Black History Month

Debate between Richard Graham and Bob Seely

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Black History Month originated in the United States, where it is also known as African-American History Month, and it was created to remember important people and events in the history of the African diaspora. In the mid-1980s, Ansel Wong led an initiative here, which eventually resulted in Black History Month in the United Kingdom.

It is important not to miss the real point of this debate. I would like to argue what Black History Month should be and maybe what it should not be. This is not about appeasement to ethnic minorities, because it is an important part of British history and an important part of history for all of us in this country. It sits alongside other histories—social histories, military histories, post-war histories, and the histories of peoples as well, such as the modern experience of Sikhs, British Jewry and Muslims in this country. As for the Isle of Wight, our African and black history goes back to the Roman empire. We had people from north Africa and people from Italy on the island because we were an early point of habitation by the Roman empire when it was in this country.

I do feel that Black History Month is getting caught up in other issues and unnecessarily politicised, because it is a fascinating subject in its own right. It is not about silly slogans about decolonisation. It is not about the tedious debate about woke activism or the cancel culture eloquently described by my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). Nor is it solely about the drumbeat of slavery, although that is an important moral, economic and political issue.

On that point, until the UK abolished it, and however depressing it may be, slavery was a consistent norm in human experience. Our state, at the height of its power two centuries ago, used that power for an absolute moral good—manumission and the destruction of the international slave trade off west Africa. The West Africa Squadron, which used a considerable amount of the Royal Navy’s resources at the time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) eloquently pointed out, was a unique vehicle in history. As part of the most powerful military institution of that era, the Royal Navy was used for an absolute moral good: the destruction of slavery.

Yes, our history is complex. At the time of destroying slavery, we were also accumulating an empire, so it is easy to make accusations of hypocrisy, but rather than standing here like some agitprop student politician, I would rather understand the past and the complex worlds that people living before us inhabited, because it can help guide our way, frankly, to a better future.

[Richard Graham]

On that point, my hon. Friend may be interested that we have only one major statue of a slaver in Gloucester. It happens to be the Emperor Nerva of the Roman empire, who did indeed take slaves from the UK back to Italy. We have not done anything to daub him at all.

[Bob Seely]

I wonder whether some constituents from a couple of millennia ago were part of that trade—I hope not.

As a Trinidadian friend tells me, we do not help one group of people by pulling down others. Black history is fundamentally about so much more, whether it is the story of peoples such as the Windrush generation—I pay tribute to the extraordinary courage that people needed to get on that boat to come here from the Caribbean after world war two; it was an extraordinary thing—or individuals such as Mary Seacole, who was turned down by the War Office when she wanted to go and help British soldiers in Crimea. She got funding herself and went. Leading aircraftwoman Lilian Bader was the first black woman to join the armed forces in world war two. She ended up as a corporal. Joan Armatrading was the first ever UK artist to be nominated for a Grammy in the blues category. The first black peer was Lord Constantine. Trevor McDonald is incredibly well known. On the Isle of Wight, our modern cultural history will, I am sure, heavily feature Derek Sandy’s classic reggae “Welcome to the Isle of Wight”.

There is much to debate about genuine Black History Month, as opposed to politicised statements around race. On one side of the Chamber, I think we have had a rather negative view of our history, of humanity and of a world divided into oppressors and victims. On the Conservative Benches, I think we have had a rather more optimistic view of human nature. While humanity is not perfect, there is much to celebrate. I am very proud of this country, and I am proud of our record. Life is not perfect and nor are we, but the way we make that better is to understand the world, and I hope that is what Black History Month will help us do.

Global Britain

Debate between Richard Graham and Bob Seely

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Member makes a good point. As a former consul and diplomat, it is hard for me to argue against additional resources for the Foreign Office. I would say that the figures she mentions I think relate to a reduction in the numbers of British diplomats deployed overseas, but during that time there has also been a considerable growth in the numbers of locally employed members of high commissions and embassies. There is a balance there, and local knowledge is incredibly useful as well. She is right, however, and I did say earlier that I hope the Budget will see a boost for all Departments that can deliver global Britain.

It is not just as the United Kingdom that we have an overall aggregate global role. If we look at every constituency in the country, there are huge links between our businesses, or indeed our hospitals, and overseas organisations. In my constituency of Gloucester alone, we export to China alone valves for the oil and gas sector, the cylinders that go into every Dyson vacuum cleaner, marine engines and the landing gear for every Airbus—and we export tea to China. That story of engagement is replicated across the towns and cities of the entire United Kingdom.

[Bob Seely]

I want to make a point about pay and conditions. We produced a “Global Britain” study last year, and one of the things that surprised me is that ambassadors do not always have line management of all staff in embassies, so if people are from DFID or the MOD, it is more difficult for them to fall under a cohesive and integrated approach to management. People were also on different salaries for doing the same job, very often to the detriment of the Foreign Office. It would be very good if, in the foreign and defence review, these things were ironed out, because it would be an encouragement to folks in the Foreign Office and actually valuable for them.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. All I would say at this point is that the most important thing for us overseas is to have one HMG—one presence of Her Majesty’s Government’s representatives—and the boss should always be the ambassador or the high commissioner, regardless of which home Departments individuals in that embassy or high commission originally came from.

That is part of the projection of our values, and our role in and our contribution to the world, which we do need to look at as we move forward: very much part of Europe, but no longer a member of the European Union; very much part of the international rules-based order, which we played such a large part in establishing; and an outward-looking, independent nation—working in partnership with many others and many organisations, but making our own decisions in the best interests of the United Kingdom and in line with our values. Contrary to what one or two Opposition Members said earlier, those actually are valuable and are precious to the world. Those of us who have been a Prime Minister’s trade envoy will have experienced that across the world.

That means working closely with our neighbours, especially on security issues and European borders, and constraining Russian expansionism. That is our traditional role in maintaining the balance of power on our continent. It also means taking different views where we need to, and the same will be true of our relationship with today’s superpowers, the United States and China. We will be making decisions, whether on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, 5G telecoms, or free trade agreements, that are right for the United Kingdom.

For the past few years, the Labour party has appeared to be against business, international trade, defence and security, and against so many countries who are close allies. It has never spoken up for the global opportunities, and largely sees only corruption and villains. Unlike that, we believe in the huge opportunities and benefits to this nation from manufacturing as well as services, and from apprentices in both. We believe in creativity, and in opportunities to export our education, satellites and pharmaceuticals. That, I believe, is the opportunity that lies ahead.

We will need some changes to help bring that alive, so perhaps I can make a few recommendations to which the Minister can respond. We need a Foreign Secretary who has overall responsibility for £12 billion of development, as well as for diplomacy. We need the Departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and for International Trade to work more closely together, and with MPs, to hold “Global Britain” exporting seminars in every constituency across the land. We must focus on attracting key foreign technology investors and capital, and I welcome the Government’s decision on visas for scientists. We must continue to lead in aerospace and digital businesses, and I welcome the commitment to working with our Five Eyes partners on telecoms alternative technologies.

Above all—you would expect me to say this, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must look more closely at what we can do with Asia, and at opportunities for closer engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the possibility of acceding to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the opportunities for working more closely with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, our Commonwealth partners, on defence, training and preparations. We must help nations with their cyber and finance requirements, and create huge numbers of jobs in those nations through our own expertise. One British insurer alone has 275,000 agents working in Indonesia. Those are franchises and independent, small Indonesian businesses. Those are the opportunities for us. We can take them forward and be a great power for good. We can make global Britain a real strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

Let me be fair to this Government. They have not been in power for long and we have had 15 years of Huawei effectively coming into our country by subterfuge. I think there is a role for foreign lobbying, but it is doing damage and we need a foreign lobbying Act, which I hope to work on. To be fair to this and the previous Government, their telecoms review at least tries to bring order to something that has been driven by a price-dumping strategy. I will come on to that later. I want to make progress so that I do not talk for any more than another five minutes.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend poses a bigger-picture question about the role of democracy in today’s world and the threat from authoritarian regimes. Does he agree with me—I should declare an interest as chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—that we need to create a democracy fund that spends more money and uses our influence more effectively in encouraging and helping nations that, like us, have difficulties in making sure that democracy is working as well as it possibly can?

[Bob Seely]

That is an excellent idea, because we are a values leader in this world. I do not at all negate the role of soft power; I just think we need to get the integration of hard and soft power right.

I will crack on. I would like to know from the Government what our network architecture is likely to look like. How can we think about how edge and core functions will work in our 5G in five or 10 years’ time? Moreover, if we were red-teaming this, we would need to ask how non-trusted, high-risk vendors could manipulate future network design. If there is a realistic chance of them being able to do so, that would be potentially damaging.

We have been told that a non-spy agreement with China is feasible. It is not. Huawei has offered one. Article 7 of China’s national intelligence law states:

“All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law”.

That is pretty cut and dried. How will this Government guarantee the security of networks when non-British passport holders have access to them, given the nature of the Chinese state and Chinese law? This is not about being anti-Chinese; it is about questioning the role of the Chinese Communist party and the one-party state.

I question the claim that the security services are happy, and not only because Sir Richard Dearlove wrote the foreword to our report on Huawei a few months ago. I think there are ways of phrasing things to get the answers one wants from the security services. Much as I respect the National Cyber Security Centre, I am concerned about some of the advice it is giving, only because I hear very impressive people in different positions saying different things and I do not believe it is possible to give certainty for five and 10 years ahead. By building a 5G network now, we are effectively committing to allowing the Chinese state to introduce 6G and 7G in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time.

We are told that this enables market provision. It does not. Huawei came to power by, in effect, stealing the intellectual property of Nortel, a Canadian company, leading to its collapse. Considerable allegations have been made. In future weeks we might hear more—who knows?—about the nature of the deals that Huawei strikes with western telcos and about accusations of price dumping and other things. More generally, Huawei is funded by the China Development Bank, to the tune of $10 billion in loans and a further $100 billion in credit lines, which means that it can simply undercut any commercial fair price offered by a western telco. That puts permanent pressure on Samsung, Fujitsu, Nokia and Ericsson.

About 10 years ago, Huawei had 5% of the market. Now, China collectively has about 40% of the market. On the current trajectory, in 10 or 20 years’ time there will be no market apart from that dominated by ZTE and Huawei, and Nokia and Ericsson will go the same way as companies such as Nortel, about which we no longer hear. That is cause for concern. It is simply a myth that this enables market provision. Indeed, it limits it.

We are told that there are no alternatives, but yes, there are. There would be short-term delays and additional cost—there is no question about that—but this is a question of balance. I look forward to having a grown-up discussion when the Bill comes before the House.

I will not dwell on the human rights argument—I want to be respectful of people’s time—apart from saying that there have been allegations from ASPI and others that Huawei has worked on the oppressive surveillance kit in Xinjiang province.

Next, it is claimed that the quality of Huawei’s work is high. Well, the Huawei Cell says that the coding is sloppy. Indeed, Infinite State, a tech company based in the United States, found sloppiness in Huawei’s source code after analysing 1.5 million files, but also said that on multiple occasions Huawei coders had disguised unsafe functions, and that too concerns me.

In general, I question the reassurances that we have been given. What positive action can we take? If I were suggesting stuff to a Government whom I strongly support, what would I say? First, we need public debate. Australia had nearly a year of public debate about this, because it raises significant issues such as data privacy, human rights and our attitude to human rights abusers abroad, and whether the Magnitsky Act could apply to Huawei if it is used to supply oppressive equipment in other parts of the world.

There are significant practical, economic and moral implications that have simply not been discussed. We have been getting it wrong for about 15 years, and our answer is “We have got it wrong, so let us just brush it under the carpet.” Huawei is hiring the great and good for its board, and a former senior Government information officer is oiling Whitehall to make it safe for Huawei. All those points raise significant ethical, political and economic questions.

We could try separating Huawei in the same way that BAE Systems in the United States is an entirely different company from BAE Systems here. We have not done that. Why not? A public inquiry into how we have messed this up so badly might also be a good idea. My preferred option, however—and I would love the Government to consider it—is an international conference to agree trusted vendor status for the free states of the world, the liberal democracies, so that they could have trust in the future building of a critical national infrastructure. Machine-to-machine communication through 5G will revolutionise and become the core of our communication society.

Finally, we need a foreign lobbying Act. We know that Huawei’s lobbying operation in this country is very well funded and very extensive, but apart from that we know little about it. I think that, for the purpose of good government and, indeed, leaving the European Union—I keep reminding myself that we are doing that tomorrow, which is wonderful—we need more transparency, not less, and we need more accountability, not less. That is one of the reasons why I chose to vote to leave the European Union.