National Security and Investment Bill - Clause 61 - Annual Report

Welcomed Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12 to 14, and discussed issues regarding scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Called for clarification on how ISC can continue its role in scrutinising security matters under the new provisions of the Bill.

Asked for assurance that there is no attempt to dilute, obscure or escape from the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Confirmed support for the Government on this issue if it ensures the ISC can continue to scrutinise additional powers in the Bill.

Inquired about commitments from the Minister regarding providing information on Privy Council terms to Chairs of relevant Committees for effective scrutiny.

Pointed out that Select Committee staff do not have clearance necessary to handle top secret material, questioning whether briefings to the Chairs of Committees constitute effective scrutiny.

Welcomed improvements made by the Government in addressing concerns regarding the capacity and capability of the Investment Security Unit. Emphasised the importance of robust oversight by the ISC for matters of national security, criticised the Government's reluctance to involve the ISC, and supported Labour’s amendments requiring ISC scrutiny.

Supports Lord West, Butler, Campbell and King's amendments to provide oversight for the new Investment Security Unit within BEIS. Argues that these amendments are necessary as they ensure proper scrutiny of highly classified national security elements by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

Intervened to support the Government's position, suggesting that the flexibility of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) is adequate to address oversight concerns. Believes the ISC has sufficient oversight through existing mechanisms.

Argued that scrutiny by the ISC on national security decisions related to mergers and takeovers has been available in the past, implying no need for new amendments. Clarified that the proposed Bill is an amendment of existing powers rather than a novel departure.

Asked about the specific nature of top secret information expected to be scrutinised under the ISC's oversight, indicating support for proper scrutiny of highly classified national security elements.

Welcomes improvements made to the Bill by amendments moved in the other place, urges Minister to consider the advice of the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Supports the Government's compromise on the Bill as it balances national security with economic prosperity. Advocates for retaining government powers to intervene in deals that could harm national security, citing examples like the NVIDIA-Arm deal and quantum computing companies.

Supports the broad principles of the Bill but emphasises the need for careful drawing of parameters to avoid undue constraint on investment. Welcomes Lords amendments 11 and 15, which require the Secretary of State to explain their decision making, providing transparency and accountability.

Welcomes the work of Lords amendments, which aim to ensure proper scrutiny through access to intelligence information. Criticises Government's refusal to update MOU with ISC but welcomes agreements for new MOU and Privy Counsellor briefings.

Argues against Lords amendments, supporting the current arrangement. Emphasises importance of flexibility in national security definitions to future-proof Bill. Highlights BEIS Committee's expertise and ability to handle sensitive information without ISC updates.