Part of National Security and Investment Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:45 pm on 10 December 2020.
Nadhim Zahawi
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care
12:45,
10 December 2020
I now turn to the Bill’s final provisions. Clause 62 sets out the transitional provisions for cases that may qualify for Intervention under both the Bill and the Enterprise Act 2002. The starting point for the transition arrangement is that the 2002 Act continues to apply in relation to national security until the new regime is commenced. That means that qualifying mergers can continue to be scrutinised under the Act where the statutory requirements are met.
However, the Government do not wish to expose to some form of Double Jeopardy qualifying mergers that take place after the introduction of the Bill but before commencement. The clause means that, in effect, the Secretary of State must use one Act or the other. Not doing so would create significant uncertainty for business and investors and could, at least theoretically, lead to the perverse position of the Secretary of State, following commencement of the Bill, re-examining decisions that they themselves made merely weeks ago under the 2002 Act.
Clause 63 makes provision in relation to the regulations that may be made under the Bill, setting out how they must be made and what they may contain. All the regulations that may be made under the Bill are subject to the negative resolution procedure, except regulations made under clause 6, “Notifiable acquisitions”, clause 11, “Exceptions relating to control of assets”. and clause 41, “Permitted maximum penalties”, where the draft affirmative procedure will apply. Given their nature and effect, the Government consider that regulations under those three powers should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
Clause 64 provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill is to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Clause 65 is purely a technical one to provide for definitions of the key terms used in the Bill. I do not intend to explore individual meanings of key terms now; I will instead direct hon. Members to lunch and to the relevant clauses that provide them. Finally, hon. Members will appreciate that clause 66 is purely a technical one to set out the Bill’s short title and provide details about the commencement of the Bill’s clauses and the extent of the Bill.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The phrase stems from the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution; prohibiting individuals from being subject for the same offence to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb", and refers, in the strict sense, to three protections: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
When employed strictly, the mechanism can be used as a defense - for example, the policemen who beat up black motorist Rodney King in 1991 in Los Angeles, CA, were acquitted of assault in a county court, and as a result, could not be tried for those crimes in Federal court, and mirror court cases in the Southern United states in the 1960s where racially motivated crimes were not actively prosecuted nor convicted in local courts. A more pronounced example is that of U.S. citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh; sentenced to death for murdering eight U.S. federal employees with a bomb (as federal law only covers the federal employees killed in the explosion, a state court could have tried him for the deaths of the other hundred.
In 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett abolished this strict form of double jeopardy; retrials are now allowed if there is 'new and compelling evidence'.
In addition, an optional protocol (specifically, the Seventh Protocol, Article Four) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy, states: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."; only Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom have not ratified this optional convention.
An intervention is when the MP making a speech is interrupted by another MP and asked to 'give way' to allow the other MP to intervene on the speech to ask a question or comment on what has just been said.
