Ukraine

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously I do not want to go into detail, because it is a sensitive and difficult business, but, yes, we have done so and continue to do so. I believe that I have the support of the House in intending to continue to do so.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his words and, if I understood correctly, his early commitment to an economic crime Bill and a kleptocracy cell. In relation to that, will there be a foreign lobbying Bill? Will there be amendments to LIBOR and the Data Protection Acts to stop unscrupulous law firms from offering intimidation services to oligarchs and kleptocrats? Will the NCA be properly funded, as the Intelligence and Security Committee report suggested, so that it can take on the kleptocrats, the autocrats and the oligarchs in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in my statement, we are setting up a new combating kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target the very individuals mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Seely Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

Derbyshire is a lot further north than Putney and the daffodils are not out in my garden—we still have snowdrops, which are very pretty, so spring is definitely a moveable feast.

The UK Government are negotiating and discussing terms of reference with the devolved Assemblies, and when we receive their replies, we will absolutely move this forward with Baroness Hallett, who is ready to go. The Prime Minister wants this to start as soon as possible, and it will start by the spring.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

11. If he will make an assessment with the Foreign Secretary of the potential merits of introducing a national strategy council to develop and support a long-term global strategy for the UK.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)]

The Government’s approach to national security was set out in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. The National Security Council provides strategic direction to ensure that the review is implemented, and provides the necessary flexibility and agility to respond to the changing global context.

[Bob Seely]

On responding to the changing global context, would it be accurate to say that this morning deterrence has failed? Do the Government also agree that perhaps if we had a national strategy council that looked forward a decade to the trends shaping our world, our policy might be less ad hoc, less reactive and less last-minute, and our ability to deter wars, which are currently breaking out in Europe, might be stronger?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues, so he will know better than most that the whole purpose of the integrated review was to look at the period up to 2030, and it clearly identified China as a systemic competitor. I also know from my time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury that at the spending review 2020 we put in place the biggest investment in the Ministry of Defence—in defence—for about 30 years. That shows this Government’s willingness to look longer-term at what the right strategic approach is.

Covid-19 Update

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I did not hear what was said because Members were chuntering at the same time. I want us to calm it down and to use language that is appropriate to this Chamber. Please make sure we treat each other with the respect that I expect from all of you.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his balanced approach, unlike that of others in this House. There is increasing concern among epidemiologists, modellers, oncologists and scientists about the use of modelling and forecasts. Among the comments are that the forecasts we may have been using over the past two years are “almost hysterical,” “lurid,” “spectacularly wrong,” “consistently overconfident” and “substantially inflated.” Those comments are from scientists, not journalists or politicians. Does the Prime Minister trust the modelling he is getting, and will the Government consider an inquiry into the use of modelling and forecasts, many of which have been found to be unrelated to reality?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important for everybody to understand the limitations of models; they are not forecasts, but mathematical projections based on the data the modellers currently have, particularly when it came to Omicron, about the severity of the disease. That is why, when we feed assumptions about severity that are excessive into the models, we get results that are excessive; that is what my hon. Friend is driving at. Some of the models or calculations are much closer to what is happening now, and models are useful and cannot be dispensed with as we need to have projections, and we in this House should not in any way try to undermine or attack the independent scientists, whose independence is absolutely vital for our ability to handle this disease.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his vote of confidence, but I can tell him that I am going to get on with the job. I believe that that is the right thing to do. I think it is very, very sad that when the public need to hear clarity from their officials and from politicians, the Opposition parties are trying to muddy the waters about events, or non-events, of a year ago. That is what they are doing today.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Q5.   What recent progress he has made on bringing forward proposals for an Island deal for the Isle of Wight; and if he will make a statement.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for the Isle of Wight. I know there is ongoing discussion between the Isle of Wight and the Department for Levelling Up about the unique circumstances of the Island, including the discussions about the possibility of a county deal.

[Bob Seely]

I thank the Prime Minister for his response. Will the Government accept the findings of the independent study that they themselves commissioned this summer into a long-term fair funding settlement for the Island, the final calculations of which are due imminently? In doing so, will he help me to right a wrong that has now been ongoing for the Island—for my constituents—for some six decades?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. He will understand that it is not easy to break down the costs that apply to the service delivery on the Island, but I know the Department is carefully considering the details of the study he mentions, and I am sure the relevant Minister will keep him updated.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

With respect, Mr Speaker dealt with that at the opening of this debate and made it clear that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the SNP had discussed with him the debate today.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I abstained last week, so I thank the Government absolutely for the apology; it is completely the right thing to do. I want to put on record that, despite the fact that I abstained and I occasionally have the misfortune to vote against this Government, they continue to be nothing but supportive of both myself and the people of the Isle of Wight.

[Steve Barclay]

It is helpful to get that on the record.

The Government will now redouble our efforts to engage on a cross-party basis—and, indeed with you, Mr Speaker—in the days ahead, because we know what we can achieve when we do so. For example, in collaboration with others, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) worked hard when she was Leader of the House to establish the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The scheme, to which the Government are wholly committed, is a model with many strengths. It includes an appeals process and an ability to adjudicate complex cases by virtue of its independent expert panel that is led by a High Court judge. Overall, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme brings with it the expectation of rigour, impartiality and fairness for both the complainant and respondent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I make two points. The first is that the hon. Gentleman basically just agreed with me wholeheartedly, because the whole point of these panels is that they are there only where there are disputed facts and there were no disputed facts in this case. The second point, where I would wholeheartedly agree with him, is that the facts speak for themselves—they certainly did in this case. Mr Paterson at no stage denied that he had engaged in the various different meetings with Government Ministers and officials. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s argument falls on both counts.

Let me just read the words of Thomas de la Mare, a highly respected lawyer at Blackstone Chambers, who reviewed this matter. He did not do so for the Committee; he has published this himself. He says:

“If the decision-maker has had the 17 witness statements, read them and rightly found them to be irrelevant there is no conceivable breach of natural justice in not calling them in…The idea that this pretty exhaustively conducted 2 stage case of inquiry by the commissioner and then full review by the Committee evinces a broken system or justifies the egregious step of changing the rules mid game is absurd.. All in all the Cmtee decision looks pretty bomb proof: balanced, fair once you understand how relevance of material works, carefully reasoned (and probably carefully lawyered) and the very appeal/review of the Commissioner OP”—

Owen Paterson—

“wanted. Given this what has happened next is tawdry”.

So what next? In the end, the Standards Committee exists only to serve the House and to try to protect the reputation of the House. First, we are already reviewing the code of conduct. There are perfectly legitimate arguments to be made about how we should change various different elements. MPs are now regulated by so many different bodies that it is sometimes difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to understand exactly what the rules are that affect them. I hate the idea that a right hon. or hon. Member will be tripped up by a rule that they simply did not understand through some inadvertent action. So I do want to make sure that we have greater clarity in the way that the whole of our code of conduct and guide to the rules is available to Members.

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with his customary eloquence, and he knows how much his speech was impactful last week. Are there specific issues that he would like to see improved or does he think that the current process is fundamentally sound?

[Chris Bryant]

I think we gave Owen Paterson a fair hearing; in all honesty, it is very difficult to argue that we did not. I have wracked my brain as to measures that we might evince, but I am only the Chair of the Committee and want to allow the Committee to come to a view on reforms that we might suggest, although I have suggested in the newspapers over the past few days a few things that I personally would like to see.

The important point is that we are reviewing the code of conduct, as we are required to do in every Parliament. We did not manage to do it in the 2015 or 2017 Parliaments because we kept on having general elections, so it would be great if we did not have a general election for a while so that we could finish our work on the code. It is worth saying that we published the terms of reference for our code of conduct review on 22 September 2020 and have been engaged in the review since then. We took evidence from the Leader of the House earlier this year.

There is an argument for improvements to some of the process. As the hon. Member for South Leicestershire knows, I personally favour clarifying what we do about appeals. There is currently an appeal, and a Member can appeal to the Committee on any basis whatsoever, whereas if we were to have a de jure appeal instead of a de facto appeal process, we would need a set of criteria against which a Member could appeal, which might actually restrict Members’ rights of appeal rather than enhance them. That is a difficulty that we have to deal with.

There is an issue in respect of whether a Member should be able to appeal against the sanction rather than the findings, and I am quite happy to listen to what the Committee eventually decides on that, as I am sure the House will want to do as well.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Bob Seely Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We have addressed that issue in response to the report that the Select Committee put out. Our position has not changed. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I am mindful of the ordeal her constituents went through. One reason we are taking forward these procedures is to reduce that anguish and stress and to ensure that the coroners’ courts in the process deliver a better outcome for the bereaved and others relying on that service.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is making this speech, and we support so much of the Bill. On principle, does he accept that DNA sampling for people buried at sea would speed things up and save time for police and coroners when body parts wash up anywhere on the UK coastline, because they could quickly identify where those body parts come from?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend has raised that point with me privately, and he has now raised it on the Floor of the House. I am committed to looking at it and getting back to him. I understand the point, which he has raised in his usual tenacious but clear way.

Finally, the Bill will pave the way for a new state-of-the-art combined courthouse in the City of London. That court will provide an additional 10 courtrooms, predominantly to hear economic crime cases, including white-collar crime, such as fraud, and high-value business and property cases. That will be a real boost to the capital and to our vision of global Britain as a centre for investment, dispute resolution and doing business with integrity around the world. Court users will benefit directly by having access to more modern facilities, including lifts, wide corridors and a range of other measures, making it more accessible for the disabled. The City courtroom will have enhanced custodial facilities, increasing its ability to hear more cases with the most serious type of defendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Much of the Bill is eminently sensible, and there is much in it to support. Like most people, I am pretty fed up with politicised lawyers endlessly trying to game the system. We need the application of common sense, and to call this Bill authoritarian is an absolute misuse of the term.

I will not speak for more than four minutes or so. I want to talk about how we can improve the general principles of the Bill in respect of coroners’ time and police time spent dealing with cases in which bodies are washed up on the coastline, and in particular about the need for the mandatory taking of DNA samples from people who are to be buried at sea. I thank the Isle of Wight coroner, Caroline Sumeray, for her advice on this, and indeed for her work on behalf of Islanders.

There were three places in the UK where burial at sea was allowed: Tynemouth in the north-east, Newhaven in Sussex, and one and a half miles south-west of The Needles, on the Isle of Wight. Now, I understand, the area off The Needles is the only place where burial at sea is legal. At present there is no legal requirement for DNA samples to be taken from the bodies of the deceased.

The proposal for DNA sampling originated from an action at the UK Missing Persons Unit, which at the time was investigating about 60 unidentified bodies which had washed up over the previous year—not all at once, I hasten to add. The pathology unit at the Home Office undertook to progress that action, because every investigation involving a body washed up at sea requires a pathologist—and an awful lot of police time—to discover where the body might have come from. There is also the emotional distress of families who give DNA samples in the hope that it might be a relative of theirs; and if Aunt Madge has recently been buried at sea and, sadly, parts of her are washed up, the family do not necessarily want to give DNA samples because it is an unnecessary process.

There are about 10 burials at sea each year, and once or twice a year body parts are washed up on the coast of the Isle of Wight. At the end of 2016 a lower arm was found, and early in 2017 a matching skull was washed up. Later in the year, a man’s body was washed up near Brighstone, having come from Devon.

In October, a headless torso was found at Brook chine. In 2018, a skeleton was found on Barton beach and a skull was found in St Helens, with another being found later in the year in Seaview. The year after, a lady’s skeleton was washed up from Fishbourne, although that dated back to the bronze age. Clearly the tides had brought it up from a beach somewhere around Britain and it had been washed up on the Island. This is most likely to happen after storms, which either break up a coffin or force a body on to the land. They are often discovered by dog walkers on the beaches, and that is clearly not the sort of thing that they want to see first thing in the morning.

While this is a constituency issue for me, it could affect a coroner or police force anywhere in Britain that has a coastline. If we had a requirement for DNA sampling prior to burial at sea, it would be easy for the police or the coroner to check against the database and make a quick distinction about where the body part had come from. Clearly, if the database had no matching DNA sample, it could be a suicide, a murder or someone who had fallen off a liner somewhere in the world, but if a DNA sample could be matched, it would save police time, save the coroner’s time and save the emotional distress of the families involved.

The costs of the coastguards, helicopters, police spotter planes and inquests all add up. One of the principles of the Bill involves using the coroners and the police to achieve more efficiency and, frankly, to do their work in a more productive way. I therefore believe that, as good as the Bill is, it could be improved by the facilitation of mandatory DNA sampling on the UK DNA database so that the police and coroners can quickly identify where body parts washed up on the UK coastline have come from.

Afghanistan

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The Government are doing much to protect people in trying to ensure that people can access ways of leaving Afghanistan. A point was made earlier about not just expecting people to get to Kabul, and I hope that is something the Government will be able to look into and take up.

Apart from the impact on the lives of women and girls, we see a potential humanitarian crisis, at least in some parts of Afghanistan. We have cut our international aid budget, but I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has told me that more funding will be made available to deal with this crisis.

It is not just the impact on the people of Afghanistan that must concern us, however; we must be deeply concerned about the possible impact here in the UK. The aim of our involvement in Afghanistan was to ensure that it could not be used as a haven for terrorists who could train, plot, and encourage attacks in the UK. Al-Qaeda has not gone away. Daesh may have lost ground in Syria, but those terrorist groups remain and have spawned others. We will not defeat them until we have defeated the ideology that feeds their extremism.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

One of the most concerning things that is happening is that several thousand al-Qaeda operatives have been freed from prisons in Bagram, Kabul and Kandahar. Is my right hon. Friend concerned that those people will go back to their old ways, or do we hope that they will somehow go into retirement? It seems to me that we are going to restart with a new round of international terrorism.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has anticipated exactly the point I was about to make. The Taliban has said that it will not allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists again. Yesterday, in the press conference, it said it would not allow anything to happen in Afghanistan that would lead to attacks elsewhere across the world. However, we must look at its actions, not its words, and, as he has just pointed out, its action has been to release thousands of high-value Taliban, al-Qaeda and Daesh fighters. Its actions are completely different from its words, and it is essential that we recognise the probability that Afghanistan will once again become a breeding ground for the terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

It is important that the cuts to overseas aid are reversed in their entirety. [Interruption.] I know that the Foreign Secretary is trying to wind me up. When the rest of us were doing what we could in the past few days, he was lying on a sunbed, so I will not take any lectures from someone like him. People are facing the worst situation imaginable and we have a Foreign Secretary who sits laughing and joking on the Government Front Bench. He should be ashamed of himself. He demonstrates that he has no dignity whatsoever. He can carry on saying that the amount has been doubled—

[Bob Seely]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had 20 minutes of speech and we now have a private conversation between Front Benchers. Should we not be debating the subject, Sir?

[Mr Speaker]

That is for me to decide and I have referred twice to both sides trying to antagonise each other, which is not a good idea. Whichever Front Bench it is, they should not be responding. I am sure that Mr Blackford is coming to the end of his speech. He did say that he would not take too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

This is a difficult and upsetting debate, and I am not quite sure why. It may be because some of the people I knew are now dead and because I do not think that some of the things that are being said are true. I want to set the record straight and, in the short time I have, correct some of the false assumptions that are being made and also make a few observations. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have made excellent speeches, especially the Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the Defence Committee, whose speeches were incredibly good.

What has happened is an appalling and unnecessary self-inflicted wound. We are being presented with a choice: invest more blood and treasure or walk away. No: we had a steady state, give or take, in Afghanistan for the last few years, and the mission was a train, equip and mentor one. It was large, but for between 5,000 and 20,000 troops, contractors, special forces and so on who were there, it was smaller than many NATO/US bases and missions around the world. We have chosen to withdraw politically; we have not been forced to do so on security grounds. I think we will regret that decision for many years.

The collapse happened because a truly dreadful US President, Donald Trump, who was probably in hock to the Russians, dealt with the Taliban behind the Afghan Government’s back—a shocking betrayal. Joe Biden, who admires Kennedy—we had some great quotes from Kennedy earlier—could have changed things. He has chosen not to and has opened the United States, Europe, India and many allies throughout the world to considerable terrorist risks from the 2,500 to 4,000 jihadi nut jobs—pardon my French—who are currently being released from Bagram, Kandahar and Kabul. When they have stopped slaughtering our friends and beheading a few key women journalists, they will turn their attention to us. We have walked away from a successful anti-terrorist operation after 20 years. Sooner or later, we will reap the rewards.

Many people have said that the Afghans did not fight. I was in Afghanistan four times over seven months, not on long tours—four months, two months and a few weeks. In my experience, many Afghans fought very hard. At first, yes, there was an uneven flow of recruits to the police, but I had the privilege of patrolling in Nad-e-Ali north with a small team. Those people were remarkable. When we went into a village, they would tell us from where the Taliban were watching us—which haystack, which bund line. They would tell us that the motor cycle repair man had to work for the Taliban because his wife and children were under threat. They also told us that they would happily take their daughters to school, but asked why they should when there was not enough security to prevent them from being raped and abducted on the way home. Sometimes it was difficult to give them an answer that reassured.

In many ways, those people were a model of courageous integrity. They were effective and efficient, they loved their country and they knew right from wrong. They are probably dead. If they were not killed a year ago, they will be finished off as we speak, and I find that upsetting.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend from the Foreign Affairs Committee makes an excellent point, which has been made by a few others. He always looks at these things with a keen eye. Given what he has just said, is it not offensive that those people’s contribution has been swept away, particularly by the President in the past few days?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

Yes, absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. To dismiss the 70,000 people who have died is absolutely wrong. People were uneven at times, especially in the beginning, but there were many brave male and female soldiers, journalists and people who engaged in civil society. They will now be shut down. They will not all be murdered. The Taliban are clever: they will carry out some high-profile assassinations to silence others, but the direction of travel is clear.

The Secretary of State for Defence, who is in his place, is one of the few people who has emerged from this with any credit because he can see the bigger picture. He has understood the geopolitics, the rationale, but also the emotions of many troops who have served in Afghanistan. He has shared that and I thank him very much for it.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, Russia and China are happier today and Taiwan and Ukraine are considerably more nervous. We are weaker. As several hon. Members have said, Europe has been as bad as the United States in not stepping up to the mark. A weak and divided west is not a recipe for a caring future for anybody. It is a recipe for global instability and greater global threat.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Bob Seely Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I agree with much of what my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) have said.

There are two facts here that may appear contradictory, but are not. This is basically an honest place and the overwhelming majority of us are deeply honest and straightforward—there are flaws in politicians, but in this country corruption is not necessarily one of them. At the same time, it is sadly true that the UK is an influence peddler’s paradise. I will explain why; it has much to do not only with the weakness around domestic lobbying laws, but with foreign lobbying.

I will not spend much time on the points raised by Opposition Members; for a “loyal Opposition”, I am not sure that they seem particularly good at being either. I know that the Prime Minister wants to do the right thing, so I will make some suggestions, partly based on a report that I wrote earlier this year with the Henry Jackson Society about looking into foreign interference in the UK and models for a UK foreign lobbying Act.

The problem is that the current lobbying rules are not fit for purpose, because there are barely any lobbying rules. In fact, it is very difficult to break the rules, because they are so limited: they are built around a very narrow definition of what it is to be a lobbyist and what a lobbyist does. Most importantly, they do not look at the lobbying done by law firms and reputation managers—the sleaze launderers and reputation launderers. If we look at some of the most corrupting elements in our system and at the relationship that BT had for 10 or 15 years with Huawei, effectively, BT, a corporate entity that had high standards—

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises Huawei. Does it not demonstrate his point that there are very strict rules in this country that many companies and individuals stick to, but when it comes to foreign influence in politics, we must go much further? For the Opposition to have made no reference to that in the motion is a matter of deep regret.

[Bob Seely]

I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his point and hope to build on it. If we look at Huawei and its relationship with BT, effectively, BT became a front entity for Chinese state technology in this country. Another example is Lord Barker, a former Minister who is now in the other place—I think that is the correct expression. We found out about his extensive work for one of President Putin’s most loyal oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska, by reading the US media. Why? Because we have no foreign lobbying accountability laws in our own country, in much the same way as our domestic lobbying laws are very fragile as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) was right: a lot of us rely on a clean system because we are honest people, but the problem is that it is easy to abuse a system that is still largely based on trust, and it is often difficult to understand the ways in which it is being corrupted. That is perhaps the most significant problem.

We are talking about one individual politician, David Cameron. I am sorry to hear that he has done this, because actually I quite like the guy and hope he can in some way explain himself rather better than he is doing, but we are talking about one individual politician and one or two—a small number of—civil servants. However, the systemic threat of malign covert influence is not necessarily from specific individuals who may or may not be flawed, but is from states that use covert influence to try to manipulate laws and influence public opinion in other people’s countries, and we now have a mini-industry of that in the United Kingdom.

To sum up to ensure others have the time to speak, I will send, if I may, to the Minister my report on foreign lobbying in the hope that when we produce these laws the Government will take into account some of the things the Henry Jackson Society and I have worked on, so we can try to clean up our system and these occasions become even rarer, as they should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate for their very valuable contributions and for speaking with such passion on issues that affect us all in public life. The care with which we spend taxpayers’ money matters very deeply to public confidence in Government. The respect that we demonstrate for rules and regulations is rightly a benchmark for trust. The systems and structures of governance in this country must at all times serve, and be seen to serve, those whom we are elected to represent, and not be exploited for narrow, private interest. It is right that we in Parliament probe and scrutinise any concerns raised on such matters and, to be candid, it is in the Government’s interest, as much as anyone else’s, to be able to provide robust assurances. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) said, if there is an issue, let us uncover it. It is for that reason that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution set out the existing framework for safeguarding and assuring the public interest. It should be restated that that existing framework, much of which has been brought in since 2010, has largely been very effective.

On the questions raised by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) this afternoon about the interactions between Greensill and the Treasury, as the Chancellor set out in a letter to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the matter was referred by him to the relevant Treasury officials, and following proper scrutiny, Greensill’s requests were turned down. It was through transparency returns and declaration processes that meetings between Greensill and officials were highlighted. In other words, the system in that instance worked as it should, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that this existing framework has not been tested by the extreme circumstances of the pandemic and that the broader issues raised in recent days about Greensill have not posed questions that we are as keen as anyone to probe. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) highlighted that the scrutiny work has long ago begun.

Out of necessity and urgency, the Government have, over these past 12 months, interacted with thousands of individuals and organisations offering help. All claim to have had something to offer. Some do and some do not. Some have been referred by Conservative Members; others have been referred by Labour MPs, peers or those from other parties. Some are genuinely public-spirited; others only purport to be. Ministers and officials have had to take decisions that, at times, prioritise swift and decisive action over fulfilling the usual standards on timely and transparent contract publication, but we have been working extremely hard to rectify that latter shortcoming, about which I will say a bit more in a moment.

I also wish to assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not been waiting around for the Opposition to table a motion on these important issues before making improvements to our existing propriety and transparency regime. We are currently conducting post-legislative scrutiny of part 1 of the lobbying Act, consulting a variety of stakeholders to get their views on the scope and effectiveness of the legislation. I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and his practical proposals.

[Bob Seely]

Does my hon. Friend understand that many of us want the Government to do the right thing, and are grateful to them for doing the right thing, but understand that the lobbying Act, both for domestic and foreign lobbying, needs to be much broader? We need to take in the law firms involved, the reputation managers and the PR companies. It is not just about a narrow definition of lobbying, but all this lobbying industry that we seem to have built up in this country.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is important to understand that we are putting forward a package of things. Some of the changes that need to be made are not necessarily through the lobbying Act, and we are looking at some of the issues of foreign intervention that he has rightly highlighted today.

We are already working with the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, my noble Friend Lord Pickles, to improve the business appointments regime, which applies lobbying bans to former Ministers and civil servants. The committee has been actively seeking to increase the efficacy of the system by introducing a framework for the risk-based consideration of cases, greater transparency and better reporting of breaches of the rules. Members should note that some of the issues discussed in relation to Bill Crothers stem from the transparent publication of our correspondence with ACOBA on gov.uk.

On procurement—to reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—we have published an ambitious Green Paper with legislation to be included in the Queen’s Speech, setting out how we will provide commercial teams with much greater choice in an emergency. It needs to be understood that, at the moment, the options are a direct award, which exposes us to the kinds of claims of cronyism that have been peddled today, or full fact procurement, which takes far too long to turn around in an urgent situation. In relation to this, last autumn, we commissioned an independent expert review into Cabinet Office procurement processes led by Nigel Boardman, probing particular contracts that were raised in the NAO’s report on this subject. The subsequent Boardman report was forensic in its analysis and very hard-hitting in its recommendations, and the Cabinet Office committed to taking forward all of them in full. Meanwhile, I set out with candour in a Westminster Hall debate the challenges that the Government had to navigate at the height of the pandemic and what went well and what, undoubtedly, could have been done better during the period in question. I recommend that debate to those hon. Members who have today raised concerns about the so-called VIP lane. It might make for a more compelling Labour press release to suggest that the story of procurement during the emergency has been one of Tory corruption, but I believe that it is vital that we understand what really happened so that we do not overlook what needs to change.

Far from being a secret referrals lane, officials dealing with the thousands of PPE leads coming in set up a separate mailbox to triage them. It allowed more credible leads to be sifted and it helped manage the correspondence that was coming in from Parliamentarians of all colours who themselves were being contacted by companies and individuals offering help. The Opposition like to suggest that those going through this mailbox were 10 times more likely to secure a contract. The most important thing to note, however, as the NAO does in its report, is that all PPE offers, no matter from where they came, went through the same eight-stage assurance checks. It should also be said that of the more than 400 offers handled by the high-priority inbox, only 47 were awarded contracts, which means that 90% were not.

In relation to the activities of Greensill, Mr Boardman has been commissioned by the Prime Minister once again to apply his scrupulous and dispassionate eye to the role of Greensill Capital. I am very glad to say that the letter from Lord Pickles regarding Bill Crothers will now also be considered. It is right that I do not seek to prejudge his findings. However, I want to address two assertions that have been made: that it will be too narrow in scope and therefore requires a broader Committee-led inquiry; and that Mr Boardman himself is a Government yes man. To those criticisms, I first say that it would be wrong to view this investigation in isolation. It is one work strand of several, which we hope, when pulled together, will make for a much more robust framework. Secondly, I have seen how effective Mr Boardman’s previous Cabinet Office review has been in spurring improvements and I have no doubt that any recommendations from his work on Greensill will not only be unsparing but lead to meaningful change should it be necessary.

It is worth reminding the House that, as soon as any of us are elected to this place, we become all too familiar with the trickiness of handling tactfully uninvited requests of a varying nature from associates, constituents and others. What matters is not necessarily that those requests have been made, but that we reach a decision on them, which is compatible with the principles of public life to which we all must adhere.

There have been claims today that current lobbying laws do not go far enough and should be extended, but I would guard against overly simplistic solutions that risk going too far in clamping down on avenues for interaction between Government and wider society. That point was made very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and others. This is particularly true when we reflect on the current emergency during which some of the most important contributions have come from those working outside Government. Indeed, one of my worries from this past year is that publicly spirited people who want to serve their country in an emergency will look at how the integrity of someone such as Kate Bingham was questioned and think twice before coming forward. What is important always, as I have said before, is that decision makers are able to test and interrogate the credibility of external inputs mindful of their own obligations.

Finally, in relation to the ministerial code, I hope that it will be of reassurance to Members that the appointment to the post of independent adviser on ministerial interests will be announced shortly.

Let me finish by returning to the Opposition motion, which will no doubt shortly be manipulated into a social media campaign that implies that Government Members are pro-cronyism and anti-transparency in imposing their convoluted solution to the issues raised today. There is no point in pushing for the creation of yet another body with a remit to scrutinise the rules on lobbying and, additionally, to look into the Greensill affair when we already have a number of—may I say?—very unforgiving Select Committees, the Boardman review and a whole series of efforts under way to improve our existing framework.

The Government are alive to the sincerely held concerns of part of the public, charities, non-governmental organisations and others about lobbying activities. They are looking precisely at the scope and effectiveness of existing legislation.

In the same vein, it is clearly wasteful for the vital scrutiny that is customarily carried out by PACAC and others to be undertaken by a second Committee. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) has already in this debate applied his sharp and ruthlessly inquiring mind to some of the most vital questions; I thought his contribution was superb. Lord Pickles will appear before my hon. Friend’s Committee tomorrow.

We should focus, as the Government are doing, on strengthening our existing framework to satisfy ourselves and others that the mechanisms in place are sufficiently robust with respect to the conduct of public servants and the stewardship of public resources, and that we uncompromisingly make those decisions in the national interest. Although the Government do not support the motion, today’s contributions have shown the strength of feeling across the House and I thank hon. Members for them.

Beyond the political froth, I do not think that we are in different places on this. We all believe in and want the same thing: transparent government and behaviour in accordance with the seven principles of public life. The Government will continue to engage with parliamentarians of all colours as we set about raising our standards, but we do not need another Committee to do that. That would risk undermining the process and reviews that are already in place and that we should allow to conclude, so I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am very happy to limit myself to five seconds, Mr Speaker, if you want to get somebody else in.

On behalf of Islanders, I pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh’s remarkable life and send my condolences to Her Majesty. The Duke visited the Isle of Wight on many occasions, and what brought him back again and again was his love of sailing. He was a regular at Cowes Week and helped to redesign the event in the 1960s. He had many friends on the Island, including my cousin David, who served with him in the Navy and on HMS Chequers, and was stationed in Malta with him in 1949, when the Duke was kind enough to be godfather to David’s son. In much of what he did, the Duke had the desire to make things better, always to look ahead and always to look over the horizon.

Finally, one of the most remarkable things about the Duke for me was that he combined an intense masculinity and manhood—leading men, being able to sail, shoot, hunt, philosophise and write—with an extraordinary respect for his wife and for women. I thought he was a remarkable man, for all of that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As we end the contributions to this motion for a Humble Address, it is a sign of the high regard in which the Duke of Edinburgh was held that so many Members have made such moving tributes. Today has brought the House together, and it is at its best when it is together. May The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, rest in peace.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty expressing the deepest sympathies of this House on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and the heartfelt thanks of this House and this nation for his unfailing dedication to this Country and the Commonwealth exemplified in his distinguished service in the Royal Navy in the Second World War; his commitment to young people in setting up The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, a scheme which has touched the lives of millions across the globe; his early, passionate commitment to the environment; and his unstinting support to Your Majesty throughout his life.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Covid-19 Update

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to support all parts of the UK, as we have throughout this crisis.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I applaud very much the Prime Minister’s attempts to avoid a national lockdown. There are no simple answers—that is very clear—which is why data is so important. Oxford’s Carl Heneghan has said, sadly, that the Government’s advisers have made predictions, projections and illustrations that, when validated against what happened, were “abysmal”. Does the Prime Minister share my concerns that these are not isolated cases and that academics are showing concern about the data? Will he please publish in full the four studies that have gone into the work this weekend, as well as a fuller analysis of lockdowns versus shielding policies so that people can start to understand and trust the information being put out?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to want to look at all the data and all the projections, and I am very happy that we have shared everything; everything that I have seen is available to him as well.