National Security and Investment Bill — New Clause 4 — Framework for Understanding National Security — 20 Jan 2021 at 17:00

The majority of MPs voted against a proposed series of factors which the Secretary of State would have to consider when deciding if to forbid an investment, acquisition or merger on grounds of risk to national security.

MPs were considering the National Security and Investment Bill.[1][2]

The proposed new clause rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was titled: Framework for understanding national security and stated:

  • When assessing a risk to national security for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to factors including, but not restricted to—
  • (a) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s defence capabilities and interests;
  • (b) whether the trigger event risks enabling a hostile actor to—
  • (i) gain control or significant influence of a part of a critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure, or natural resource;
  • (ii) conduct espionage via or exert undue leverage over the target entity;
  • (iii) obtain access to sensitive sites or to corrupt processes or systems;
  • (c) the characteristics of the acquirer, including whether it is effectively directly or indirectly under the control, or subject to the direction, of a foreign government;
  • (d) whether the trigger event adversely impacts the UK’s capability and capacity to maintain security of supply or strategic capability in sectors critical to the UK’s economy or creates a situation of significant economic dependency;
  • (e) the potential impact of the trigger event on the transfer of sensitive data, technology or potentially sensitive intellectual property in strategically important sectors, outside of the UK;
  • (f) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s international interests and obligations, including compliance with UK legislation on modern slavery and compliance with the UN Genocide Convention;
  • (g) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate significant illicit or subversive activities, including terrorism, organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion; and
  • (h) whether the trigger event may adversely impact the safety and security of UK citizens or the UK


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con350 (+2 tell) 6098.1%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 40100.0%
Lab0 196 (+2 tell)099.0%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 470100.0%
Total:350 271098.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

John BaronBasildon and BillericayConaye
Henry SmithCrawleyCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Julian LewisNew Forest Eastwhilst Con (front bench)aye
Royston SmithSouthampton, ItchenCon (front bench)aye
Thomas TugendhatTonbridge and MallingCon (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive