No knowledge security screening for businesses, cabinet decides

Sensitive knowledge must be safeguarded – particularly from any country that then uses that knowledge against us. Just last week, the intelligence service AIVD warned of espionage by countries such as China and Russia.

One of the measures aimed at preventing knowledge theft is the vetting of new staff and Master’s students in sensitive disciplines, a policy the Ministry of Education has been preparing for several years. If an individual is judged to threaten knowledge security, higher education institutions must refuse their enrolment.

Companies

But businesses also hold sensitive knowledge that could just as easily be stolen. Should the government also screen all employees at companies, for instance if they are going to work on the development of new sensors, computer chips, drones, AI or other sensitive innovations?

Higher education institutions also encompass commercial entities, including spin-offs founded by their researchers

The Ministry of Economic Affairs has considered its own screening law for ‘knowledge-intensive’ companies, but that plan has now been scrapped due to the difficulty of defining which companies should or should not have their new staff vetted. It could easily involve thousands of companies, and screening new employees would cost tens of millions of euros annually.

Consequences for Ministry of Education

There are also implications for the Ministry of Education, since higher education institutions also encompass commercial entities, including spin-offs founded by their researchers. If employees of these entities are not subject to screening, this leaves a major gap in knowledge‑theft safeguards.

But the problems with defining the scope may be even more fundamental: which fields and disciplines should fall under the screening law? What the Ministry of Economic Affairs could not figure out is now also proving problematic for the Ministry of Education. Partly for this reason, the bill has been repeatedly delayed.

Universities are critical of the legislation, with umbrella organisation Universities of the Netherlands calling it impractical and costly. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences also sees little merit in it.

‘Workable, effective and proportionate knowledge-security screening’

In her previous role as a board member of Maastricht University, Rianne Letschert also opposed the legislation. Sensitive knowledge is already adequately protected, she told NOS (in Dutch), and she described the belief that regulation can eliminate all risks as naïve.

But as a cabinet minister now, she will have to deal with the law as it stands. Earlier this month, Letschert told the House of Representatives that the bill will not be submitted to the House for the time being. Certainly not in the current year.

Letschert will send a letter to the House of Representatives ahead of the summer outlining proposals for “workable, effective and proportionate knowledge-security screening”. She says it is important to “move in step” with the innovative business sector.

What this means exactly remains to be seen, but it is clear that businesses will not be subject to any screening at all. It is possible that the Ministry of Education may also be considering a full pause of the screening legislation.

HOP, Olmo Linthorst