Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Debate between John Nicolson and Jeremy Quin

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Here is what we know about the appointment of the BBC chair. The BBC chair Richard Sharp helped to arrange a £600,000 loan for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), weeks before he was chosen by the former Prime Minister to become BBC chair. Mr Sharp appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit. We grilled him about his £400,000 gift to the Conservative party. However, he did not disclose his role in getting the man appointing him a huge loan. Mr Sharp, the former Prime Minister and the cousin offering the loan dined together at Chequers pre-loan and pre-appointment—and the former Prime Minister’s spokesperson says, “So what? Big deal.”

The Cabinet Office ethics team told the former Prime Minister to stop talking to Mr Sharp about his finances. Ministers told other applicants not to waste their time applying; the appointment was to go to the friend of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Tory donor. Even by the grubby standards of this Government, it is all a bit banana republic, is it not?

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, there was a very robust process in place for the appointment of the chairman of the BBC, including a pre-appointment hearing. I read the transcript this morning, in which he played his usual prominent role in grilling the appointee, pre-appointment. It was an incredibly robust process, with an independent panel of five members going through that process. To reassure the House, I understand that the Commissioner for Public Appointments is going to double-check that that process was absolutely consistent with the proper governance expected of these appointments. I know that the chairman of the BBC has invited the BBC’s senior non-executive director to discuss the matter with the board to make certain that all relevant conflicts of interest were properly disclosed. So there are two processes ongoing. But this was a very robust process.

Bearskin Hats: Queen's Guards

Debate between John Nicolson and Jeremy Quin

Monday 11th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing this important debate. It is clear that none of us likes the idea of a bear being killed to make a hat. Some of us think it is unforgivably cruel and inexcusable. Others think that while it may be unpleasant, it is justified by tradition. It was previously impossible to reconcile those two positions, but no longer.

We are told by Ministers that the bear hunt is not the purpose of the activity. It is not like foxhunting, where red coats, an exhausted fox and blood are—apparently—part of the fun. The hunting of bears serves only one purpose: to procure fur for a hat that, it is argued, looks good and honours a tradition going back centuries. Therefore, if a product involving no death can be found that is in every way as handsome and durable as that obtained from a living creature killed for the purpose, surely we can all agree that that is the ideal outcome. Why do we seem to be making so little progress moving from bearskins to cruelty-free synthetic alternatives? In April this year, I hosted a reception in Westminster, in conjunction with the charity PETA, to raise awareness about the issue. I can confirm to the Minister that the hat he has asked several questions about was there. I got to hold it. I got to wear it. Others, I am sure, looked much better in it. However, it exists—so we can clear that up, immediately.

Importantly, on the day of the reception, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to all MPs attempting to justify the continued wearing by soldiers of hats made out of real fur. His defence of the practice had two principal grounds. First, that synthetic alternatives still failed the Ministry of Defence’s quality control, which living bears sadly pass. Secondly, bears are not wantonly killed for the purpose of making caps; the bears would be killed anyway as part of a regulated licensed cull by the Canadian authorities to manage the wild bear population.

Those two claims should not be hard for the MOD to prove. Nonetheless, it took a freedom of information request to extract some answers. PETA, the animal rights charity, asked whether the hunts killed bears to order for the MOD. In other words, if a certain number of hats are required, would a certain number of bears be killed to make them? We can see why that matters; if it is about managing the bear population, the number killed would not be based on the number of hats needed. The MOD’s answer was,

“No information in scope of this element of your request is held by the department.”

That sounds like a computer writing.

There is no basis for the Secretary of State to assert that the bears would be killed anyway. He does not know.

[Jeremy Quin]

I want to try and help the hon. Gentleman on that point. The last research I have seen was from 2007, which was by H. Hristienko, and J. E. McDonald, who estimated the Canadian black bear population to be around 434,400. I understand that a report from 2017, not by the Ministry of Defence but by the Canadian Government, said that there was 5% to 6% human-induced mortality among black bears, including car and train crashes involving bears. The hon. Gentleman can do the maths; in the last financial year we bought 31 bearskins. I totally appreciate that there is a point of principle here, and I am sure that is the point that the hon. Gentleman is driving at. However, I do not think the numbers would suggest there is an appreciable impact on bear numbers—killed through licensed culls—because of orders from the Ministry of Defence. I fully appreciate that it is a matter of principle—which I respect.

[John Nicolson]

It is a matter of principle. It is not about the number of bears killed, but the principle. It would not be a difficult question for the MOD to answer, but the MOD chose not to answer. It said that it could not answer because it did not have the information. Perhaps the Minister could update the MOD on that.

It is clear that there is no basis for the Secretary of State to assert that the bears would be killed anyway. He does not know. It may well be that the bears are only killed because he orders a certain number of hats—whatever that number is. In fact, that seems highly likely. In truth there is not, and never has been, any evidence of a widespread licensed cull authorised by the Canadian authorities. It just sounds better, when MPs and campaigners ask awkward questions—as we are doing today.

To address the Minister’s point, the evidence is that most bears in Canada are killed by trophy hunters who know there is a market for the skins. Canadian Government culls are infrequent and only authorised to kill the small number of bears straying too close to human habitation. The MOD has no idea about the provenance of the dead bears it buys. The evidence, again, is that they are often nursing mothers. When they are killed to make a hat, their cubs starve to death.

That deals with one MOD claim—it does not stand up. Let us turn to the other claim made by the Defence Secretary in his letter to MPs. Hon. Members will remember that that was about the look, quality and durability of faux fur alternatives to a living bear’s skin. PETA has commissioned an alternative faux fur product called ECOPEL. It has been tested to rigorous standards, and it lasts longer than real animal fur, which has a short post-mortem lifespan. That is why we have to keep killing bears. One generation of soldiers cannot pass on caps made from real bearskin to the next generation. Real bearskins fall apart. By contrast, faux fur does not wilt or decay—it lasts longer. It looks indistinguishable from real fur: I can attest to that. My partner has been abused in public by animal rights activists—hooligans, no doubt—for wearing what they thought was real animal fur. It was not; it was faux fur.

Faux fur is more water resistant. It would also, as we have heard, be free to the public purse. ECOPEL say it will provide custom-made hats to the MOD for a decade without cost. Those hats now exist—I have seen them. I would advocate that the Minister has a look. I would have thought that this all sounds good, but apparently not for the Defence Secretary. He said the faux fur did not meet necessary standards. What are those standards? How do we test them? I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that the Minister shares the analysis: he did not do so. If the MOD shared the specific detailed requirements that ECOPEL needs to address, it and PETA would undertake to meet them. There is some agreement on that point—we could move forward.

This is the first of two animal welfare debates today. The second is a debate looking at the violent whaling and dolphin killing in the Faroe Islands. Both debates come at a point of friction between tradition and animal welfare, but for traditions to be transferred from generation to generation, they must evolve and adapt. We cannot defend cruelty on the basis of tradition, otherwise we would still be bear-baiting. Come to think of it, we may still be. My constituents in Ochil and South Perthshire and the country at large care passionately about animal rights, as I know from the correspondence I have received. People find it jarring to see soldiers wearing hats made out of dead bears when a viable, affordable and ethical alternative is available. They have pressed me to get answers today, and they are watching. Of course, it may well be that we are all shadow boxing. The Secretary of State and the MOD may well have no intention of ever replacing real fur with a cruelty-free alternative. They may not care how the bears are killed or whether faux fur is as good as, or better, than real fur as a product. However, that is not what they say, so will they please say what they mean and mean what they say?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

Absolutely. As I said at the outset, we are not wedded to the material used but we are wedded to this iconic symbol of the British Army. If there is an alternative that works, it will be taken seriously. Affordability, sustainability and other criteria are important, but whether the other material works is key.

[John Nicolson]

It sounds as if we are making progress, which is a rarity in such debates and quite exciting. Will the Minister give us a pathway and agree to a meeting, so that the manufacturers can turn up, provide the hats and agree to a timetable for them to be analysed? If they pass, that will be great and we will all be happy; if they fail, will the Minister provide the manufacturers with a breakdown of how they have failed so that they can address the problems and we can make progress?

[Jeremy Quin]

I can perhaps help the hon. Gentleman by explaining the pathway that we have already trodden, right up until today, and we can see where we can go from there.