Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome this important Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on introducing it to the House and on his efforts to successfully secure cross-party and Government support so that it can make it to the point that it has today. Hopefully, later today it will pass through to the other place.

This Bill will address a gap in current protections by giving the Secretary of State power, by regulation, to extend protection against redundancy to cover a longer period during or after a period of pregnancy. The Secretary of State would have the power to make regulations to extend equivalent protections for those on adoption leave or shared parental leave after that period of leave has concluded.

This Bill has been a long time in the making, and comes too late for the hon. Member’s constituent Natasha, as he said. It was back in 2015 that the EHRC, working with the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, commissioned research into this issue, precisely to establish the prevalence and nature of pregnancy discrimination and disadvantage in the workplace. Other hon. Members have referred to the data, but it bears repetition. There was a shocking estimate that around 54,000 mothers may be forced out of their jobs each year. Some 77% of mothers said that they had had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave or on their return from maternity leave.

The second piece of research I want to mention was that carried out by Pregnant Then Screwed. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) referred to the findings that more than 11% of women on maternity leave had been made redundant or expected to be made redundant, of whom 60% believed that their maternity leave was a factor in the decision. Those are the statistics, but behind them is the terrible impact on individuals and their families.

We in this House are here to protect people from such discrimination. That is what this legislation will do. As well as the surveys and work outside Parliament, it is right to recognise the action that the Government and other Members have taken to address the issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who proposed a number of Bills on this issue. In 2019, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a consultation to extend the current protection to cover pregnancy and the period after—an extension of six months. In response, the Government pledged to extend the redundancy protections and to extend equivalent protections for those taking adoption leave or shared parental leave. That measure was included in an outline of an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, shortly after the election. Understandably, the Government had to focus on leading the country through the pandemic, but happily, that employment Bill, rather like the break-up of AT&T and the creation of the Baby Bells, has now allowed a number of smaller Bills to flourish. Hopefully other Bills that we are discussing today will take forward what was in the employment Bill.

I warmly welcome the Government’s support for this Bill, which demonstrates a commitment to protecting people’s employment rights while maintaining important labour market flexibility, which has seen unemployment at its lowest in 50 years. It is important that employers and employees are aware of these new protections. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about the Government’s plans to work with business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and the Institute of Directors, as well as the TUC and other organisations, to promote the changes, so that companies know what they have to do, and individuals know what their rights are.

This is a framework Bill, and it is important to get the detail of the regulations right, which is why the affirmative procedure is appropriate in this case. Could the Minister update the House on when he expects to bring forward those regulations and how much consultation there has been with the groups I have mentioned and others, to make sure we get this right?

We always have to be mindful of the need to minimise as far as possible the cost to business of the legislation we pass. Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:

“The one-off cost to business of familiarising themselves with the new legislation, for example to amend their HR policies, is estimated at £30.4m.”

I expect—and knowing the Minister, I am pretty sure this will happen—the Government to issue simple, clear guidance for companies to follow, to make this legislation as simple as possible to implement. There is a broader point about the need to revitalise our deregulatory agenda in other policy areas, to reduce the cost to business and back enterprise, as the Chancellor set out in his recent speech. There are lots of opportunities to do that, without the limitations of our being a member of EU.

In conclusion, there is a great consensus across the Chamber today, and I look forward to the Bill completing its remaining stages and delivering the greater protection for new mums during and after maternity leave that they deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Carer’s Leave Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on introducing this important legislation and getting it to this stage before it, hopefully, wings its way down the corridor to the other place. I also pay tribute to the millions of people across the country, and particularly the thousands of people in North West Norfolk, who provide care for some of our most vulnerable people. We all know from personal experience and talking to constituents the toll that providing care can take not just on mental and physical wellbeing, but on people’s household finances and other responsibilities, including, of course, their jobs.

I would also like to recognise Carers UK for the vital work it does in supporting carers and for its tireless campaigning in favour of a statutory right of leave for carers. Juggling caring responsibilities and work is incredibly challenging and can limit the participation of unpaid carers in the marketplace. As Carers UK has said, the stresses and strains of having to juggle paid work alongside unpaid care have led to hundreds of thousands of people leaving the labour market entirely. On average, 600 people a day leave work to care. As well as it helping with people’s wellbeing, the record levels of vacancies in the job market mean that it is vital we do everything we can to support unpaid carers to remain in work with this greater flexibility.

The Bill helps to address the challenges that carers face and tackle a long-running issue. Back in 2017, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions concluded that there was a strong case for carer’s leave. The 2019 Conservative manifesto, on which I was elected, included commitments to introduce leave for carers, and in 2020 the Government consulted on proposals to give employees a week of unpaid leave each year to provide care. As was discussed in the previous debate, there was an employment Bill in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, which for understandable reasons has not been taken forward. It is very welcome that another of the baby bells from breaking up that employment Bill will now go forward.

As I mentioned, Carers UK has campaigned for many years for the statutory right to leave. It said:

“The Bill would help support unpaid carers to remain in work. Given the current cost of living crisis, there has never been a more important time to do so. It would also bring significant benefits to business, and the wider economy.”

The impact of the Bill is significant. It gives rights to millions of people who have unpaid caring responsibilities, supporting them to remain in work and improving their health and wellbeing. It would mean that some 1.4 million employers to whom this applies would have to think about their employees and their caring responsibilities, and also the opportunity to boost retention and recruitment by doing so.

Since being elected to the House just over three years ago, I have worked with local organisations that support carers, including the Motor Neurone Disease Association, as well as West Norfolk Carers, for whom I was pleased to run the London Marathon a couple of years ago. I finished as the fastest English MP, out of interest, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) was a few minutes ahead of me. Sue Heal, a volunteer with the Norfolk, Norwich and Waveney branch of MNDA, with whom I have worked, emailed me this week to say:

“Recent research conducted by the MND Association found MND carers are physically and mentally exhausted, unable to access breaks and impacted financially. Many are also juggling caring with work and additional responsibilities.”

She asked me to support the Bill on behalf of MND sufferers and their carers and I am very pleased to do so today.

Caring Together, a local charity that works across Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, wrote to me a couple of weeks ago also urging me to support the Bill and urging the Government to do so as well. They also called for the leave to be paid, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, some employers will chose to do that. We hope that that is a direction that people will go in. The charity said that carers can get isolated, depressed, ill, and out of touch with family and friends. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill, which demonstrates commitment to carers.

The Bill would amend the Employment Rights Act 1996, requiring the Secretary of State to create, by regulations, a new statutory entitlement to carer’s leave. The Bill would require that any such leave entitlement must be at least one week per year. Importantly, as others have said, this leave would be a day one right, available to all employees without any qualifying period. It would apply to anyone caring for a spouse, civil partner, child, parent or other dependant with a long-term care need, and it would be able to be taken flexibly. I think this is a model piece of legislation.

This is a welcome change in employment law, but, again, it necessitates employees and employers knowing about the changes in advance, preparing for them and making sure that they are implemented most effectively. I understand that it is expected that the regulations will be laid and commenced in 2024, and I am sure the Minister will use the time between now and then to consult carers and employers properly to ensure that the legislation works and there is simple, easy-to-access guidance on the new rights.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that these changes will form part of a wider package of support for carers, with the Government’s continuing to support the implementation of improved rights, as enshrined in the Care Act 2014. For example, I welcome the White Paper on social care, which outlined measures to support carers, including up to £25 million to kick-start a change in services, so that they can access respite, breaks and wellbeing support. The new integrated care boards—my local one is the Norfolk and Waveney ICB—will have a duty to involve carers when care is commissioned for their loved one. Taken together, these measures are helping to form a package of support that will ensure that carers can access the services they need, when they need them, and that carers are helped to balance their own lives, including employment, with caring responsibilities. I am very pleased to support this Bill.

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I, too, pay tribute to Christopher Head, who was one of the youngest postmasters involved. We often have Twitter ding-dongs, shall we say, which have mellowed slightly since we have all got to the same point. The hon. Lady asks about independent oversight. The historical shortfall scheme has independent oversight with an independent panel. None the less, I want to ensure that the JSFA is as comfortable with the scheme that we come up with as it can be, because we want to give it the confidence that there is independent oversight of it so that those people can get full and fair compensation.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I join hon. Members in welcoming the announcement and the tenacity that the Minister has shown in addressing this injustice. Will the Government look to recover the compensation costs from those responsible for the scandal—the providers of the Horizon system—and to recover the bonuses paid to those who were running the Post Office during that shameful period?

[Paul Scully]

Nothing is off the table. We need to look at all those sorts of things, because the UK taxpayer should not be on the hook for other people’s mistakes and sometimes deliberate—often deliberate—approaches in that regard.

Shale Gas Production

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Gas suppliers are asking energy-intensive businesses, including a major paper mill in my constituency, for large up-front payments. As the Government review their energy strategy, will my right hon. Friend look at a proposal for a Government-backed payment guarantee scheme to help companies to manage cash flow and avoid the need for prepayment?

[Greg Hands]

Of course we are acutely aware of the difficulties that some energy-intensive industries face. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), is looking at that all the time, and we review the situation constantly, but those schemes are often a matter for the Treasury and for agreement with the Treasury.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady underestimates our commitment, because it is not 600,000 new heat pumps, but 600,000 new heat pumps per annum by 2028. This is a huge commitment, but it is a commitment that is best met largely by the private sector. That is why we strongly believe that the announcement that we made today on the grants of up to £5,000 will kickstart the private sector in providing these heat pumps. I have already pointed overnight to the welcome of this announcement by the energy companies, which think that they can get the price of those heat pumps down. That is the right strategy, rather than having the Government pay for everything to meet that commitment. I think it is about working with the private sector. The ball is now partly in the energy companies’ court to see whether they can get the price of those heat pumps down.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Many people in villages in North West Norfolk live in poorly insulated homes. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the home upgrade scheme and other schemes in this strategy help my rural constituents to live in warmer, more efficient homes?

[Greg Hands]

The comments that I made in relation to Cornwall earlier probably also apply to parts of north Norfolk. Of course I will commit to making sure that households that are in fuel poverty and that have poor insulation, including those in remote areas, will get the support that they need and deserve.

National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 10th December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

[Chi Onwurah]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

[James Wild]

[Peter Grant]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

[James Wild]

[Chi Onwurah]

National Security and Investment Bill (Fourth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q The Bill does not suggest a special regime, but it also seems to say explicitly that the state-owned characteristic should not be considered, because the statement of policy intent says that it is not inherently more likely to pose a national security risk. It does not seem to do either of the two things you are suggesting.

Creon Butler: I did not read it quite that way. I read it more as meaning that that is not a reason for having a special regime, but when it comes to doing the assessment, you look at whether there is a state element of ownership and from which country that state element of ownership comes. That would be a factor when you are examining the likelihood that that particular investor could pose a threat to us. I am not a lawyer; I just read it that way. If the way you are reading it is the correct way to read it, I do not think that is quite right.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Q Mr Butler, given your experience in the National Security Secretariat, I want to ask you a few structural questions. How you think the NSS should be linked into the new investment security unit in BEIS?

Creon Butler: It is a constantly evolving picture. The benefit that the NSS can bring is a strategic overview. When you want to put the element of national security protection in the context of broader economic security issues, it is really important that the NSS plays a key role. I do not know the precise detail of exactly what the linkages are between the new unit and the NSS. I would think, from the way I worked in the NSS, that they will be very close in term of people, exchanges, links and so on.

In terms of the respective roles, the strategic role is one that the NSS should play, looking at this element alongside all the other elements of national economic security. As I understand it, it is very important that this unit has a very strong operational focus and effectiveness, the skills that enable it to do this, and the space in which to do it. If I was in charge of designing the relationship, that is how I would design it.

[James Wild]

Q That is helpful. On the operational point, do you have a view on the timescales for turning round the reviews and assessments within the Bill as it stands?

Creon Butler: There is obviously a trade-off again. My sense was that the provisions that are there now are realistic and sensible, but we need to see how the thing evolves and fine tune it according to the experience that we have had. People have pointed out that this will lead to a lot more cases being looked at than before. I do not think that that is a criticism of what is happening; it is a reflection of the world that we are in. However, in the light of the experience of looking at a much broader range of cases, we should be ready to adjust the timeframes and so on, taking account of that experience.

[Matt Western]

Q I wonder, Mr Butler, if you would elaborate on, and give more examples of, the sorts of international threats that you see us facing, in terms of not just national security but economic security, and the links between the two.

Creon Butler: In my view of economic security broadly, the biggest existential threat is climate change, frankly. We are going through a ghastly pandemic. Fortunately, it looks like we can see the way out of it, but I do not think that at any point we felt that this particular virus was an existential threat to mankind more generally. My view of climate change is that it is, and it is very close. In any broad assessment of national and economic security, I would put climate change as one of the most important issues. That is why the accelerating efforts both within Governments and in the private sector to deal with it are crucial.

In terms of other kinds of threats, we have had this particular pandemic, which as far as we can see is not an existential one; there could be other pandemics that are. That is why infectious diseases have been so high on our risk register in the past. Steps to ensure that we do not face future pandemics that are even more serious than this one in terms of the threat to human life, or the economy, are a very important priority. Those are two examples of broader threats beyond hostile powers that we should incorporate in our approach to national and economic security.

National Security and Investment Bill (First sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Thank you.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Mr Parton, I want to ask about influence. We have seen companies linked to hostile states hiring former diplomats, civil servants, parliamentarians and Ministers to provide a veneer of respectability. How can we do more to guard against that? Secondly, on the Bill, provided advice is drawn widely from the agencies and other parts of Government through the investment security unit in the way that you have described, do you think that having a quasi-judicial decision made by the Secretary of State guards against that influence and potential cronyism in the decision making?

Charles Parton: The question of elite capture is very important and very topical. First, I have called for this in various papers that I have written. The Cobra committee that makes decisions on employment after political or civil service careers definitely needs strengthening. I am not sure of the degree to which work on that is going on; in fact, I do not think much is. Certainly neither the provisions, nor the exercise of those provisions, have been sufficiently rigorous. It is very much a question of lengthening the amount of time between leaving a particular post and taking up a job where, in some cases, you are laundering the reputations of some of these companies. If that period is too small and the criteria are too weak, there is a great risk of people, while still in office or still in post, saying to themselves, “I’d better not be too harsh on this, because in a couple of years’ time, I might be approaching these people, or they might approach me for a job.” That is pretty crude, I know, but it is perhaps easier to see in the case of a defence company. If you were in the MOD, say, and you had to make a decision, one hopes you would make it entirely in the national interest, rather than with a view to possible employment by whichever company might be bidding for a contract, but that is one area that needs strengthening.

The other area in all influence problems, of course, is that sunlight and transparency is the one weapon we have, but if a Minister, an ex-Minister or a top civil servant is running a consultancy company, and let us say Huawei is employing that company—I choose this example by sheer chance—that should be known. That should be declared, because if such people—who are still influential with their old colleagues, whether parliamentary, ministerial or civil service—are urging a certain line, as I have heard some urge, it may not be disinterested; in fact, it certainly is not in some cases. That needs to be made clear. Sorry, could you just repeat the second part of your question?

[James Wild]

Q It was picking up on your point, which I think we all share, about ensuring that the investment security unit draws advice from the agencies and across other parts of Government. Provided it does that, having a quasi-judicial decision that is challengeable under judicial review by a Secretary of State in some ways guards against that soft influence or cronyism getting involved in a SAGE-type committee. Can you see the benefits of that model?

Charles Parton: Yes, but I think you have to be very happy and convinced that the Minister in charge is one whose future does not incline him or her to make a decision that is somewhat biased. It is not without precedent in the world, anyway, that some ex-Ministers have been under the influence of the Chinese Communist party for one reason or another, so you have to be quite careful about that, and it is a really important decision. That is why I would be more inclined to make sure it is very clear that it is not just within the purview of BEIS, because BEIS’s job is to push investment. That is perfectly fair, but there may be occasions—not now, but in the future—where people’s backgrounds, inclinations or futures incline them to be less than even in their judgment.

[The Chair]

This will probably be the last question, from Stephen Kinnock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Q I want to pick up on a couple of points. You spoke about energy policy and, as we have seen over the past nine months, some of the risks and threats to our society and economy come from unexpected places. Do you think that the Bill does enough to recognise where those threats may come from and that they may be from a malign power?

I am thinking of the consideration of investments from China in our nuclear power stations and other infrastructure networks. Something as simple as road traffic signals or rail infrastructure might break down if someone decided they wanted that to happen. Do you think the Bill does enough to recognise the unexpected areas of investment that a malign state might want to attack?

Sir Richard Dearlove: Probably not is the answer. The Bill should take account of the complexity of modern technology and the difficulties that we could run into in the future if we allow foreign entities to have a strategic piece of our critical infrastructure. Relationships can change over time and you can cause huge difficulties by throwing a switch and engaging a piece of software that is deeply embedded in something somewhere and causing a huge problem.

I do not want to be too alarmist, but Chinese engagement and involvement in nuclear power is another area of terrific concern and worry. It is not something that we should take at face value. We need to think very carefully about some of these issues. I would much rather have a French company building a nuclear power station than a Chinese company.

[James Wild]

Q You mentioned Huawei. Were you involved in 2003 when BT was letting the contract for the network? Did you raise concerns at that point?

Sir Richard Dearlove: No, I was not. The first Huawei contracts were signed by BT in 2003 and, because BT was the primary provider, the relationship between BT and the intelligence community was, let us say, important; I will not go any further than that. BT was a successor to the General Post Office and, essentially, that was how the relationship came about.

At the time, people like myself were deeply concerned and shocked that we were signing deals with a Chinese company that looked to us to have strategic implications. Basically, as chief, I was not consulted. Basically, when I raised some questions, I was largely told, “It is nothing to do with you. These are issues we can control.” The relationship with Huawei took off without real consideration at the time that it would have a bearing on national security. I think that was extremely misplaced. I have written or said somewhere before that those of us who raised objections in 2003 were just disregarded.

[James Wild]

Q Well, the ISC report makes clear that Ministers were not informed about the contract at all at the time.

Sir Richard Dearlove: I knew about the contract and said I thought it was completely inappropriate.

[James Wild]

Q In the Bill, there are 17 sectors listed where mandatory notifications are required. They include transport and communications, as in some of the points that Mr Western was raising. Should others be added to that?

Also, do you think that although we need to look at the Bill as to what it does, we should also recognise that it does not solve all the problems and threats from hostile states—that the intelligence activity and other things we do to raise the cost of theft of IP need to be seen holistically across the piece, and that the Bill cannot solve all the problems?

Sir Richard Dearlove: The Bill is a step in the right direction. What is important about the Bill is that it raises parliamentary and public awareness of the issue. Everybody takes a big step forward in being sensitised to the problems in the future.

To be honest, I do not have any suggestions right now to add to the list, but I might look at that and see whether there are certain areas. For me, the Bill is almost a symbolic move—one that is long overdue and signals a change in attitude at Westminster and on the part of this and future Governments. It is a very healthy, pleasing and important development.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you very much, Sir Richard, for the evidence that you have given us today. The Intelligence and Security Committee defines critical national infrastructure as

“certain ‘critical’ elements of infrastructure, the loss or compromise of which would have a major, detrimental impact on the availability or integrity of essential services, leading to severe economic or social consequences or to loss of life.”

Would the Bill benefit from having that definition of critical national infrastructure embedded in the middle? Linked to that definition, should special measures be taken to raise our guard even higher when it comes to any kind of investment in our critical national infrastructure?

Sir Richard Dearlove: I would certainly see that as advantageous, because it defines a clear area where you start and from which you can make judgments about the involvement of foreign firms being given space or activity in those areas. That is not a bad idea at all, actually.

National Security and Investment Bill

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and make a contribution reflecting my time as an adviser in the Ministry of Defence, as well as in the Cabinet Office, where I was involved in national security issues and the investment regime.

In three years advising the Defence Secretary, there were issues with an increasing number of transactions that, typically, related to small firms involved in sensitive parts of the defence supply chain or in emerging technologies. The regime at that time, because of the threshold limit, did not allow the Government to impose formal remedies, let alone block transactions. Instead, we had to rely on a quiet word with those seeking to sell firms, to discourage them from such action. In more than one case, a suspicion was that a hostile actor, a state actor, was seeking to use a transaction to acquire key intellectual property to support their offensive military capabilities.

Persuasion did ensure that none of those transactions came to fruition, but the risk was clearly there. It is not acceptable to leave that gap in our powers. In the Cabinet Office I worked on measures to improve the Government’s ability to take a more strategic view of risks, and to understand the cumulative impact that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others have talked about, as well as bringing in the regulations to lower the threshold for military dual-use goods and advanced technologies. That dealt with some of the problems, but the case for comprehensive reform to strengthen the current legal framework is compelling.

In legislating, our role here today is to judge how best to protect national security while encouraging investment and maintaining the UK’s hard-fought reputation as one of the best places to do business. In my view, that is best done by having a regime that is targeted, predictable, transparent and efficient, so I welcome the Bill, which improves on the proposals set out in the White Paper. It gives more clarity on the sectors where the greatest risks to national security exist, and for which a mandatory approach will therefore rightly apply, subject to consultation.

However, investors must be assured that the regime is about national security; it is not a power to block transactions that Ministers do not like, or a back door to protectionism. There also needs to be an efficient screening system. It is crucial that the structures and resources are put in place to ensure that the timetables for review and assessment in the Bill are actually met. I know that the proposed investment security unit will sit within BEIS. Others have mentioned that issue. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain how the unit will work—for example, with the National Security Secretariat within the Cabinet Office—and whether there will be joint staffing, given the need for people with sufficient experience and vetting to provide the advice, because the success of the regime depends on being able to deal with the number of notifications coming forward. Will there also be additional resourcing for the agencies and other parts of Government that will provide those assessments?

The Bill represents a proportionate approach to provide the powers to screen transactions on national security grounds and ensures that the UK remains open for business—but not at any cost.