My Lords I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I shall start with a very obvious point that I am surprised he did not reach for as his first line, which is why it has not been brought in on a common commencement date. The noble Lord will have heard me speak about this before and I am sure that the department is tired by my questions about this. Such regulations will have a huge impact on certain sectors of the economy. Common commencement dates were meant to give people good warning about when regulations would come in. They are 6 April and 1 October: it would surely not have been impossible to arrange for them to come in, if the 6 April date could not be met, on 1 October. That would have given people plenty of time and knowledge that it was happening.
The Minister has been very good in responding to this and seems to get the point, but of course no action seems to be flowing from the decision. I have decided to keep a tally of his scores: we have had six statutory instruments so far, only one of which has landed on a common commencement date, and I had to rule that one out because it missed the common commencement date that was available to it and went for one further down the track, so it really does not count. So it is really 6-0. I really think that this is not a good standard and I am going to bring this up every time we have a chance to debate these issues until he is finally goaded into doing something about it.
More seriously—although I think that this is a serious point—I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said about the general approach taken here, particularly the very hostile response that was given to the consultation, which must have given somebody in the department some concern. Like her, we agree with the broad thrust of what has been happening here. There is a concern for the national interest if there are not sufficient regulations set up around hostile takeovers—or, indeed, takeovers that have been done with consent—if they threaten our national interest.
My worry, which I think is shared by the noble Baroness, is that while it is relatively straightforward to see what is meant by the national security interest in
relation to military technologies, where the regulations will bite, as soon as there is an introduction of dual use a grey area opens up. It is true that most of the material will be listed as part of the UK’s export control regime, and there is some consolation in that, but I worry a bit about material that could be judged by BEIS to have dual-use technologies, even if the original intention was never for that to be the case. It would mean that the company involved in making it might well get caught by this.
The problems get worse in relation to computing hardware and, in particular, in relation to quantum technology, for which definitions are so obscure, or so general, that it is a very hard to see that those who are working in this area will know whether they are or are not in scope of this regulation. Computing hardware is, as the regulation says, ubiquitous. It is very difficult now to see any technology that does not involve some form of computing, whether it is at the simple level or whether it is more complex, in terms of writing instructions and making things happen in a way that could be carried out to be hostile or difficult. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I are saying the same thing here; that this is getting to the point where it is either such a broad list that it is going to include every company involved in technology and manufacturing in this country, or so wide that it will be useless, because it will be taking the Government’s control, through the merger process, into every sector of the economy, and I am sure that is not what is intended.
If it is bad in computer hardware, it is even worse in quantum technology, which is a phrase that is not well defined. As far as I can see, it certainly did not appear in any legislative document that we have seen in this House for some time. Of course, quantum could be restricted to mean very fast computing. Obviously, that is the sense in which the national interest is more likely to be at risk. But, again, in a short period of time it could include virtually every sector of our economy, and if it does not, it means that our economy will not be competitive across the world. The question underlying this is: is it not better for the Government to fess up and say that they will investigate every merger? In effect, every merger could be used as a way of breaching our national security. If that is the case, perhaps the Government ought to think again about the road being taken here.
My second point is about the change that is coming forward in the negative instrument, which is helpfully attached to the documents that have been circulated for this debate, which is to reduce the value of the target companies for the share of supply test from £70 million turnover per annum to £1 million. Again, it is a question of scale. Does that not suggest that virtually every company in the country will be subject to the share of supply test? If that is the case, how on earth will it reassure those who are carrying on a business which does not threaten the public interest to feel that any discussion or merger they may wish to do with their business—and many of them will be private companies—will be subject to call-in by the competition authorities? I wonder again if the Government are on the right track here.
It may be that the £70 million turnover provides a difficulty in relation to the companies the Government have concerns about, although it is true that according to the impact assessment that is attached to the regulation, we are talking about a very small number of companies—between nought and five. If it is the case that we are going for virtually every SME in the country—those with a turnover of more than £1 million—that probably excludes microbusinesses, but is that not another problem? Quite a lot of the innovative material that will be of concern to our national security may be being developed by two or three people with a very small turnover. If microbusinesses are excluded, the competition issues will not come to bear. I may be making too much of this, but I worry about the direction in which this is going.
My final point for the Government to respond to is that this was said by the Minister to be part of a longer-term project. This is the first stage: two statutory instruments, one of which we have to approve this evening and one of which is a negative and we will have to consider whether to pray against it. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the second stage is:
“In the longer term, the Government will bring forward primary legislation to make more substantive changes to how it scrutinises national security implications of foreign investment”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, made a number of points about how there may be other considerations here. Will this be restricted to national security or are we finally going to see some sense of the public interest test—which clearly the Secretary of State wished he had powers to address when he was looking at the GKN merger a few weeks ago—which would deal with questions about how research, employment and sensitive activities across the country will be looked at when there is an aggressive overseas takeover that is not particularly welcomed or wanted or which is subject to concerns for which there is currently no adequate remedy in our companies legislation? The Stock Exchange can make recommendations, but these are not statutory. What we need is a government commitment to go forward on this basis which will look at undertakings that will have to be given by the acquiring company for which there will be statutory redress should it be recalled. Is this what is referred to in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, and if it is not, can we know when that is going to happen?