National Security and Investment Bill

Lord McNally Excerpts

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

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as ever, some very wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, with his vast experience. Of course—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am afraid we cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he get closer to his microphone? We may have to come back to him.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

Is that close enough? Can you hear me now?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes that is much better. Can the noble Lord start again, as we could not hear?

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

Yes, so long as I get the time. My Lords—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord needs to point his head upwards. As soon as he speaks we cannot hear him again.

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

I will try again. Any Bill with the phrase “national security”—[Inaudible.]

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really sorry but we cannot hear the noble Lord. We will ask the broadcasters to check the connection and we will come back to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I hope I am coming through loud and clear now, otherwise we will have to give up. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am very pleased that I am now able to follow him.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans posed the moral dilemma of how we trade with the world while standing up for human rights and democracy. I have no direct interests to declare, but I have been a long-time supporter of expanding our relations with China. I say this because the Bill is being interpreted in the media and among policy analysts as mainly aimed at China. I remember, not so long ago, Conservative Prime Ministers extolling a new “golden age” of trade, investment and collaboration with China. We need a very clear statement of where we now stand in these matters. Are we at the start of a new cold war with China? What range of inward and outward investments will this legislation bite on? Will there be guidance on what goods and services will be covered? Will there be national security implications that bite on third countries and trading blocs with which both we and China have relations? We need clarity on this.

My other interest is in the space industry. I act as spear carrier to my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Randerson, who lead from the Front Bench on these matters for the Liberal Democrats. I am also a member of the all-party space group, and my son is a space engineer working for a Franco-German satellite company in Munich. Last week, I attended a round table with companies involved in the space industry. Concern was expressed about the implications of the Bill for both companies and universities, and about where this legislation draws the line on collaboration and joint working. I am old enough to remember when Britain last tried to go it alone in space with Black Arrow and Blue Streak, and I worry about the extent to which this legislation is a dangerous step away from international co-operation in space. It has even been suggested that this legislation will mean that security and military considerations will dominate future space policy.

It is a reflection of where we are going that in the last century, at the height of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were able to co-operate on the international space station and multinational space flights, yet today US law prevents collaboration in these fields with China. The outcome could well be that the next boots on the moon have “Made in China” on them. During the 20th century we were able to de-escalate the Cold War with a series of treaties. Should we not be pressing ahead with international treaties to prevent the militarisation and weaponization of space?

On a broader front, I have been concerned with the number of bodies—from international infrastructure investors to the City of London, the Russell group of universities and the Law Society—which have raised concerns that will need to be explored in Committee, including the expansion of bureaucracy implied by the Bill.

I have no doubt that the Bill will pass. But during its passage through the House I hope we will stress-test its proportionality and explore where it will take us, both in space and other sectors, and assess the chilling effect it will have on relations with those with whom we wish to trade and co-operate.

I thank noble Lords, and I thank the technicians for getting me in touch.