit of the Bill. I point out that I am also not a university vice-chancellor.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, set out the danger, and this was supported by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. If this Bill is used to police these issues, the deluge that will fall on the agency will be huge. We are back to the point that my noble friend made on the previous group: we are creating a Bill that does everything, then the Government will gradually calibrate what they do and do not need to do. That is not the best legislative approach.

There are issues with the research relationships that universities may have, but this Bill is not the policing agency that we should be using for them. I do not 100% agree about the outset of a relationship, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his and my noble friend’s amendment. Sometimes that has to be looked at, as well as the outcome of that relationship, but I do not think this Bill is the place to do it.

To steal a word that was used earlier and use it differently, we are also looking at the nexus between this and export control. Universities seem much more comfortable with export control, and if there is an issue with universities it could be addressed through the increased and more rigorous use of these measures, not through this Bill.

I return to the point which I asked the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about last time and which I put to ask the Minister now, what are we seeking to stop? In other words, in putting this Bill together, how many partnership agreements does the Bill team imagine would have been stopped by this process? What sort of things are the Government seeking to arrest, stop or cancel compared to that which the export control regime would be doing anyway?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows and as has been said, there is considerable concern in the higher education and research sector about the potential impact of the Bill on research partnerships. We agree with the intention of Amendment 40, which is, as we have heard, to provide clarity for the sector. Indeed, it reflects a recommendation from the Russell group which said that a key concern is that it is unclear which type of asset transactions should be referred for screening. That will cause problems for the group as well as to the unit, which could have simply too many referrals. Amendment 40 is also to ensure that research and development partnerships, such as those between commercial organisations and universities to create new intellectual property and potentially qualifying assets, are not required to provide notification of the creation of such partnerships.

Amendment 88 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reflects similar concerns. I hope it takes an approach that the Government are able to accept. It would require the Government to publish specific guidance for the HE and research sector, including a clear explanation of asset transactions indicating how contract research, consultancy work and collaborative research and development are affected and how the provisions apply to strategic security partnerships and domestic partners. The amendment also requires—and this is key—the Government to consult the higher education and research sector in a meaningful way in advance of the guidance so that the published guidance reflects what is workable for both sides, particularly in relation to that definition of assets which otherwise could lead to great uncertainty. The amendment therefore is about developing guidance and promoting good practice in that it should be done in co-operation with the sector. I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their support for this approach. The wording of my amendment may not be perfect, and we could perhaps tweak that on Report, but it will be important to have this in the Bill.

Perhaps the Minister who is about to reply—or may be doing that next week—would indicate the Government’s acceptance of this need for guidance as well as the way of getting it. As the Russell group says, without clear guidance a significant proportion of universities’ routine engagement with British business could be inadvertently captured by the Bill. We are all in favour of that engagement between universities and business. We want to make sure it happens. Any hiccups could delay time-sensitive research deals if the unit was preoccupied with this.

Universities want to help make this Bill work. They acknowledge that there are risks. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think that the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Rooker about the amount of collaboration with certain countries is key and we must face up to it. I think that the leaders of the universities are aware of that. They want to be part of the solution, so I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 88.

National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, have demonstrated exactly why Committee is so important. The way they have teased out the real meaning of these time limits under Clauses 14 and 18 has been revelatory, if we can call it such.

I very much like the no man’s land metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but, under Clause 18(9), my noble friend Lady Bowles also talked about the piece of elastic that brings you back. It is almost as if this Bill was designed to be deliberately obscure. The reference back to Clause 2(2) and (4) has almost been sneaked in, so that the Secretary of State has the ultimate discretion.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said on the one watchword we have throughout the Bill, we are trying to create an investment regime where there is a high degree of certainty, so that people know what the boundaries are. The time limit boundaries seem to be limitless if they apply to the Secretary of State. An ordinary investor will no doubt be absolutely under the cosh if they fail to meet any time limits that apply to them, but the Secretary of State seems to have absolute discretion.

I do not think I need to add anything further, except to say that we on these Benches strongly support Amendments 43 and 67. I have signed Amendment 67, but both the mandatory and voluntary notification procedures need curing in this respect. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to amending these clauses as we move to the next stage.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this sounds like a “me too” moment, because we also have tremendous sympathy with the amendments, especially after hearing the concerns of stakeholders in the research sector about the uncertainty around the time for notices to be decided by the Government. As we have heard, their concerns reflect others from business and investors.

Could the Minister explain why a default approval should not be included in the Bill if organisations have not heard back within a particular timeframe? She will probably know about the important process for clinical trials involving medical products prescribed in the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations. In that case, where no notice is given or where further information is requested within 60 days, the clinical trial is treated as authorised. I am not suggesting that these are two exact types of decision, but that default authorisation in legislation seems to be one we might look at. I am interested to know whether the Government have looked at a similar default approval to add here. Perhaps the Minister could say what sort of advice the Government have had on whether that would work here.

On Amendment 67, could the Minister indicate whether 30 days is right for such a process? It would be useful to know the Government’s thinking on the expected average turnaround time for a call-in notice.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for their amendments, which, I believe with good intention, seek to bring further clarity to the status of acquisitions that have been notified to the Secretary of State after the end of the 30 working- day review period. In particular, they seek to provide that acquisitions notified to the Secretary of State are deemed to be cleared following the review period if the Secretary of State does not issue a call-in notice within that period. Both worry, as other noble Lords have, that such a transaction might be stranded in a so-called no man’s land. Amendment 43, from my noble friend Lady Noakes, would apply to both mandatory and voluntary notifications, whereas Amendment 67 from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts would apply just to voluntary notifications.

I think we are all agreed it is essential that businesses and investors have the clarity and certainty they need from this regime. That is exactly why we have included statutory timescales for cases—those covered by mandatory notification as well as voluntary notification —to be screened by the investment security unit. That is also why the Secretary of State is already required to give a call-in notice or issue a notification of no further action before the end of the review period in response to both voluntary and mandatory notification. He has no other option, and I hope that noble Lords are reassured by this. The Government consider that this is the right approach as it imposes a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to take a positive action to provide certainty one way or another. I do not believe that the default approval system suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would add to that certainty.

The Government do not think it would be in anyone’s interest to leave the situation ambiguous as to whether an acquisition has been cleared or requires further scrutiny, so I am pleased to be able to reassure my noble friends of the Bill’s functioning on these matters. Many of the businesses the Government have spoken to about the new regime have emphasised they would not wish to proceed with completing an acquisition without unequivocal confidence that they are cleared to do so. As such, it is not clear to me that my noble friends’ amendments would provide greater confidence in the business and investment communities.

For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Noakes will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is nice to be in the Chamber rather than the glass cubes in which we have been confined. I assure your Lordships, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that noble Lords not only on those Benches but on this side of the House want this Bill to succeed; I think that I can speak for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition as well. However, the measure of that success will be its efficiency, its certainty and the way it manages this important element of investment.

I listened to the answer that the Minister gave to the last set of amendments; I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, as Minister for this set, to comment on that. However, although it is probably irregular, I ask both Ministers to listen back to the answer that was given there and answer the same questions with their departments: how would they manage a company for five years that is still sitting in that kind of limbo? How would they make investment decisions for that business while it is still not approved but not denied? I ask them to think about the management decisions that they would make. When they have come to a conclusion, I think the Ministers will agree with the proposers of those amendments that some degree of certainty needs to be delivered quickly and efficiently—and that brings us to this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has eloquently set out an alternative to the—we might say—digital approach that the Bill has taken, with the option of remedies. Businesses are familiar with remedies, I would say, having worked with the CMA and others. The merits as set out by the noble Lord of speed, flexibility and durability are all things to be aspired to.

I know this sounds patronising, but I remind the Government that the title of the Bill includes the words “security and investment”—the investment part should have equal weight to that of security. It is straight- forward to stop things happening and tick a security box; it is harder to make sure that we have a regime that continues to encourage investment. Everything that takes time or injects uncertainty pushes investment away. The Ministers should listen to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and think about this middle way, which can move things quickly, keep investment in the game and make sure that, at the same time as getting investment, we are also getting the security that the title of the Bill demands.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, there is something going around my mind now about letting foxes out of their glass cubes—I am not sure how dangerous that is.

These amendments would allow for undertakings to be accepted instead of a final order—a case well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. During Committee in the other place, Dr Lenihan from the LSE said:

“There are many cases in which a threat to national security can be mitigated by agreements and undertakings without needing to block a deal.”


Perhaps the Minister could inform the House what thought was given to that proposal.

As we have heard, Amendment 71 is in a way a probing amendment to learn more about the type of person the Secretary of State could appoint to supervise a final order. We will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s reply on this. What sort of specialism would be involved? Would the person need to have any relevant training, background or experience? It would be interesting to know how they would be selected and whether the job description would be included in the report that would in any case be made, so that one could see the basis on which the selection happened.

Clause 26(4) states:

“Before making a final order the Secretary of State must consider any representations made”.


We are interested in what exactly is meant by the word “consider”. Would that be part of a dialogue, perhaps as part of the negotiations, or simply a requirement that representations are in the dossier submitted to the Secretary of State for ratification? Assuming that the representations had not been successful—if there were a final order, that would presumably be against the wishes of the parties—it would be interesting to know whether the reasoning for rejecting them would be noted and reported on elsewhere, possibly to the ISC. It would be important for someone to be able to reflect on the decision-making that had taken place.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by extending my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for these amendments. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken; all I think welcome the broad thrust of the Bill even if they wish, quite rightly, to probe certain aspects of how it will work.

I begin by addressing Amendments 45, 68 and 69. Amendments 68 and 69 would allow the Secretary of State to accept “undertakings” from the acquirer

“as the Secretary of State deems appropriate to remedy, mitigate or prevent any risk to national security”,

rather than issuing a final order or a final notification. Amendment 45 would then, as I read it, make a consequential change to Clause 13 in respect of notifiable acquisitions so that those which are completed otherwise than in accordance with the final order or the agreed undertakings are void.

The Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State two options once he has exercised his call-in power: first, to issue a “final order”, which contains remedies. I would add here that remedies are not necessarily just black and white—they could have a whole set of actions incorporated into them; some noble Lords may not fully have comprehended that. Secondly, the Secretary of State can issue a “final notification”, which states that no further action is to be taken under the Bill.

Undertakings proposed by my noble friend in these amendments would come into force when the undertakings were accepted. They could be varied or superseded through the Secretary of State accepting another undertaking, replaced by a final order made by the Secretary of State at any time, or the Secretary of State would be able to release the acquirer from their undertaking.

I am grateful that my noble friend is seeking to expand the options available to the Secretary of State but, as I hope to explain convincingly in just a moment, the Secretary of State does not need these additional options. Undertakings would not be appropriate because the Bill already provides the dual benefit of certainty for parties while giving the Secretary of State the “teeth” needed to enforce a regime built around our national security.

The Bill includes the ability for the Secretary of State to establish the terms of any remedy through the power to make final orders. I emphasise that point again. The terms of a remedy may require someone to dispose of part of something or to do something in relation to one bit of an undertaking but not another. It is a comprehensive term which allows all sorts of matters to be included within it. Indeed, the Bill states in Clause 26(5)(a) that a final order may require a person

“to do, or not to do, particular things”.

I am advised that that is a strong statutory footing which the Government consider is both required and sufficient for remedies under this regime.

My noble friend Lord Lansley was right on the button when he said that this gives the Secretary of State all that he requires. The Secretary of State does not need any additional powers because this power gives him all that he might conceivably want to do. Of course, before the Secretary of State determines his final order, he is likely to engage with parties to an acquisition—acquirers and others—to explore potential remedies.

However, it is right for the purposes of national security that these remedies—once they have been considered, and once they might have been discussed and looked at—should then be able to be imposed through a final order rather than assented to by the Secretary of State. We believe that this imposition is necessary because the matters that we are dealing with here are matters of national security. The Bill as drafted provides the Secretary of State with the power to impose remedies through a final order or to take no further action under the Bill, which is all that is required.

With Amendment 71, my noble friend addresses an important part of the Bill; namely, the carrying out of activities pursuant to final orders. The execution of final orders is of course vital to ensure that any remedies imposed by the Secretary of State have their desired effect. There would not be much point in just imposing orders if they were not carried through afterwards. This amendment seeks to make explicit a requirement that anyone who will conduct, or supervise the conduct of, activities mandated by final orders must be “suitably-qualified”. While I appreciate the good intention of my noble friend, I do not believe that this amendment would add anything substantial to the Bill.

First, the Secretary of State is unlikely to appoint someone who could not conduct or supervise the conduct of activities mandated under the final order. It would be daft of him to put someone in to do the job who was not qualified to do it. Why would he or she wish to do that? To do so may undermine the Secretary of State’s remedy; the remedy may not be carried out in full or in part if the person is not qualified, which would be against the decision that the Secretary of State has made. It is therefore very much in the Secretary of State’s own interests that the person appointed has to be “suitably-qualified,” even if the Bill does not say that specifically. I take it for granted that that is what the Secretary of State would want to do.

Secondly, the Secretary of State will be subject to public law duties when providing for a person to be appointed. Those public law duties will require him to act reasonably and take into account all relevant considerations. This would include whether the person is suitably qualified to undertake the task. He would be failing in his public law duties if he appointed someone who was not so qualified.

Thirdly, should it be helpful to noble Lords, I am happy to state categorically on the Floor of the Committee that the investment security unit will comprise eminently qualified people of the right skills and experience. For example, if a particular case requires someone qualified in chartered accountancy or in audit, the Secretary of State will appoint somebody who has those qualifications to carry out what is required.

For these reasons, I believe that although noble Lords are trying to be helpful in putting forward the amendments in this group, they are unnecessary. What they seek to do is already covered by the powers that exist in the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment 45.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has coined another phrase that will run through this Bill—notably, “practical impact”. It is interesting that among those of us who have taken part in the debates on the Bill many have a practical understanding of what its impact could be. We have been in walks of life that have brought us into the investment community—not least the Minister himself—and we see the potential for major issues arising under the legislation because of the way in which it is drafted. This group of slightly disconnected amendments illustrates that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and my noble friend Lady Bowles forensically took us through the amendment and Amendments 67B and 67C. I shall come to the question on whether Clause 30 should stand part of the Bill in a moment.

However, the amendment is definitely the kind of red tape-busting amendment that we need. My noble friend Lady Bowles said that we needed provisions that actually met the needs of the investment community and were tailored to it. The amendment is a classic example of what could be done in terms of making sure that we do not have a situation in which companies have to make notification after notification. The inter- twining of the mandatory and the voluntary notification aspects provided for in the amendment is extremely important.

Then we come to Clauses 19 and 24, and Amendments 67B and 67C. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, also has a way of coining a phrase, such as “stop the clock” provisions, which again give the Government all the cards and the poor old investor could be stuck for some period of time. As the noble Lord pointed out, the extent of the powers in terms of the periods are already quite long—75 working days or 15 working weeks for a national security assessment, or 30 working days or six working weeks for the initial screening period. We are not talking about modest periods but, rather like the referee in a rugby match, the Government can stop the clock and there is no control over that, as far as I can see. Therefore, we on these Benches firmly support those amendments.

On Clause 30 stand part, I liked the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: “stuff these companies with public money”. If that was the case, it would be pretty egregious. Now that noble Lords have drawn our attention to it, we can see that the Explanatory Notes on Clause 30 are vanishingly small. There is virtually nothing in there: there is no control over what the Secretary of State does. He may have to give a report if it is over a mere £100 million—and what is £100 million but small change in the circumstances? The Secretary of State can make more or less any decision and then say, “We have made the decision, but we have plenty of cash that we can stuff into your pocket.” It is the opacity, the lack of reporting and any real control in Clause 30 to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has rightly drawn attention. This is another area where I hope the Minister has something to say that not only gives quite a lot of further assurance but undertakes to create greater control over the powers in that clause.

After a bit, one gets a feeling for a Bill, and this one seems overly weighted in favour of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is more or less footloose and fancy free, and it is the poor old investor who will have to bear all the consequences.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The lead amendment, Amendment 48A, would introduce a streamlined form for mandatory notification, and Amendment 67B would make any time limit for an information notice not less than three working days. That seemed a sensible—I think the word used was “pragmatic”—proposal.

Turning to the interesting Clause 30, the Minister in the other place said,

“final orders, in exceptional cases … when we are administering taxpayers’ money—may bring about financial difficulty for the affected parties”,—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Bill, 8/2/20; col. 288.]

which is why Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to an entity through a loan guarantee or indemnity as a consequence of making a final order.

It would be interesting to know a little more about the whole of this, as we have heard, and when a potential recipient might know that they were even in line for such help. How early in the process would it be indicated—not the actual decision but that that was a possibility? Or is it like Father Christmas appearing at the end?

As we have heard, the figure of £100 million is interesting, and it is interesting that there is no regulation-making or guidance-providing requirement such that guidance on the use of the power might have to be, if not agreed by Parliament, at least provided and open for debate and scrutiny. Will such guidance exist and how many cases a year are envisaged involving £100 million? Who would make the decision and how, as has been asked, and will it be reported in a timely manner—or, indeed, at all?

If this is the Government’s desired outcome, it seems that Clause 30 does not provide for any financial assistance in the case of an interim order. Perhaps the Minister could outline the thinking behind that, given that an interim order could also impose major costs on a British start-up or prevent an acquirer investing in one if it was thought that that investment might increase the acquirer’s level of influence unduly and trigger the next stage. There could also be the loss of a business-critical investment. It would be useful to know the thinking behind making money available to cover one sort of loss but not another. I look forward to hearing more of the thinking behind how this would work in the Minister’s response.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling Amendments 48A, 67B and 67C. I hope that the transaction he referred to had a happy ending.

Amendment 48A seeks to make it explicit that a streamlined mandatory notification form may be provided for in regulations if a person has previously submitted a mandatory or voluntary notification to the Secretary of State. The Bill requires a mandatory notice to be submitted to, and receive clearance from, the Secretary of State prior to the completion of a notifiable acquisition. Clause 14(4) provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and content of a mandatory notice in regulations.

The amendment would amend the regulation-making power to make it explicit that such regulations could provide for those who have previously submitted either a voluntary or a mandatory notification form to submit a streamlined form. I am pleased to say that we are completely aligned with noble Lords who want the process under the Bill to be as streamlined as possible. As the Minister for Investment, looking to the interests of investors, I completely endorse that. I reassure noble Lords that the regulation power as drafted already provides for that.

In addition, the Government are designing both the voluntary and mandatory notification forms with business in mind, while ensuring that the Secretary of State receives the information that he needs to decide whether to issue a call-in notice in relation to a proposed notifiable acquisition.

I stress that the Government are keen to ensure that all the forms are clear and simple to complete. A draft notification form was published for comment during the Commons passage of the Bill, and the Government continue to engage interested parties to test the ease of completing the forms and the clarity and relevance of the questions.

Amendment 67B seeks to create a floor for the minimum time which the Secretary of State must provide to a party for responding to an information note. The minimum floor proposed is three working days. As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 19 provides for an information note which the Secretary of State may issue to require any person to provide information which is proportionate in assisting the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions.

An information notice may include a time limit for providing the information and the manner in which the information must be provided. An information notice must specify the information sought and the purpose for which it is sought, as well as the possible consequences of not complying with the notice.

It will be in the Secretary of State’s interest that any party from whom information is required is provided appropriate time for collecting and providing such information, or else confirming that they do not possess it. Providing insufficient time for doing this will only lead either to incomplete information being provided or to information being provided in a form which is more difficult to analyse. It might also lead to unwelcome outcomes, such as a party undertaking due diligence as to whether they possess the relevant information, but there then being insufficient time for them to establish that with certainty.

It is with these issues in mind that I assume that my noble friend tabled his amendments. I reassure him that the Secretary of State will already have the appropriate incentives to allow appropriate time for a response, and that, more widely, public law duties will require him to take a reasonable approach in setting a time limit for responding to an information notice under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

This is the body that deals with national security risks and it is not written into the Bill. It needs to be there. I hope the Government see sense; if they do not, I hope that we can work together to produce something that reflects the nature of this debate.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the case has been well made as to why the ISC should, and indeed must, have a role in scrutinising the use of powers contained in the Bill—or maybe if not scrutinising them, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, says, having a role before they have been exercised. As my noble friend Lord West and others have said, we have been clear throughout that we support the need for the Bill. However, when broad powers of intervention are expanded, those using such powers must be held to account by Parliament and through greater transparency, as other noble Lords have said.

In the Commons Public Bill Committee, Professor Martin from Oxford University said that

“there should be accountability and transparency mechanisms, so that there is assurance that”

the powers

“are being fairly and sparingly applied.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Bill Committee, 26/11/20; col. 81.]

Sir Richard Dearlove said that while the annual report should have as much transparency as possible, it could

“require a secret annexe from time to time”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Bill Committee, 24/11/20; col. 21.]

such as is now provided for in Amendments 78 and 79.

Amendment 82 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would put on the face of the Bill the case made convincingly here today but also in the Commons, where the chair of the ISC set out how this oversight fell well within his committee’s remit. However, the belt-and-braces approach of Amendment 86 is also welcome, just in case the Government’s only answer to a role being given to the ISC is that such scrutiny would go beyond its existing terms of reference. If so, they should amend the terms of reference.

It is important not simply that the ISC has a role, but—to give confidence to this new regime—that everyone, particularly business and researchers, knows that it has such a statutory role. This will be particularly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, just said, where a key investment is stopped or voided. Everyone concerned will want reassurance that the security questions that have come into play were indeed properly analysed and assessed.

The power to be used needs reviewing, and it is not sufficient to say—as I have heard said—that the Business Select Committee is equipped for that. It has neither the specialism and expertise nor the clearance to handle and judge such security information. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is it even able to do so, according to the quotes that he gave us. It is also a committee drawn only from the Commons, which would preclude, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just said, those in this House being able to have any input into the scrutiny that can take place through the ISC.

As we heard, in the Commons, the Minister said that the ISC could seek information—so clearly there is no problem in it having the information. We simply say that it should not have to ask—as was pointed out, it can then be rejected—but it should also not have to ask to see what has gone on. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, reminded us about Donald Rumsfeld and his “unknown unknowns”. You do not know what you do not know, therefore you do not even know what you should be able to ask. As I pointed out at Second Reading, how do you know what the questions are if you do not know what you have not been told?

Then there is, as has just been referred to, the Bill title. We do not even have to go into the content of it; the words “National Security” are in the title, so it is slightly hard to see why the security committee should be excluded.

Amendment 82 therefore provides for an annual report to the ISC, including certain detailed information in relation to state-owned entities, the expertise being targeted, the jurisdiction of acquirers and other national security threats. We are not wedded to the particular wording—I am sure that we can come to an agreement on what should be there—but it is important for our functioning democracy that new, extensive powers for the Secretary of State go hand in hand with accountability. I would think that the Minister would welcome the expertise—indeed, the challenge—of the expert and experienced members of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the confidence that the knowledge that the committee is looking at it would give to the wider group of stakeholders.

I turn now to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, called an orphan amendment. Maybe I should have put it into a different group; if so, I apologise. Amendment 90, in my name, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Rooker, is a probing one, to ask the Government to spell out why they think that BEIS is the correct home for the new unit. We seek assurances that the balance of interests between those concerned with the economy and those with our security have proper channels to have their views heard, and heard in a way that is sufficiently speedy and effective to deal with real or imagined problems.

We have heard a lot, quite rightly, about whether business can get its information handled quickly enough, but the same is true for security: those demands and queries must also be handled in a timely manner. There is a balance between those who are interested in the economy and those who are interested in security—it is the same people, very often—and it is always a challenge to get that balance right. As the ISC noted:

“There is an obvious inherent tension between the Government’s prosperity agenda and the need to protect national security.”


Locating the unit in the business department is a statement about which they think is the more important. It makes some sense, obviously, because the issues are about investment, but it will be vital that all sorts of intelligence, from across Whitehall, about possible targets and areas of investment are considered.

The Department for Transport will know a lot about where investment is flowing and it and others will have critical infrastructure where they need to be involved. The ISC’s Russia report, having reflected on Russia’s attempts to influence electoral outcomes in other countries, notes that the Government’s defending democracy programme and their work to protect the democratic processes from interference is under the leadership of the Cabinet Office. It would be useful to know whether consideration was given to collocating this new unit also under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or, indeed, how sufficient input from the Cabinet Office will flow into this unit.

More widely, the ISC, reviewing the co-ordination of security policy across Whitehall when it was looking at Russia, noted that responsibility fell to 14 different departments and agencies. The requirements of the Bill may well be similar: it will need tentacles all across those agencies and departments. It would be helpful to have some reassurance that there is a strong and appropriate lead and that the Government are confident that that lead is correctly placed in the business department rather than in the Cabinet Office, which normally does that cross-department work—the cross-Whitehall responsibilities are often put there for exactly that reason of drawing on expertise.

The amendment also suggests an advisory body, but what it is really pointing to, again, is the importance of pulling in all relevant parties and stakeholders with expertise to what will be big decisions. We have heard about the sort of investments that could be stopped by this, so these are big and important decisions. We look forward to some reassurance that all the right expertise will be used.

I turn to what is the main subject of this group, the ISC. I do not know whether it is the intransigence mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, or whether it is something else that has turned such a cold shoulder on what we would all expect normally to be involved in this issue—that is, the ISC. We are not asking for much from the Minister today, perhaps just a cast-iron assurance that the MoU will be adopted in the way suggested. I think that that would satisfy most of us. I suggest that he puts the speaking notes that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, passed to him to one side. What we really want to hear from him is that he has listened to the debate today, that he will take this back to the department and that it will be given serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I apologise to noble Lords if they feel that I have misread the mood of the House. The key point that I want to make in response to him is that the BEIS Select Committee—I say it again—is part of our parliamentary scrutiny and has democratic accountability in the other place. The Government are not avoiding scrutiny of the investment security unit; they are putting it somewhere where they believe that the scrutiny will be most effective, looking at the work of the unit in the round. They believe that the most effective overall scrutiny of the ISU will be found in the BEIS Select Committee.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. He said that the remit of the ISC under the 2013 Act does not cover the work of BEIS. If that is the case, that justifies even more an amendment to the Bill to amend the 2013 Act to put in such a provision. If the Government wanted to do it, that would be the way. I do not think that we should use the law as an excuse. The law can be changed; we are making an Act now.

I have just double-checked the names, but can the Minister confirm that the current members of the BEIS Select Committee are not all even privy counsellors and certainly do not have security clearance which goes beyond Privy Council? Can he confirm that there is no House of Lords Member on the BEIS Select Committee? Can he also confirm that nothing that we have done in any of these amendments to give the ISC a role removes the role of the BEIS Select Committee—in other words, it can still look at the industrial or investment parts? We are not taking those away from it, so it would continue to have the role that he has spelt out for it, but we are adding another bit. Can he confirm those three points?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. First, I repeat that there is no barrier to the BEIS Select Committee handling highly classified, top-secret material. Appropriate arrangements can be put in hand to ensure that the members of that committee have access, after processes have been gone through, to that material. Secondly, of course, the committee is a committee of the other House —that is self-evident. I come back to my core point. Where the agencies which report to the ISC have done work of relevance to this, the ISC will be able to speak to them about such work, but that is very different from the ISC being responsible for monitoring the work of the ISU, which goes far wider than the responsibilities of the ISC. I have deep respect for the opinions that have been put forward, but I am afraid that I do not agree with them.

National Security and Investment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clear that the Government have no good reason for refusing to accord the ISC its proper role in overseeing the intelligence input into a decision by the BEIS Secretary of State to forbid an otherwise bona fide investment in an enterprise—the sort of investment that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just described. I am sad to say that the Minister cited only the size of the House of Commons majority and gave no argument against proper parliamentary scrutiny. Frankly, if we are to say that this House should never question what the majority in the House of Commons does, you would wonder whether there is any role for this House. The size of the majority down there is not important; what is important to the security of this country is the correctness of the views that we take.

At one point, I think in this House, it was suggested that the Government did not want to amend the MoU case by case, but why not? As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has said, if a new law comes in that has “national security” in its title and gives powers to a Secretary of State that depend wholly on intelligence, why not scrutinise that intelligence in respect of the use to which it is put? As we have head, neither the BEIS Select Committee nor its highly respected chair—who I assume will now be made a privy counsellor, since he is about to be briefed on Privy Council terms; I will be there to congratulate him if that happens—have the security clearance or experience to question the intelligence in the sorts of ways that we have been hearing from around the House. So why not let our experts carry out that work, on behalf of Parliament? What my noble friend is asking for is simple: an amendment to a memorandum of understanding. Is that too much to ask of the Government?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed; it has again been a good demonstration of the quality of contributions from this House. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell and Lord Butler, and by my noble friend Lord Lansley.

I will address the primary issue head on. This was raised by the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is the issue of whether the BEIS Select Committee will have access to “top secret” information. We will make sure that the BEIS Select Committee has the information that it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of this is unlikely to be highly classified and, where the Select Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that the relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a classification and provided to the committee confidentially. If, however, the BEIS Select Committee requires access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide it, while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the committee’s chair.

Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, was that the current system for scrutiny is run out of the Cabinet Office and therefore comes under the ISC’s unit, so the Bill reduces the ISC’s remit. The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons in fact come from the Enterprise Act 2002; the powers under that Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and DCMS, not in the Cabinet Office. Giving the BEIS Select Committee oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction of the ISC’s remit.

A point made particularly by my noble friend Lord Lansley was about changing the memorandum of understanding, but the question here is not whether the MoU allows for the role proposed by noble Lords, but whether that role is appropriate. Our answer—and I appreciate that noble Lords will disagree—is no. The Government have made their case, which comes off the back of a resounding vote by the elected Chamber, that no change should be made to the Bill in relation to reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We maintain our view that the BEIS Select Committee remains the place for scrutiny of the investment security unit and that the Intelligence and Security Committee remains the appropriate committee for scrutiny of the intelligence services, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding and the Justice and Security Act 2013. With acknowledgement to all who have spoken and with regard to the points that I have made, I appreciate the difference of opinion on this, but ask once again that the House does not insist on these amendments.