Uk white paper foreign investment

Under what circumstances can the corporate entity itself be charged with a crime? The Takeover Code provisions cover, inter alia, the timing of takeovers, disclosure requirements and various obligations regarding documentation and announcements to shareholders of a target company. When introducing the above-mentioned policies, the government was keen to emphasise that ‘scrutiny does not mean making any part of the UK’s economy off-limits to foreign investment’ and that the proposals are not ‘in any way designed or intended to limit market access for any individual countries’. The Professional Negligence Law Review contains information that is invaluable to the large number of firms, insurers, practitioners and other stakeholders who are concerned with the liability and regulatory issues of professionals across the globe. You can change your cookie settings at any time. There are no specific UK rules governing a foreign investor’s ability to enter into a UK joint venture, whether with a domestic partner or otherwise. If the United Kingdom opts out of the EU’s common investment policy in whatever arrangement is in place when the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the consequences for third countries will be that:.

CLIENT INTELLIGENCE

We use cookies to collect information about how you use GOV. We use this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve government services. You can change your cookie settings at any time. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Business-focused legal analysis and insight in the most significant jurisdictions worldwide

The UK government’s white paper on Brexit suggested that the EU’s «free movement of people» has made it impossible to control immigration. This seems to rest on an assumption that EU citizens can «move and reside freely» in any member state. Zsolt Darvas finds these arguments problematic, and points out that it is difficult to infer public opinion about immigration from the referendum result. Immigration to the UK was a key issue in the Brexit debate and has also received a great deal of attention since the referendum. According to the recent white paper from the UK Government on Brexit principles, control of immigration will be a key priority. Point 5. The striking message of Figure 1 is that the bulk of immigrants to the UK since arrived from outside the EU.

Notes to editors

We use cookies to collect information about how you use GOV. We use this information to make the website inveshment as well as possible and improve government services. You papdr change your cookie settings at any time. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Foreihn Government Licence v3. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. The internet is an integral part of everyday life for so many people. As the internet continues to grow and transform our lives, often for the better, we should not ignore the very real harms which people face online every day. In kk wrong hands the internet can be used to spread terrorist and other illegal or harmful content, undermine civil discourse, and abuse or bully other people.

Online harms are widespread and can have serious consequences. Two thirds of adults in the UK are concerned about content online, and close to half say they have seen hateful content in the past year.

The tragic recent ingestment in New Zealand show just how quickly horrific terrorist and extremist content can spread online. We cannot allow these harmful behaviours and content to undermine the significant benefits that the digital revolution can offer. While some companies have taken steps to improve safety on their platforms, progress has been too slow and inconsistent overall.

If we surrender our online ik to those who spread hate, abuse, fear and vitriolic content, then we will all lose. So our challenge as a society is to help shape an internet that is open and vibrant but also protects its users from harm. The UK is committed foreeign a free, open and secure internet, and will continue to protect freedom of expression online.

We must also take decisive action to make people safer online. This White Paper therefore puts forward ambitious plans for a new system of accountability and oversight for um companies, moving far beyond self-regulation. This will be overseen by an independent regulator which will set clear safety standards, backed up by reporting requirements and effective enforcement powers. Although other countries have introduced regulation to address specific types of harm, this is the first attempt globally to address a comprehensive spectrum of online harms in a single and coherent way.

Innovation and safety online are not mutually exclusive; through building trust in the digital economy and in new technologies, this White Paper will build a firmer foundation for this vital sector.

As a world-leader in emerging technologies and innovative regulation, the UK is well placed to seize these opportunities. We want technology itself to be part of the solution, and this White Paper proposes measures to boost the tech-safety sector in the UK, as well as measures to help users manage their safety online.

We believe the approach in this White Ofreign can lead towards new, global approaches for online safety that support our democratic values, and promote a free, open and secure internet; and we will work with other countries to build an international consensus behind it. Online safety is a investmwnt responsibility between companies, the government and users.

We would encourage everyone to take part in the consultation that accompanies this White Paper, and work with us to make Britain the safest place in the world to be online. The government wants the UK to be investmet safest place in the world uk white paper foreign investment go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business. This will rebuild public confidence and set clear expectations of companies, allowing our citizens to enjoy more safely the benefits that online services offer.

Illegal and unacceptable content and activity is widespread online, and UK users are concerned about what they see and experience on the internet. The prevalence of the most serious illegal content and activity, which threatens our national security or the physical safety of children, is unacceptable. Online platforms can be a tool for abuse and bullying, and they can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate. The impact of harmful content and activity can be particularly damaging for children, and there are growing concerns about the potential impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

Terrorist groups use the internet to spread propaganda designed to radicalise vulnerable people, and distribute material designed to aid or abet terrorist attacks. There are also examples of terrorists broadcasting attacks live on social media. Child sex offenders use the internet to view and share child sexual abuse material, groom children online, and even live stream the sexual abuse of children.

There is also a real danger that hostile actors use online disinformation to undermine our democratic values and principles. This can promote disinformation by ensuring that users do not see rebuttals or other sources that may disagree and can also mean that users perceive a story to be far more widely believed than it really is. Rival criminal gangs use social media to promote gang culture and incite violence. This, alongside the illegal sale of weapons to young people online, is a contributing factor to senseless violence, such as knife crime, on British streets.

Other online behaviours or content, even if they may not be illegal in all circumstances, can also cause serious harm. The internet can be used to harass, bully or intimidate, especially people in vulnerable groups or in public life. Young adults or children may be exposed to harmful content that relates, for example, to self-harm or suicide. These experiences can have serious psychological and emotional impact. There are also emerging challenges about designed addiction to some digital services and excessive screen time.

This White Paper sets out a programme of action to tackle content or activity that harms individual users, particularly children, or threatens our way of life in the UK, either by undermining national security, or by undermining our shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities to foster integration.

There is currently a range of regulatory and voluntary initiatives aimed at addressing these problems, but these have not gone far or fast enough, or been consistent enough between different companies, to keep UK users safe online. Many of our international partners are also developing new regulatory approaches to tackle online harms, but none has yet established a regulatory framework that tackles this range of online harms.

The UK will be the first to do this, leading international efforts by setting a coherent, proportionate and effective approach that reflects our commitment to a free, open and secure internet. We want technology itself to be part uo the solution, and we propose measures to boost the tech-safety sector in the UK, as well as measures to help users manage their safety online.

The UK has established a reputation for global leadership in advancing shared efforts to improve online safety. Increasing public concern about online harms has prompted calls for further action from governments and tech companies.

In particular, as the power and influence of large companies has grown, and privately-run platforms have become akin to public spaces, some of these companies now acknowledge their responsibility to be guided by norms and rules developed by democratic societies. The new regulatory framework this White Paper describes will set clear standards to help companies ensure safety of users while protecting freedom of expression, especially in the context of harmful content or activity that may not cross the criminal threshold but can be particularly damaging to children or other vulnerable users.

It will promote a culture of continuous improvement among companies, and encourage them to develop and share new technological solutions rather than complying with minimum requirements. It will also provide clarity for the wide range of businesses of all sizes that are in scope of the new regulatory framework but whose services present much lower risks of harm, investnent them to understand and fulfil their obligations in a proportionate manner.

The government will establish a new statutory duty of care to make companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users and tackle harm caused by content or activity on their services.

All companies in scope of the regulatory framework will need to be able to show that they are fulfilling their duty of care. Relevant terms and conditions will be required to be sufficiently clear and accessible, including to children and other vulnerable users. The regulator will assess how effectively these terms are enforced as part of any regulatory action.

The regulator will have a suite of powers to take effective enforcement action against companies that have breached their statutory duty of care. This may include the powers to issue substantial fines and to ijvestment liability on individual members of senior management. Companies must fulfil the new legal duty. The regulator will set out how to do this in codes of practice. If companies want to fulfil this duty in a manner not set out in the codes, they will have to explain and justify to the regulator how their alternative approach will effectively deliver the same or greater level of impact.

Reflecting the threat to national security or the physical safety of children, the government will have the power to direct the regulator in relation to codes of practice paperr terrorist activity or child sexual exploitation and abuse CSEA online, and these codes must be signed off by the Home Secretary. For codes of investmeny relating to illegal harms, including incitement of violence and the sale of illegal goods and services such as weapons, there will be a clear expectation that the regulator will work with law enforcement to ensure the codes adequately keep pace with the threat.

Developing a culture of transparency, trust and accountability will be a critical element of the new regulatory framework. The regulator will have the power to require annual transparency reports from companies in scope, outlining the prevalence of harmful content on their platforms and what counter measures they are taking to address. These reports will be published online by the regulator, so that users and parents can make informed decisions about internet use. The regulator will also have powers to require additional information, including about the impact of algorithms in selecting content for users and to ensure that companies proactively report on both emerging and known harms.

As part of the new duty of care, we will expect companies, where appropriate, to have effective and easy-to-access user complaints functions, which will be overseen by the regulator.

We also recognise the importance of an independent review mechanism to ensure that users have confidence that their concerns are being treated fairly. Ahead of the implementation of the new regulatory framework, we will continue to encourage companies to take early action to address online harms. To assist this process, this White Paper sets out high-level expectations of companies, including some specific expectations in relation to certain harms.

We expect the regulator to reflect these in future codes of practice. For the u serious online offending such as CSEA and terrorism, we will expect companies to go much further and demonstrate the steps taken to combat the dissemination of associated content and illegal behaviours. We will coreign interim codes of fogeign, providing guidance about tackling terrorist activity and online CSEA later this year.

We propose that the regulatory framework should apply to companies that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online.

These services are offered by a very wide range of companies of all sizes, including social media platforms, file hosting sites, public discussion forums, messaging services and search engines. The regulator will take a risk-based and proportionate approach across this broad range of business types. Every company within inevstment will need to fulfil their duty of care, particularly to counter illegal content and activity, comply with information requests from the regulator, and, where appropriate, establish and maintain a complaints and appeals function which meets the requirements to be set out by the regulator.

Reflecting the importance of privacy, any requirements to scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content will not apply to private channels. We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services. An independent regulator will implement, oversee and enforce the new regulatory framework.

It will have sufficient resources and the right expertise and capability to perform its role effectively. The regulator will take a risk-based approach, prioritising action to tackle activity or content where there is the greatest evidence or threat of harm, or where children or other vulnerable users are at risk. The regulator will set out expectations for companies to do what is reasonably practicable to counter harmful activity or content, depending on the nature of the harm, the risk of the harm occurring freign their services, and the resources and technology available to.

We are clear that the regulator will not be responsible for policing truth and accuracy online. The government is consulting on whether the regulator should be a new or existing body. The regulator will be funded by industry in the medium term, and the government is exploring options such as fees, charges or a levy to put it on a sustainable footing. The regulator will have a range of enforcement powers, including the power to levy substantial fines, that will ensure that all companies in scope of the regulatory framework fulfil their duty of care.

We are consulting on which enforcement powers the regulator should have at its disposal, particularly to ensure a level playing field between companies that have a legal presence in the UK, and those which operate entirely from overseas. In particular, we are consulting on powers that would enable the regulator to disrupt the business activities inveetment a non-compliant company, whitr to impose liability on individual members of senior management, and measures to block non-compliant services.

Companies should invest in the development of safety technologies to reduce the burden on users to stay safe online. In Novemberthe Home Secretary co-hosted a hackathon with five major tech companies to develop a new tool to tackle online grooming, which will be licensed for free to other companies, but more of these innovative and collaborative efforts are needed.

The government and the regulator will work with leading industry bodies and other regulators to support innovation and growth in this area and encourage inveshment adoption of safety technologies. The government will also work with industry and civil society to develop a safety by design framework, linking up with existing legal obligations around data protection by design and secure by design principles, to make it easier ivestment start-ups and small businesses to embed safety during the development or update of products and services.

Users want to be empowered to keep themselves and their children safe online, but currently there is insufficient support in place and many feel vulnerable online.

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Explore our content Close. Maybe Yes this page is useful No this page is not useful Is there anything wrong with this page? The Financial Technology Law Review. Transactions caught by both regimes are likely to face dual regulatory processes. The transaction concerned the UK aerospace industry, which was described as ‘a strategic priority for defence’ by the Ministry of Defence MOD in its representations to the CMA, suggesting that similar transactions may also be subject to review going forward. If parties felt that conditions had been imposed in an unfair manner, they would have the right to seek an appeal with the High Court challenging the lawfulness of the decision based on principles of judicial review.