Q. :Thank you
very much, Sir Graham. Welcome, David, and thank you so much for
sharing your expertise and experience with us and for giving me an
opening, which I cannot resist: what are your suggestions for
improving this Bill?
David Offenbach: Well, there are three categories. First, are the
17 subjects that are referred to in the paper sufficient? Sir
, in the debate last week, said that food should be
included, because there is nothing more important than food
security. Mr said that pharma and biotechnology should be
included. There is not really very much on energy in the 17
subject matters. So I would like to see those included.
The next is the definition. National security is not defined in
the Bill, which I actually approve of, because once it becomes
too closely indicated, then it is not easy to decide what should
be in it, or what should not be in it. I would like to see a
definition that includes what said when
Melrose took over GKN that research and
development should be a subject of importance; it should be
included...
Q I have a quick follow-up question. Should we
consider a separate test of public or strategic interest, or are
you saying that our economic and security interests are
intertwined, so it is the definition of security interests that
needs to be expanded? What are your views on that?
David Offenbach: It is very difficult
to separate these. When you look at GKN for example, 50,000 people—even
now, after covid—are headquartered in Redditch, near the
Minister’s constituency. It is one of the largest industrial
companies worldwide, 250 years old, and a defence contractor to
the Ministry of Defence, but the question is whether the amount
of defence work it does, apart from its other engineering, is
sufficient for it to be called in under the existing legislation.
Clearly, the decision was made that it was not appropriate, and
it is the same with Cobham. Cobham clearly had a national
security element, but it was not sufficient for it to be called
in and blocked by the Minister, so I think it is very difficult
to separate the economic from the national interest, because
these companies are multi-layered; they operate in different
markets; some of their work is sensitive, and some of it is not
sensitive...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
