National Security and Investment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Matt Western

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. As we have constantly said, this is about risk and the hierarchy of risks we face. Risk is always sensitive to what is happening in terms of the global economic outlook. As she rightly points out, Brexit and leaving the transition period will be a seismic event for our country. It will have a massive impact on our currency and the strength of the pound. Combining that with the covid situation means that we have to be careful. We have to be vigilant and ensure that we defend our national interest. That is why it is important that our mindset involves taking a holistic view of our national interest, particularly in the turbulent times in which we find ourselves. This is fundamentally about saying that our national security is not for sale. Our national security does not have a price tag, and it has to be the primary consideration.

With those contextual comments in mind, I move on to amendment 6, which considers a particular aspect of our economy. It focuses on the asset side of the ledger in terms of this Bill—namely, critical national infrastructure. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the protection of critical national infrastructure when making notifiable acquisition regulations. Going back to China, it is remarkable how much of our critical national infrastructure is in the hands of Chinese enterprises or state-backed investment vehicles. This is happening now, right under our noses, and needs to be taken into account in discussing this amendment.

In essence, our amendment offers a way to ensure that critical national infrastructure is given particular and extra consideration in the national security and investment assessments within the regime. Given that the Bill fails to define national security, it does not, by definition, reference critical national infrastructure.

To drill down further, the Government’s consultation on the Bill lists the 17 sectors that might come under the regime’s mandatory notification process, but it does not explicitly list the UK’s critical national infrastructure. In fact, there is not a direct overlap. Five sectors are not included in the 17 that are in the consultation, but they are in our critical national infrastructure. The 17 range from advanced materials, advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, civil nuclear, communications, computing hardware, critical suppliers to Government, critical suppliers to the emergency services, cryptographic authentication, data infrastructure, data infrastructure, defence, energy, engineering biology, military and dual use, quantum technology, satellite and space technologies, to transport. However, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure defines 13 areas as critical national infrastructure, including several sectors that are not included in the 17: food, Government more broadly––not just critical suppliers––health, space and water.

If we look at the impact of the pandemic and think about what critical national infrastructure means, we see that the 17 sectors are already out of date. Given our experience with covid and the concerns about food supply, that is clearly an issue we need to examine closely. Water is crucial to our wellbeing as a nation, yet it is not included in the 17. Our amendment argues that critical national infrastructure should be taken as an asset class. If defined as an asset class, the landscape moves and the definitions of sectors move, but there is clarity about critical national infrastructure always being within the scope of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

As always, my hon. Friend makes important points. To amplify those, if we had been sitting down and writing this Bill 10 years ago, which would have been a pretty good thing to have done, with hindsight––

[Matt Western]

I think I chose my time horizon pretty well. Had we been doing so, we may not have been considering these 17 categories, traffic light systems, underground systems, public transport or railway infrastructure in a way that we have to nowadays because we understand just how interconnected things are. We understand what the threats and risks are from these sorts of investments from possibly rogue organisations, states or businesses.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is genuinely not an attempt to make a party political point. There is no doubt that we should have seen the impact of the rise of China long before 2010. This is something that has been going on for a long time. President Xi Jinping was appointed in 2013 and there has been a qualitative shift in China’s outlook and the way in which it is engaging with the world. There is an increasingly aggressive and assertive set of economic policies. One of the experts said that the objective is to dominate the global technology scene. That is an explicit objective in the Made in China 2025 vision that the President and the Chinese Communist party adhere to. While we are not trying to make party political points here, a lot has changed in the last seven years.

National Security and Investment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Matt Western

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

[Matt Western]

Q Going back to my previous question, do you think that we should think about areas such as climate change and other things that are perhaps not necessarily of immediate urgency—some would say, of course, that climate change is urgent—as matters of national security?

David Offenbach: I do not think that there is anything other than the 17 already mentioned and the ones that I mentioned, most of which came up in the debate last Tuesday. I think that telecoms might be mentioned as well, but the list really covers all the areas where national security is a significant risk.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you very much for this useful and important evidence. I have one relatively specific question based on your expertise in real estate. The statement of political intent states:

“Land is generally only expected to be an asset of national security interest where it is, or is proximate to, a sensitive site, examples of which include critical national infrastructure”.

Do you think that scope is too narrow? For example, we know that property in London is used to launder large amounts of money—nefarious organisations often own property in London and use it for nefarious purposes. London is sometimes referred to as a laundromat for dark money. Do you think that that is a national security risk and should be included in the scope of the Bill, and that the land definition in the statement of political intent should reflect the money laundering issue?

David Offenbach: I am not sure I quite agree with the statement of intent as part of the Bill papers. The drafting of that section of the Bill is wide enough to include the issues that you raise. It would be open to the Minister to intervene in the cases that you mention without any change to the drafting of the Bill being necessary.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Matt Western

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, balanced and considered speech. On that point about the international response, could the accords that have been struck with the UAE and Bahrain provide an opportunity for the UK Government to work with them and with Europe to gain extra leverage to bring about some sort of change in Israeli policy?

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is absolutely a step in the right direction, although I think it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, for the reasons that I have set out. The reality is that as long as the basis for the talks is the so-called Trump-Netanyahu plan, it is a non-starter, because that plan violates international law.

We should explore the potential for the International Criminal Court to play a role. The Israeli Attorney General’s office has already warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an investigation of

“senior Army officers, civil service officials and heads of regional councils of West Bank settlements”.

It is essential that the UK condemns any further creeping annexation, but condemnation alone will never be enough. To this end, the UK Government must take the following steps with urgency. First, they must immediately recognise the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 lines. The UK Government argue that recognition should follow successful negotiations, but the logic of this argument is deeply flawed and partisan. It suggests that we are happy to see a 53-year-old occupation persist, legitimising the illegal actions of the Israeli Government and contributing to the brutality and violence that shame us all.

Secondly, the Government must ban all products that originate from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Profiting from such products is tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime, and it must stop. When we trade with these settlements, we are essentially telling the world that international law does not matter, and such trade legitimises and facilitates the existence and expansion of the settlements. In 2014, it was right that the UK, as part of the European Union, prohibited trade with Crimea following its illegal annexation by Russia. It is crucial that we are consistent in our application of international law.

Thirdly, the Government must act to end the involvement of UK-based companies within the illegal settlements. In March, the UN published a list of companies that are involved in the settlements, which included JCB, Opodo and Greenkote PLC. Charities actively involved in illegal settlement projects should not be eligible for the privileges of charitable status, including tax exemption. What steps will our Government now take to hold these companies and charities to account? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these points. These measures must be put in place immediately: no more excuses, and no more obfuscation from this Government.

Standing here in the Chamber today, it is easy to forget the human cost of this conflict. Visiting the west bank and East Jerusalem with Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and the Council for Arab-British Understanding in 2014, I saw how the settlements touched the lives of those in the occupied territories. I think of the father from Gaza I met in Makassed hospital who was nursing his four-year-old double-amputee son and worrying about his wife in another hospital 20 miles away, who had also had both her legs amputated. I think of the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, whose residents live in perpetual fear of military demolitions and harassment. I think of the quarter of a million children across the Palestinian territories who the UN identifies as in need of psychosocial support and child protection interventions. What future can these children look forward to? What hope can we offer them? A 10-year-old child in Gaza will already have witnessed three wars and nothing but the siege.

I therefore rise today to convey this simple message to the Minister: act now. Act now to show that Britain is still a country that will give voice to the voiceless and stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Act now to show that Britain is still a beacon of hope and a country that stands tall in the world and strives relentlessly for peace and justice. Act now to help us to believe that yours is a Government who still believe in the rule of law.

St David’s Day

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Matt Western

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing today’s debate. As she is an avid Welsh rugby fan and former Wales international, I know that she will have enjoyed the match on Saturday. It was a stunning win and a great way to kick-start the St David’s Day celebrations. Eddie Jones led his England side down the M4 and got stuck in traffic along the way before coming completely unstuck against a Welsh side determined to stop his chariot. We were given little chance of winning that match but, as the Welsh always do, we rose to the challenge and triumphed in the face of adversity.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I congratulate Wales on their victory at the weekend. It was mightily impressive and a real demonstration of power. Does my hon. Friend agree that the renewables sector provides a huge opportunity for Wales to refound itself through offshore wind and onshore through hydroelectric?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Wales was of course the cradle of the industrial revolution and it should be the cradle of a green revolution. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the most incompetent and short-sighted Government in living memory, who refuse to go forward with the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. I think that sends a clear signal about what really makes them tick.

Today’s St David’s Day debate is marked with sadness following the loss of our good friend and colleague Paul Flynn, the former Member for Newport West. He had a razor-sharp intellect and a rapier-like wit. He was an outstanding parliamentarian who was passionately committed to social justice and opportunity for all—a lovely man, who always had a helpful word of advice for us new kids on the block. He will be sorely missed.

Just as I had complete confidence in the 23 men in red on Saturday, I have confidence in my fellow countrymen and women to rise to the challenge of Brexit, but the challenge is truly daunting. We are two and a half years on from the referendum and fast approaching 29 March. We are also two years on from a general election when the Conservative manifesto promised to set up a new UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU funds after 2020. But with just 29 days to go until we leave the EU, we know little more about the UK shared prosperity fund than we did in June 2017.

Like much of Wales, my Aberavon constituency has benefited hugely from European money—from the Bay Campus at Jersey Marine to the sunken gardens and toddler play area on Aberavon beach; from the Croeserw community enterprise centre to the Cognation mountain bike trails in the Afan valley; and from the transport hub to the Port Talbot magistrates court. These projects would not have been possible without European funding.

Between 2014 and 2020, west Wales and the valleys were set to receive from European structural funds investment worth more than £1.6 billion, yet nearly everything about the shared prosperity fund is still to be worked out. We still do not know how much funding will be available, how it will be divided across the country, what activities will be eligible for support or who will take the decisions on how the money is spent. There is a huge fear that this will be not just a financial grab, but a power grab, and that the Westminster Government will use this opportunity to reduce funding for areas that need it most and to claw back powers that sit naturally with the devolved Administrations.

These deep-seated concerns led to the creation of the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which I am truly proud to chair. The wide-ranging review that we carried out heard from 80 organisations across the UK, including the Welsh Government, councils in Wales and the Welsh TUC. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales back in November, seeking a meeting about the findings of our APPG, but have yet to receive a response. Those representations were unanimous in saying that the UK shared prosperity fund must comprise not a single penny less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces. Westminster must not use Brexit as an opportunity to short-change the poorest parts of the UK. Equally, the UK Government must not deny devolved Administrations the appropriate control over funds. Local decisions must not be made by a bureaucrat or by a Tory Government sitting at the other end of the M4. The Government’s inaction cannot continue; they must provide guarantees on the shared prosperity fund.

Of course, one group of people who know very well about this Government’s inaction are the steelworkers in Port Talbot, Llanwern, Trostre and right across Wales. They have gone above and beyond to save our steel industry, but their actions have not been matched by the Westminster Government. When unscrupulous pension advisers took the opportunity during the pension transfer to swoop in like vultures and rip off steelworkers, the Government did nothing. Now there is a very serious risk that thousands have been conned into transferring out of the scheme, almost always against their best interests. It is imperative that steelworkers are notified of this, so that it can be remedied before the opportunity is missed, but the Government’s inability to support steelworkers does not stop there. At the height of the steel crisis, the UK Government consistently showered steelworkers with warm words, but since then they have failed to create a sector deal for steel, and last year less than half of the steel bought by the Government came from the UK, despite British steel being the best in the world; that is simply not good enough.

Disabled people in my constituency have also been badly let down. The personal independence payment is there to support individuals with the extra costs of living associated with a disability, but the system in place now is working against disabled people, instead of for them. Three quarters of people in Wales who challenged the decision of the Department for Work and Pensions to stop or reduce their PIP were successful in having that decision overturned, which just shows how fundamentally broken the system is. In Wales, one in 10 people waited more than a year to win back money that they were initially denied—a dreadful failure.

I am a proud Welshman. I was born in Tredegar in 1970. My grandfather on my father’s side was a coalminer in the Welsh valleys, while my grandmother was a district nurse—the backbone of the NHS. My grandfather on my mother’s side was a railway signalman in Anglesey, supported by a grandmother who was truly the rock of the family. Their never-say-die attitude and commitment to working hard for their communities has been passed down the generations and it is with that spirit that I will continue fighting hard for my Aberavon constituents in Westminster.

We are a proud, unique community in Aberavon. Even Banksy picked us out last year as a worthy home for one of his wonderful creations. But, like every area, we need a UK Government and a Welsh Secretary who will stand up for Wales; and that means, more than anything, that we desperately need a UK Labour Government. Happy St David’s Day to all.