Monday 18th September 2023

(1 year, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Lord raises, as ever, an interesting point, but to build an advanced silicon fab would, first of all, cost tens of billions of pounds. It would run into not only costs of operation but substantial risks of uncompetitive yields and, as we have seen several times historically, shifts in demand for semiconductors. I remind the House that, although 40% of the value chain of semiconductors is represented by manufacturing, 30% is represented by design. It makes sense that our strategy should build on the country’s strengths, particularly in design.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, may I follow up that point and ask a little more about the detail of who runs this strategy? In addition to the independent regulator, the CMA, there are, as I understand it, three government departments directly involved: the Cabinet Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and DSIT, as represented by the Minister. The focus of the third leg of the national strategy engages with export control, hostile takeovers and mergers. Who is in charge of that, and can the Minister explain it?

Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Indeed I can, and I recognise the importance of the question around clarity between these various arms of government. The ownership of the semiconductor strategy sits squarely with DSIT. There is a range of Acts—to do with export controls and protection of investment from states seen to be hostile to us—that of course come under other departments, but overall ownership must sit, and continues to sit, within DSIT.