Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Debate between Bob Seely and Deidre Brock

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am sure that I will not take up all six minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). Last week, my hon. Friend gave one of the best speeches that I have heard in this House in recent years; he said that

“two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 67.]

I completely agree. I think that this House has a new beast of Bolsover, and he is a rather improved version of what came before.

I will make just three brief points, if I may. First, the Government have apologised. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here and there has been a certain amount of eating humble pie. I did not support the Government motion two weeks ago; I do support banning MPs from being political consultants, because there is so much of a grey area. Even with the best will in the world, it is too easy to blur the line into paid advocacy and the ethical problems that come from it. The only political consultant I want to be is for the folks on the Isle of the Wight, and frankly the only lobbying I want to be doing is on their behalf. That is what I will do in this House, rather than taking on paid consultancies, which are ethically just so concerning.

I understand the political dimension, but when we have a main Opposition party spending £2 million a year on lawyers because of a disastrous and illegal anti-semitism scandal, and when, sadly, some Opposition Members have ended up with jail sentences, we cannot approach the issue from a partisan point of view. We get a sewer over all of us, and actually, at the end of the day, it does not really work. It is a much better reflection on Opposition Members if they try to come up with suggestions that do not imply that everyone here is corrupt and on the take, because really that does not quite work.

The critical point is about foreign lobbying. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here, because I want to talk to the House about that important subject. We need a FOLO—a foreign lobbying Act—in this country. With our foreign lobbying laws, the reason there are not more scandals is that it is actually quite difficult to break the law. A consultant lobbyist has to register, but what about a company, an upmarket law firm, a reputation launderer or an upmarket PR firm?

There is an astonishing, vast amount of frankly very sleazy lobbying, not only of parliamentarians, but of civil servants, former civil servants, former special advisers, former policy advisers to both sides of the House—it was happening under new Labour, and it happens here as well—and universities. We have seen how much damage Cambridge University has experienced as a result not only of a vacuous approach to critical theory and critical gender and race theory, but of a morally vacuous approach to taking money from China.

None of this is being registered anywhere, because we simply do not have a foreign lobbying Act. The Americans have had a foreign lobbying Act since 1938; in those days, it was to guard against covert Nazi influence, and clearly it has evolved from there. The only reason—I am going to criticise my own side now—that we found out about the good Lord Barker’s work for the Putin oligarch Oleg Deripaska was that he had to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United States. Australia has gone down a similar route with its Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, because of the threat of covert Chinese money.

We should be setting an example here. As Members of Parliament, ultimately the buck stops with us. As well as the political drama that we have seen from Opposition Members, we need to think about corruption in an advanced society, in which officials and special advisers have a great deal of power and think-tanks can influence things and have a great deal of power. That all matters. I wrote a report on it with the Henry Jackson Society—I declare, just out of interest, that I did not take any payment from the society, in case folks are asking. The Government must not only look at the issues that they are confronting now and the points raised eloquently on both sides of the House, but look wider.

I was going to touch on other issues, but I do not have time. Privilege, the use of artificial reality and the problems that that may cause in a democracy in the coming years, politically motivated bankruptcy—there are lots of interesting issues in the field. Either as part of an espionage Bill or separately, we must get to grips with foreign lobbying and its power in this country. We must understand that it does not involve just Members of Parliament.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The hon. Member speaks about moral vacuity and lobbying loopholes. Many thousands of pounds have gone to the Conservative and Unionist party from unincorporated associations such as the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, but loopholes in electoral law disguise the identity of the original donors. Would the hon. Member support that loophole being closed off in the Elections Bill?

[Bob Seely]

That is a great question. I support any closing of any loophole that increases transparency and puts pressure on questionable ethical behaviour—including that of Alex Salmond in working for Russia Today, of which I think we should all be very ashamed, given that RT is a mouthpiece—I thank Members for nodding—for Russian authoritarianism. Sadly, a former leader of the hon. Lady’s party is working for it. I typed “SNP scandal” while I was listening to the debate, and there is a very long list, but we will not go there.

I promised not to take up too much time, so I will just say this. I congratulate the Government on moving. Clearly it has not been a great fortnight for any of us, but I would very much like us to look at the important issue of foreign lobbying in this country and in this Parliament.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Debate between Bob Seely and Deidre Brock

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am pleased to note that most Members here are well aware of the real threat and heightened risk that the climate emergency poses to the planet. We also know that with immediate concerted international action, it is still possible to limit the global temperature to 1.5°C in the long term. But the UK Government’s Climate Change Committee itself has warned that the UK’s national resilience to climate change is not keeping pace with the reality. We are not prepared here. Nearly 60% of the risks identified were given its highest threat rating, including loss of land, poor soil health due to flooding, risks to food supply and lack of drinking water. COP26 is not only our best chance; it might be one of our last. The UK’s devolved nations can frankly no longer wait for the UK Government to show real leadership; they must be given a broader role. It is too important an event to be left entirely to a Prime Minister with so little self-awareness that he took a jet to the G7 talks in Cornwall.

My Scottish National party colleagues and I have been overwhelmed by the volume of constituents getting in touch to protest against the Cambo oil field, which the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister about, asking him to reconsider the plans in the light of the severity of the climate emergency we are facing. This is a UK Government who are seriously considering opening the first deep coalmine in 30 years. This is a Government who, just this week, again failed to back the development of Scotland’s carbon capture and storage facility.

[Bob Seely]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Deidre Brock]

I cannot take any interventions, I am sorry.

One in 10 Aberdeen jobs are dependent on oil and gas. This is a community that feels every ebb and flow of the oil industry, and we are losing highly skilled people living in a naturally advantageous location with much of the necessary pipeline and subsea infrastructure already in place. That is absolutely senseless. Why are the Government not putting serious money into solutions that could solve the needs of heavy industry, such as hydrogen development as featured in the St Fergus proposal?

In the very short time I have left, I want to focus on loss and damage. Throughout the Brexit process, we heard time and again that this Government want the UK to stand on its own feet and be internationally admired by all. Well, here is their chance. The COP established the climate change impacts loss and damage mechanism in November 2013 in order to address the impacts of climate change in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to its effects. This mechanism’s role was recognised at the Paris climate conference, but the countries that have historically been primary contributors to climate change have not formally established their financial obligations. It is essential that this is properly addressed during COP26. Developing nations are already bearing the brunt of climate change, and how we consider those countries in our decision making is to say who we are and how we wish to be judged by future generations.