Britain in the World

Bob Seely Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The gravity school of economics argues that we always trade more with those closest to us, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of the past 200 years suggests the opposite? We have taken beef from Argentina, we have had a closer economic relationship with the United States than with any other single country, and we have incredibly close relationships with India, to which we sold cotton, and with Australia and Canada. Does he agree with me—this is the point he is making—that the gravity school of economics is really rather flawed?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is short-sighted to look at nearby countries only. Our history shows that we have a tradition of trading right across the globe—I am delighted to have the nod of my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade, who is in her place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I lament that so many thousands of Syrians have lost their lives in a pointless and needless conflict, in which we should have intervened many, many years ago when we had the chance to make a difference in the region. I lament the lack of a long-term strategy in the west for dealing with what is going on in Syria, but, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, I am also very proud of the action that our pilots and the Royal Air Force have taken alongside allies to deter Bashar al-Assad from using such heinous weapons against his people—innocent civilians who have been caught up in this conflict.

[Bob Seely]

I know that we have said this before, but will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of James Le Mesurier, the western head of the White Helmets, who died recently? James was an acquaintance; his wife Emma was a good friend of mine. They had a wonderful wedding a few years ago in Turkey that I was privileged to attend, and I am so sorry that he died a few months ago.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am very glad to associate myself with my hon. Friend’s words. I am sure that everybody in the House laments the passing of James Le Mesurier. He will be greatly missed not just for what he achieved in Syria, but for what he demonstrated to the rest of the world was possible through the work of the White Helmets in that area, and around the world.

I am pleased that the Government have committed to spending the NATO minimum of 2% of GDP on defence. I am also pleased that we are committed to renewing our nuclear deterrent—our ultimate safety net—and I am proud of its being based in Scotland. I am delighted that the Scottish-built carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are both in the hands of the Royal Navy, and that we now have operational F-35s capable of being deployed on them. The Type 26 and Type 31e programmes, also being built in Scotland, are encouraging and exciting, but it was only two years ago that the Royal Navy was nearly stripped of its amphibious assault capability, which was retained solely through the hard work and vocal interventions of Members of the House.

Rumours still swirl that one of our two new aircraft carriers might be mothballed or even sold to save money. We simply do not have enough ships on our own to safely protect these two amazing assets if they are both at the sea at the same time while carrying out other vital jobs that are required of a globally deployable Navy. That leads to a manpower problem, with fewer sailors being expected to do more, and then, of course, there is the retention problem that we have at present in the senior service. Defence is expensive. A navy is expensive—of that there is no doubt. There is also no doubt that there are pressures on the Treasury, but it is essential that we get defence right and that we spend appropriately on it.

In 1963, the arguments of President de Gaulle, who is not often quoted in this place, for vetoing British membership of the European Union were based on the fact that we were a maritime trading nation. That has not changed: 95% of all imports to this country come by sea. Our reliance on freedom of navigation and open seas has not changed and, if anything, it is increasing. The importance of the Strait of Hormuz was thrust into the limelight only last August with the taking of the Stena Impero by an increasingly belligerent Iran. It is a fact that 35% of the world’s seaborne oil shipments and 20% of the oil traded worldwide pass through the narrow straits between Oman and Iran. Our ability to deploy royal naval assets in the form of two Type 23s to protect British shipping in the region is welcome, but it is a timely reminder to everyone that we cannot afford to become sea-blind—that it remains, as is etched across the front of Britannia Royal Naval College, “upon the Navy” that

“the safety, honour, and welfare of this realm do chiefly depend”.

I know that the Government get it and I hope that we will see a commitment in the months and years ahead to maintaining a Royal Navy of a size and flexibility that will defend our interests and those of our allies, continue to protect freedom of navigation on the high seas and provide humanitarian relief to crisis-struck regions across the world. For what better example and what greater demonstration is there of this country’s commitment to humanitarianism, internationalism, free trade and the rule of law than a strong, globally deployable and flexible Royal Navy?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I believe that I am the last speaker—last, but hopefully not least—and I shall, out of respect for my colleagues, keep to within the 10-minute limit. I wish to talk about foreign affairs and a little bit about Huawei.

First of all, let me pay tribute to the many excellent maiden speeches that we have heard tonight. The American writer Gore Vidal is quoted as saying:

“Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.”

I have heard so many excellent speeches from new Members this evening that I feel I am positively withering away. Congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), for Stafford (Theo Clarke), the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who made a superb and moving speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and anyone else whom I have failed to mention.

I am not commenting on anything to do with defence due to my role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I would like to talk briefly on foreign affairs. The world is changing and we are changing. We are leaving the European Union in two weeks and we will be an independent state again. In recognition of that, the foreign affairs review has the potential to become highly influential, and I am extremely grateful that the Government have had the foresight to announce this, as it is hugely valuable.

What is the state of the world that we are going to move into in about a fortnight’s time? Globally, although conventional wars are in decline and much of humanity enjoys more enriched lives than ever before, the world, in some senses, has become a more challenging place. New forms of integrated conflict and competition are being developed by rivals and potential adversaries, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke so eloquently—we have talked about this when we both had different jobs in a previous life. The international rules-based system is under threat and the battle for the 21st century, I think, is, in part, between open and closed societies that will shape the future of humanity. I will come to Huawei in a short while if I may.

The following points are important. “Global Britain” implies a national global strategy to express the nation’s values and interests beyond our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) rightly said that our foreign policy needs to promote happiness and prosperity, but what does that mean and what would be in the detail? We need a national strategy council to develop that national global strategy. I believe that that should come out of the existing National Security Council, so we would have a Janus-like organisation; the National Security Council would deal with reactive issues and problems, and the national strategy council would look five, 10 or 15 years ahead at potential threats and opportunities. Out of that, we would need to produce a national global strategy, which should be not cost driven, but—where reasonable—needs driven. That point was eloquently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray). The national global strategy should be based on three freedoms that we have historically championed: freedom to trade, freedom of thought and freedom from oppression—the great things for which we have always tried to stand.

On a more tactical level, we need much more joint effects working across Government Departments—what, in the Army, we might have called joint effects teams—to encourage integrated working. At embassy level, this should include integrated line management. UK ambassadors and high commissioners should have line management of all their staff. There should be a single legal chain for decision making, and a common set of pay and conditions, which there is not at the moment. That can cause friction, especially because folks in the FCO, who are hugely qualified, generally earn less than civil servants in other Government Departments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) said that we should deepen our ties with Canada, New Zealand and Australia in the new CANZUK alliance covering trade, defence, academia and research. That is part of, but not instead of, a renewed commitment to multilateralism. An important part of our overseas strategy is the ability to see issues holistically, whether that is Nord Stream 2—a new pipeline in the Baltic that is one of Russia’s key strategic aims in Europe—or, in our own country, the issue of the Chinese tech giant Huawei and its potential involvement in our 5G network. This is an extraordinarily important issue—one of the major issues of the 21st century—but sadly there has been little debate about or parliamentary scrutiny of the matter in this country.

US officials are in town today in a last-ditch attempt to win UK support for their position on Huawei. We should listen very closely not only to our friends in the United States, regardless of what one thinks of President Trump, but also to friends in places such as Australia, who have taken the decision not to include Chinese high tech in their own 5G networks. The blunt reality is that China is a cyber-risk and will remain so for years. It has a dreadful reputation for cyber-attacks and intellectual property theft against western and global institutions and firms. Huawei itself is the subject of a US investigation for fraud and commercial espionage. China, with whom it is vital to have good relations, has sadly become more adversarial internationally and less tolerant of dissent domestically.

Sadly, the debate over Huawei is marked by dangerous levels of misunderstanding and sometimes disinformation. For example, Huawei argues that it is a private firm. In no meaningful sense is that correct. Huawei is, to all intents and purposes, part of the Chinese state, and to allow it a role in the 5G network is effectively to allow China and its agencies access to our network. To say otherwise is simply false. It is argued that Huawei will enable wider market provision. In reality, the opposite is the case, because China openly seeks to dominate global comms. The risk is that by supporting Chinese high tech, we will allow such firms—pumped by billions from Chinese investment banks—to undercut western firms such as Ericsson and Nokia, with whom we do not need “no spy” agreements because we know they will not spy on us.

It is also claimed that Huawei will be limited to the fringes of the 5G network. Sadly, this argument has been used quite a bit. It is, say experts, untrue. According to the experts, there is nothing like the same extent of difference between core and non-core in 5G as in 4G. For example, antennas in 5G will not be dumb bits of kit but complex and intelligent bits of hardware and software. To be in the 5G system anywhere will be to be in the 5G system per se. That is why Rob Strayer, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, has said that any role for Huawei in a 5G network here or elsewhere poses an “unacceptable risk” and will potentially damage our relationship with the United States but also with other Five Eyes nations. We need to build up alliances and not risk them in this day and age. There are other powerful moral arguments against the use of Chinese firms in our high tech that I do not have time to deal with now, but in short, China is using big data and artificial intelligence to build up a highly efficient surveillance state the kind of which the world has not seen.

It is important that complex and holistic issues like Huawei and Nord Stream 2 become absolutely part of our foreign policy review. Whoever becomes Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whether it is me, my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) or my equally excellent hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)—both superb previous Chairmen; I hope I persuade folks in this House to focus on the word “previous”—they should be pledging to open an immediate investigation into the suitability of Huawei and Chinese high tech in our systems to see if there is any way that they can be claimed or argued to be trusted vendors.

Our new global Britain needs integration and strategy. We need to see issues holistically both at home and abroad. Preferably, we need to ensure that the public but also Members in this House play a strong and inclusive role in the foreign policy review.