Procurement Bill [Lords]

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I will not give way at this stage. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the offer, but I think I should be making a little more progress.

In delivering value for money, the Bill will require procurement teams to take account of national priorities, as set out in a new national procurement policy statement. These are national priorities such as improving supply chain resilience, enhancing skills, driving innovation and, of course, protecting the environment. Procurers will be able to give greater weight to bids that support such priorities. I know that in the other place there is a strong desire to pursue particular interests and include a range of policies in the Bill. The Government instead believe that that is a purpose of the NPPS. We want to keep this legislation as clear and simple as possible; the intention is that we allow procurement to keep pace with evolving policy priorities and we do not swamp contractors and SMEs in paperwork.

The Bill will accelerate spending with small businesses. New duties will require contracting authorities to have regard to SME participation. Public sector buyers will have to look at how they can remove bureaucratic barriers and level the playing field for smaller businesses. Commercial frameworks will be made more flexible, with the new concept of an open framework, which will allow for longer-term frameworks that are reopened at set points, so that small and emergent businesses are not shut out for long periods. These measures build on existing policy, which allows procurers to reserve competitions for contracts below the thresholds for SMEs and social enterprises based in the UK, taking full advantage of the new freedoms following our exit from the EU.

We are determined to improve the prompt payment of small businesses in our supply chains. As I have mentioned, 30-day payment terms will apply contractually throughout the public sector supply chains and be implied into the contract, even when not specifically set out. The Bill provides for new improved procedures for the award of public contracts, supported by greater flexibility. Buyers will be able to design procurement processes that are fit for purpose and will create more opportunities to negotiate with suppliers so that the public sector can work in partnership with the private.

We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On partnership between the public and private sectors, the steel industry is a crucial aspect of that. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be looking to set indicative targets for the amount of domestically produced steel that we are putting into Government-funded projects? That would enable us as a country to make, buy and sell more in this country, which should surely be a strategic objective of the Bill.

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman treads a well-trodden path. Through steel procurement, we are always keen to set out the pipeline and provide every assistance we can to the domestic steel industry. However, as he knows, there are also international obligations, of which we are mindful and I know he will also be mindful, in respect of how we conduct our public procurement. I am not certain whether what he suggests would be consistent with the Government procurement agreement. [Interruption.] On pipelines, we are doing everything we can to help the domestic steel industry see the opportunities ahead of it and engage with public procurement. This is something we definitely and warmly appreciate.

We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers or those who present risks through misconduct. The Bill puts in place a new exclusions framework that will make it easier to exclude suppliers that have underperformed on other contracts. Through the Bill, I am pleased to say that we are targeting those who benefit from the appalling practice of modern slavery and, in doing so, undermine our own industrial resilience. The Bill makes explicit provision to disregard bids from suppliers known to have used forced labour or to perpetuate modern slavery in their supply chain. Contracting authorities will now be able to exclude suppliers where there is appropriate evidence of wrongdoing, whether in the UK or overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate today on behalf of the Opposition. I pay tribute to the work that has already gone into the Bill in the other place. I know that constructive discussions led to positive amendments, and I hope that they will be accepted and improved as the Bill goes through this House. I was a little pessimistic about that following the Minister’s opening comments, but I hope that we can work constructively with what the other place has recommended. As the Minister says, the Bill is an extremely complicated and large piece of legislation, so I hope that we can do that.

We on the Labour Benches recognise the need for a procurement Bill to consolidate the patchwork of former EU rules and to bring the spaghetti of procurement regulations into one place—a single regime. The Procurement Bill is an opportunity to create a coherent rulebook, with one driving aim: to get value for every single penny of taxpayers’ money. We want to deliver better services that meet the demands of the British public and to unlock the world-leading innovation of the UK economy.

I thank all my hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House who are here today. When most people hear the word “procurement”, they switch off, but I cannot get enough of it. It is absolutely critical to our economy and to our future national prosperity. It accounts for a third of all public spending—more than the NHS budget and double the education budget. When harnessed for good, the power of procurement can drive up standards, pump money back into the pockets of local communities and businesses, create jobs and skills in our towns and cities, and hand wealth back to the people who built Britain.

I fear that the Bill we have been presented with today could miss those opportunities; that the ambition of the proposals before us will not meet the moment, and will not provide answers to the challenges that we face or learn from the mistakes of the past. As it stands, the Bill is a sticking-plaster solution, allowing taxpayers’ money to line the pockets of the well-connected, those with the deepest pockets and the abundance of experts who know how to navigate the system. I want Britain to lead the world on procurement by driving every penny of taxpayers’ money into our local communities, promoting British businesses up and down the country.

There are, of course, some aspects of the Bill that we welcome—in particular the focus on reducing the burdens currently faced by small businesses. SMEs are the backbone of our economy and the current system just is not working for them. Reform is urgently needed. The British Chamber of Commerce found that SMEs are now receiving a smaller relative amount of direct Government procurement spending than they were five years ago. Small businesses across the country are being choked out of the bidding processes, which are complicated and time-consuming. SMEs are competing for contracts against big corporations that have more form-fillers than the SMEs have workers. I welcome the positive steps taken in this Bill, especially as this Government have repeatedly failed to reach their target for SMEs to benefit from 33% of procurement spend.

That being said, there is not enough in this legislation dealing with late payments for SMEs—a practice that, in the current economic crisis, is killing off too many small enterprises in this country. The Minister talks about the trickle-down effect of 30 days, but I do not believe that will work in this instance. I hope he will address that gap in his closing remarks and engage with us in the Committee to improve the Bill in that regard.

I welcome the changes made in the other place to include social value in the national procurement policy statement, but I was disappointed by the scant mention of social value in the original version of the Bill and in the Minister’s opening comments today. Social value is a tool that makes it easier to give money to local British enterprises creating jobs, skills and green opportunities in their communities. It rewards providers who want to build a better society and contribute to our nation’s prosperity in the long term.

This Bill is an opportunity to make, buy and sell more in Britain. It is a chance to give more public contracts to British companies, big and small, so that contracts do not always automatically go offshore, to the giant corporations with the lowest prices, but to businesses creating local jobs, skills and training, maintaining workers’ rights and trade union access. That is what is important and what the social value elements of this Bill need to promote.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Returning to the issue of the three fleet solid support vessels, the MOD contract was awarded to a Spanish-led consortium. That in itself was a deeply disappointing decision, but what is even worse is that the Government are not insisting on legally enforceable guarantees from Navantia, the Spanish company that leads the consortium, that the ships will be built with British steel. Does she agree that it is outrageous that we have three key vessels being built without British steel?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, using public money to make, buy and sell more in Britain can also be achieved through our defence spending and by spending on steel and vital infrastructure in the UK. As the party of working people and trade unions, we in Labour know that, when done well, defence procurement strengthens our UK economy and our UK sovereignty, but this Bill fails to direct British defence investment first to British business, with no higher bar set for any decision to buy abroad.

Labour wants to see our equipment designed and built here. That means our national assets, such as the steel industry, our shipyards and our aerospace. That is fundamental for Labour, and we will amend the legislation to secure it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, made it clear that that is a priority for Labour, when he announced at our conference in September that Labour in government would build the navy’s new support ships in Britain.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned, the Conservatives announced that the £1.6 billion fleet solid support ship contract would be awarded to Spanish shipbuilders, meaning at least 40% of the value of the work will go abroad. Ministers have confirmed that there is no limit on how many jobs will be created in Spain and that there are no targets for UK steel in the contract. That is frankly a disgrace and a wasted opportunity, when the use of procurement could have been a force for strengthening our UK economy and our security at the same time.

I hope the Minister is listening and will openly work constructively with me to amend the Bill and ensure that British defence investment is directed first to British industry, as well as carrying out a review of the contract for fleet solid support ships.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Lady spoke for so many people in the House when she talked through that specific heart-rending example. Given the circumstances she refers to, it is no wonder that Sir Robert and Sir Brian have made clear their view on the moral case. I absolutely recognise what she would like me to do, which is to present a timetable. I will do my utmost in the new year to set out the steps we will be taking. I do not want to commit to anything we are not going to meet, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that. She recognises the complexity, but I want to reassure people that the work is under way to ensure that we are ready for the Langstaff report.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My constituent David Farrugia is part of what is called the fatherless generation. The scandal and the length of time it has taken to address these issues have had a profound effect on his mental health, as I am sure the Minister can imagine. Does he agree there is a clear and compelling moral case for compensation for the children of victims, which they are not currently eligible for? If he agrees that there is a clear and compelling moral case, can he set out when the compensation will be forthcoming?

[Jeremy Quin]

The moral case for compensation for children was specifically referred to by Sir Robert and Sir Brian. The interim compensation payments were arranged in the way recommended by Sir Brian—we accepted that recommendation in full. They were, among other things, to be as swift as possible—that defined the terms of those payments, but that does not mean that children are being ignored in this process. The moral case was set out in the report, and we as a Government accepted a moral case for compensation to be paid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is fantastic that my hon. Friend is engaging with his younger constituents at Boothroyd Academy on such an important issue, and I know that they will welcome his commitment to supporting them. I agree that there are various things that we can do. There is an updated highway code that strengthens pedestrian access; local authorities can introduce lower speed limits; and we are increasing the number of school streets, which restrict motorised traffic at busy times. I look forward to hearing from him about progress on that issue.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Q7. Yesterday, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he wanted to restore trust, yet in the past 24 hours, we have seen that he is prepared shamelessly to swap red boxes for political support. There are serious consequences to all this horse-trading, so I would like him to be clear on this point: did he seek or receive any advice on security concerns about the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson) before his appointment to the Government yesterday, given that the right hon. Member was sacked in 2019 for leaking sensitive information relating to our national security?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is talking about events that happened four years ago. He is right to raise the topic of national security, because four years ago Opposition Members were busy supporting the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who wanted to abolish the nuclear deterrent, leave NATO and scrap our armed forces. We will not take any lectures on national security.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I rise today on behalf of the people of Aberavon to pay tribute to our late Queen and to send my deepest sympathy and condolences to the royal family at this time of loss and grief.

The Queen will always be remembered by our nation and by the world as the epitome of loyalty, humility and grace. She always put service to her country above all else, and we shall never forget her duty-first, no-nonsense approach to everything that she did. Her unique talent lay in her ability to connect with the nation and to reflect our thoughts, our hopes and our fears. She inspired affection and respect, and she was a source of comfort to us all.

The last seven decades have been times of seismic political, economic and social change, and throughout these turbulent years Her Majesty was a beacon of consistency and stability. She never failed to steady the ship. She was the personification of keeping calm and carrying on. Indeed, her leadership during the pandemic was testament to this. In echoing the immortal words made famous by Dame Vera Lynn, “We will meet again”, she evoked in her typically understated manner the stoic spirit and measured optimism that guided us through that period of crisis and hardship.

On behalf of my Aberavon constituents, I thank the Queen for all that she gave to our country and I convey my very best wishes to King Charles as he assumes his new responsibilities and begins writing the next chapter in our national story. Long live the King and long live the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, as we enter the third day of Committee on the Bill. As we do so, it is evident that instead of working to fix the genuine challenges that the protocol poses, the Government continue to push forward with a Bill that disregards the UK’s international legal obligations and threatens to throw Britain’s global reputation into disrepute, and which also—we shall discuss this today—gives them sweeping powers without restriction. Tearing up binding agreements, threatening to break international law and walking away from the table are not the composites of a good negotiating strategy; they are the hallmarks of a zombie Government, out of steam—a Government who have constantly put their own party squabbles and obsessions before the interests of the people of the UK, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.

Tragically, they also risk dividing the UK and the European Union when we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in opposing Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, and in finding ways to make Brexit work in a spirit of trust and co-operation. This is not how a responsible Government should behave, and many Members across the House know that. What we need is cool heads, statesmanlike behaviour and a search for long-term solutions.

On the Opposition Benches, we feel that the Bill is counterproductive, but that solutions are there if the Government are prepared to seek them. That requires compromise, hard work, and flexibility on all sides, including of course the EU, not knee-jerk reactions. I have listened to the very many genuine concerns that have been voiced about the functioning of the protocol. I have the pleasure of being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in addition to my shadow Front Bench role. I have listened to businesses. I have been in Dublin and Belfast. I have listened to people on all sides and have heard genuine concerns, including from those in the Unionist community.

For months, Labour has called on the Government to do the responsible thing—get back around the table to do what we have always done, and what any Government worth its salt would do, which is to negotiate, in the interests of finding workable, practical and technocratic solutions that command the consent and support of all communities in Northern Ireland, and have the means to bring back power sharing in a meaningful and lasting way. In that spirit, we have offered amendments to the Bill today in good faith, to begin to correct the issues that are manifest across this legislation—starting today with the Henry VIII clauses that we have heard about, and which the amendment that we have tabled in this group address.

As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out during Second Reading, 15 of the 26 clauses included in the Bill confer powers directly on UK Ministers. Those include the power to use secondary legislation to amend or modify Acts of Parliament—Acts that have been subject to the full scrutiny of this House. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law sets out, the Henry VIII powers given to Ministers in the Bill

“are numerous, extensive and subject to very low hurdles before those powers may be exercised.”

Indeed, Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad”. The Hansard Society, deeply respected on both sides of the House, describes them as “breath-taking”. And we should not just take their word for it. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), last week put it perfectly when he said,

“there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together.”

He went on to describe the Henry VIII powers as

“almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 370.]

Awarding Ministers these enormous powers is not a strategy, and the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is—a blatant power grab.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst identified one of the key problems with these powers when he explained that the test that Ministers must meet before using these powers is “extraordinarily low”. I agree. As the Bill currently stands, in many cases Ministers may use these powers merely if they consider it “appropriate” to do so. That is simply not good enough. Not only is that a woefully low threshold, but it lacks any kind of objectivity. We cannot have a situation where Ministers can make sweeping changes that are not necessarily in the interests of all communities of Northern Ireland, and without proper scrutiny and process; and those of us on the Opposition Benches are extremely concerned about what Ministers may deem appropriate in the future.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just one point to add. Does he agree that there is a certain irony in the fact that probably large numbers of the 52% who voted for Brexit voted to strengthen, solidify and consolidate parliamentary sovereignty, but these Henry VIII powers are strengthening the hand of Government and weakening the hand of Parliament? Does not that seem to run directly counter to what many people who voted for Brexit were voting for?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed the Bill not only takes powers away from this place, but takes on powers without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The winner of the current leadership contest will be the fourth Conservative Prime Minister since 2016. The Conservatives really have turned government into a game of musical chairs, to the point where the world’s oldest political party is not a credible or coherent organisation at all. It is a coalition of chaos led by a Prime Minister who embodies the vacuum of moral purpose at its heart.

They say that a fish rots from its head, but let us not forget that every single Conservative Member is complicit. They propped him up and defended the indefensible, so the entire fish is rotten. That is why it makes no difference who wins this leadership contest, and it is why a general election, and a fresh start with a Labour Government is the only viable option for our country.

We cannot in all good conscience allow this man, a man who put our national security at risk by holding clandestine meetings with a former KGB officer, to carry on squatting in Downing Street over the summer. This zombie Government are set to limp on in parallel with the frankly embarrassing leadership contest, which not even the candidates want to see played out in public. They are dodging scrutiny, and no wonder. They are offering hundreds of billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts, but nothing for the millions of families who will face a choice between eating and heating this autumn. There is not a word on boosting productivity or driving the modern manufacturing renaissance that our country so desperately needs, and no mention whatsoever of the Conservative party’s backlog Britain, with the Passport Office in meltdown, A&E queues off the scale, courts mired in delays and a broken asylum system costing the taxpayer £4.7 million a day.

Backlog Britain is not simply the result of the Government’s failure to plan for the end of lockdown. The multiple system failures we now see are the result of 12 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. Growth, investment and productivity have stagnated since 2010, and our public services have been hollowed out, leaving our country profoundly lacking in the resilience we needed to weather the covid storm. The Government’s failure to invest has impacted on our national finances, on workers’ pay packets and on our public services, and it has left our private sector vulnerable to major shocks such as the pandemic, the war and the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal.

We should be in no doubt that authoritarian states such as China and Russia have been waiting in the wings, ready to pounce and to exploit our overexposed and vulnerable assets and supply chains. Labour has a plan to make, buy and sell more in Britain. After 12 years of a stagnating Tory economy, low growth and broken promises, we need a fresh start, not just a change at the top.

Foreign Lobbying

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Seely]

That is a good question; I am not sure I can define it. It is possible to define the outcome, which is trying to influence events in an unethical, potentially illegal way, while not doing so overtly—for instance, by the Russian intelligence service, the GRU. It is apparently not illegal for someone to be a PR person for the GRU. If they were given secret documents, it would be illegal.

Do I think a definition of covert influence should just be somebody working for what they believe to be a foreign state intelligence agency? No, I think it is much broader than that. It would cover people such as Russian oligarchs and Chinese corporations. The issue is that, in a one-party state, it is difficult to make a distinction between state entities, and significant and powerful individuals, who are using covert, non-declared forms of influence to project either their own power, or their own and state power. That is the issue.

I used to hate definitions, and then I did a PhD and found that definitions are rather useful, because one has to decide what one is talking about. One thing I thought was slightly disappointing, though maybe understandable, occurred when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs looked at the National Security and Investment Bill. We put forward a suggestion for a definition of national security, which the Government did not want to include. A definition of some of these things would be highly valuable. I would certainly welcome attempts by the Government in that regard. In fact, I may do it myself, so I thank my hon. Friend for the question.

The Government said they would adopt a form of foreign agent registration, by looking at

“like-minded international partners’ legislation.”

The two most important, by some distance, are the Foreign Agents Registration Act process in the United States, and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act in Australia. FARA, in the US, came in in 1938 as a result of covert Nazi lobbying, and was very timely, three years before the US entry into the war. In 2018, the Australians adopted their own foreign influence transparency scheme, largely because of the role of Chinese covert influence in Australia. That has been well documented by the author Clive Hamilton, in his book “Silent Invasion”, which I recommend.

In the US alone, foreign agents spent nearly $1 billion a year over a three-year period influencing the US Government. In the US, it is big business, and I suggest it is also big business in the UK.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. On the point of how clearly to define lobbying and influence, I can briefly give an example. In 2019, I wrote to the then chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is now the Northern Ireland Secretary, raising concerns about a gentleman called Ehud Sheleg, who at the time was treasurer of the Conservative party. I raised concerns around national security and permissible donations, because of Mr Sheleg’s very close connections to Russia; his father-in-law was a pro-Kremlin politician in Ukraine at the time. The right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth chose to reply by threatening to sue me for libel. I would welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) regarding that response.

Last week, The New York Times revealed that Mr Sheleg had made a large donation to the Conservative party, which was connected to a gift he said he had received from his father-in-law that had bounced around five or six different bank accounts in Europe before landing in Mr Sheleg’s account. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that somebody like Mr Sheleg would meet the threshold for being registered as a foreign agent, even at the time that he was treasurer of the Conservative party?

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point. I am not sure I can argue the details of that because I do not know enough about the individual case. Simply put, if that individual is deemed to be an informal agent of influence, he should be on a registration process. But that is a big if—if he is deemed to be. The question is, who would deem it?

There is a wider question. Would any Government willingly put China as one of those states that are using covert influence? They absolutely should do, but perhaps several years ago they would not have done so, because any Government, including new Labour, would wish to curry favour with China.

On the wider point about questionable behaviour, there are a number of Members of the House of Lords whose behaviour has frankly been questionable, and that is, I am afraid, on both sides of the House. There is a very well known and senior former new Labour Minister who set himself up as a strategist in order to avoid, frankly, giving up almost any information at all on who his clients are. Considering that that person was also a senior EU Commissioner, he was one of the most powerful people in the land, and he was conducting, probably—I do not know, because we know so little about his business—very powerful, high-level and discreet lobbying, including for Russian clients. There is also a former Labour Attorney General who has taken time out of the House of Lords primarily to give legal advice, seemingly to Russian state or proxy interests.

Is that healthy? Should those people be in Parliament? No. There are, unfortunately, Conservative Ministers who have also behaved, frankly, shamefully, including people who have advised Deripaska. What on earth these individuals are doing and why on earth we allow any of them in Parliament I do not know. I do not say, “Everything we do is fine and everything you do is rubbish,” because that is pitiful and embarrassing. This is a political class problem, not an issue with one particular party. That is the only thing I would say on that. I should probably crack on and make some progress, Dame Angela.

In the UK, no FARA-like legislation exists. The closest thing we have to it is the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. Which was brought in by the coalition Government. It made some progress, but not enough. It brought in a mandatory register for written and oral questions to Ministers and permanent secretaries by so-called consultant lobbyists. That said, the definition of consultant lobbyists is very narrow. In addition, the Act does not differentiate between clients and those represented, or between foreign and domestic clients.

Thus, a UK entity—be it a peer, a PR company, a finance house or a law firm offering a one-stop shop to oligarchs and other companies—can act on behalf of a foreign entity without that foreign entity being registered. To my mind, that is highly questionable. We know that hostile states are engaged in covert and overt lobbying activities. Most recently, and slightly embarrassingly for the Member concerned, we found out that our secret agencies were discussing one particular case of a Chinese lady working for a Member of Parliament—we all know which one that is.

Cultivating legal and overt, but also questionable and illicit, relationships with serving and retired politicians, civil servants—we often overlook them, but they, not MPs, are the policy experts and policy wonks—academic institutions, think-tanks and regulatory bodies, and using power and influence through an enabling class of finance and legal firms, buys power. Most repugnantly and obviously, this has been practised through the use of lawfare: intimidating legal actions designed to silence those who have attempted to look into, for example, Putin’s oligarchs. There are people here who have spoken out very eloquently on that issue.

The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report highlighted the role of lobbying in the Kremlin’s subversive activities. We know from The Guardian’s leak of secret Russian documents that there was an attempt to influence the UK and US. We have had testimony from Bill Browder, talking about Russia indirectly employing public relations firms and helping Russian individuals to avoid EU sanctions. We have had the excellent book and work from Edward Lucas, who has argued much the same. We have also had this from the former Secret Intelligence Service agent Christopher Steele, who said that lobbyists are used to penetrate “British political and business life”.

None of this is ethical. We know about some of it not because we have good laws in this country to protect us, but because of the work of FARA—the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United States. The only reason that we found out about the extensive lobbying done by one Member of the House of Lords, Lord Barker, on behalf of Deripaska—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely welcome, as my hon. Friend does, the Government’s decision to stop the golden visas scheme. Does he not think it would be incredibly helpful for the Government to publish their review into the scheme, which Parliament has been waiting for for more than a year?

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am absolutely confident that the Minister will tell us later when it is going to be published, because the Home Secretary has repeatedly said, in answer to questions from me in the Chamber, that it will be published soon. “Soon” in ministerial language means pretty much anything the Minister feels like it means, but we are beginning to lose patience with the soon-ness, or the lack of soon-ness. The Minister is looking wry and quizzical, but I am sure she will help us out later.

I want to refer to one specific issue. On 8 March I wrote a letter to the Foreign Secretary following her appearance the previous day before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I published the letter on my Twitter feed. I wrote to her to address her allegation that I had obstructed the progress of sanctions legislation through Parliament. In the letter I quoted from various speeches made in Parliament, one of which included allegations made in 2018 against Mr Christopher Chandler. It was not my intention to repeat those allegations, which I accept have subsequently been disproved. I am happy to set the record straight today in Parliament and regret any distress caused to Mr Chandler.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this timely debate, ahead of future debates on the National Security Bill. There is much in his remarks that I and my colleagues would agree with. I absolutely share his concern at the insidious and growing influence of hostile state actors on these shores and in these very corridors, here in Westminster.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who pointed out that we must be alert to pernicious lobbying from countries, but that not all lobbying is suspect, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also said. Much lobbying is necessary. Experts really do help us to understand the issues that we are making decisions on and can bring together constituents from across the country to tell us their views. I used to work for Christian Aid and WaterAid and was involved in coming to talk to Members of Parliament. What we need is an open and transparent system that we can trust and that does not give hostile actors undue influence or allow them to undermine that system. As my hon. Friend said, this debate should be enlarged to include not just Parliament but law courts, broadcasters, social media and all-party parliamentary groups.

We have heard myriad examples today from colleagues of how deeply foreign states have penetrated British political life and our economy. I am sure there are far more that we do not know about, which is really what much of this debate is about. From public relations firms employed by Russia to help individuals to avoid EU sanctions, to lobbyists who advocate for Kremlin-connected Russian clients and a whole host of pinstripe-clad enablers of states with interests and values counter to our own, foreign interference is a multibillion-dollar industry.

A particularly disturbing sector of this industry is lawfare, as Members have pointed out. Our courtrooms are not battlefields to be used to silence and destroy activists, journalists and politicians who are brave enough to shine a light on the places that foreign actors do not want anyone to see—or they should not be. The UK is becoming the global capital of the lawfare industry. According to a survey of 63 journalists in 41 countries, more cases were brought against journalists in the UK than in America and Europe combined. I hope that the Minister will address that later.

We also need to have a conversation about all-party parliamentary groups. Questions must be asked about their regulation and reform, and whether they are acting as conduits for improper access by lobbyists and hostile foreign states. Again, APPGs are useful; indeed, they are a really valuable part of our parliamentary system. However, we need to make sure that they are open, transparent and not being used by malign actors, in order for the system to be maintained and not brought into disrepute; otherwise, down the line, we may face having to stop this way of parliamentarians meeting to discuss important issues.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has put forward a number of practical proposals, some of which Labour has already supported or proposed. For instance, Labour would expand the scope of the statutory register of lobbyists to cover those who commercially lobby Government as well as consultant lobbyists, who are also known as in-house lobbyists. I agree that more definition is needed, because of the continuum that the hon. Gentleman talked about. We should not just give up on having a register because we cannot define things; we need definition, a register, and then for that register to be used.

In the hon. Gentleman’s report on foreign interference, which I have read, he rightly called for new legislation to curtail the influence of lobbyists during election times. That is quite right, which is why the Opposition have called for it too. I was on the Elections Bill Committee last year, and the shadow Front Benchers tabled a new clause that would have required the Government to consider measures to address foreign interference in elections, including the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism taking the policy lead for protecting democracy and the operational role being given to MI5. Labour also proposed measures to stop overseas electors from being able to donate to political parties here in the UK, noting the concerns of the Russia report about the influence of foreign money in our politics.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that it seems that there is a loophole, because the National Crime Agency and the Electoral Commission both say that they will not look into the real source of financial donations to political parties? They say that it is permissible if a donation has come from a British citizen or somebody who is on the electoral roll, and then they do not look into where the money may actually have come from. If a British citizen has received a large sum of money from someone who is not on the British electoral roll, the agencies do not look into the source of that money. What would my hon. Friend say needs to happen to close that loophole, which seems to be a massive gaping hole in our defences?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that more needs to be done about that clear loophole. The register that we are talking about needs to apply not only to Members once they are elected but to the time before elections, or that issue needs to be addressed with a separate register. It must be very clear where the money comes from. Too often, in the whole of this system, UK entities can be used as a cover for foreign entities. That is the problem we have now and it is not being addressed. I hope that the National Security Bill will address it; if it does not, it will not be addressing our national security issues.

For two years now, Labour has been calling consistently for the Government to implement in full the recommendations of the Russia report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was published in July 2020. However, those recommendations remain unimplemented.

Malign Russian money cannot continue to pollute our economy, our politics and our democratic institutions. However, I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I am afraid that his own Government’s record in this area suggests that they do not share our concerns. His party has accepted millions of pounds in donations from Russian-linked money in recent years.

Take Ehud Sheleg, for example, who has been mentioned already. He is a wealthy London art dealer whose most recent position was as the Conservative party’s treasurer. In February 2018, Mr Sheleg donated $630,000 to the Conservative party. The money was part of a fundraising blitz that helped to propel the Prime Minister to victory in 2019. However, Barclays bank has established that the money originated in a Russian account of Mr Sheleg’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov, who was once a senior politician in a previous pro-Kremlin Government in Ukraine. Again, it is a question of where the money comes from, which involves looking behind the initial donors.

There is the case of financier Lubov Chernukhin. Ms Chernukhin has donated £700,000 to the Conservative party, and in March, the Electoral Commission confirmed that the party had accepted another £80,000 from her. Chernukhin is the wife of a former Russian deputy Finance Minister under Vladimir Putin. She has now donated almost £2 million to the Conservatives, almost £800,000 of that during the Prime Minister’s leadership. The Prime Minister himself—I notified him that he would be mentioned—once played a game of tennis with the wife of a Russian former Minister in exchange for a $270,000 donation.

Successive Conservative Governments have promised for years to clamp down on foreign lobbying and dirty money. We have to ask why it has taken so long to do that. Is it connected to those donations? The Conservatives’ own politics has kept tripping them up.

The Conservative party does not have a monopoly of such connections, but Labour does share the concern so excellently articulated by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who introduced the debate, and does take foreign lobbying seriously, as shown by the amendments we tabled to the Elections Bill, which were voted down.

Labour would expand the scope of a statutory register of lobbyists. We would also establish an integrity and ethics commission. That would replace the current failing system and have power to influence the content of the ministerial code, initiate investigations of possible breaches of the code, and impose a range of binding sanctions. We would also ban people from lobbying for five years after leaving public office, and give the commission power to issue penalties for breaking the business appointment rules.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is right that foreign lobbying is a problem that must be addressed. The gap in legislation regulating foreign lobbying is threatening the UK’s national interest and its national security. The Conservative Government have paused, delayed and dithered, but now they must take action. I hope to hear from the Minister what that action will be.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In that case, I humbly remind the hon. Gentleman of the apology I have given.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s case for his defence seems to be based on it being impossible for him to resign because of the Ukraine war, but his entire parliamentary party, from where his replacement would be drawn, is united around the Government position on Ukraine, and of course there are numerous examples of Conservative Members of Parliament moving against leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher in 1990 and Chamberlain in 1940, so will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he specifically and individually has to carry on as Prime Minister at this time? Surely it is not because he thinks that this House trusts him to do so.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman asks an elaborate question; let me give a simple answer: I have apologised and continue to apologise, and what I want to do is get on with the job.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

If I may, I will just finish this thought.

Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

[Michael Ellis]

No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The United Kingdom has long been a defender of freedom, democracy and human rights, and our country has proudly stood firm against crime and corruption at every opportunity. It is, therefore, frankly astonishing that, at a time when Vladimir Putin is committing war crimes in Europe, a UK Government Minister has been dragged to the Dispatch Box to defend his own Prime Minister’s murky and deep links to Russian oligarchs.

It tells us all we need to know about this Government that, in his previous role as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister chose to party with the family of an ex-KGB agent, just weeks after the attempted assassination of British citizens by Russian state agents on our own soil.

It is utterly outrageous that the Prime Minister would nominate to the House of Lords someone who has promoted some of the very worst conspiracy theories in defence of the Putin regime. We are used to the Prime Minister putting his own interests before the interests of the British people, but on this occasion he has gone further by putting his personal friendship with the son and business partner of an ex-KGB agent before the safety and security of the British people. He has put his friendship with Lebedev ahead of his primary duty to the British public: to keep our country and our people safe and secure.

That is why Labour is today calling for the Government to publish the full security guidance on Mr Lebedev’s peerage, by which we mean the version before it might have been mysteriously airbrushed or sanitised, so that the British public can really understand the severity of the Prime Minister’s miscalculations and misjudgments. This is in the national interest, and it must happen immediately.

We also know that the Prime Minister flew to Italy to attend a party hosted by the Lebedevs just two days after attending a high-level NATO summit focusing on Russia in the wake of the Salisbury poisonings, without any officials present and without his security detail. We know that he met the former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev at that party. We need to know what was discussed at that party and why the Prime Minister thought it was a priority to go to that party to meet influential members of the Russian elite at that time.

This blasé attitude to national security is not just a one-off; it is part of a pattern of behaviour that dates back several years. There are countless examples of the Government playing fast and loose with our national security. Just look at the Conservative party’s ongoing reliance on donations from individuals with close links to the Kremlin. The most concerning is the £2 million of donations from Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Putin’s former deputy Finance Minister. She moved in Conservative inner circles, even playing tennis with the Prime Minister. We may never quite know just how much influence that money bought for Putin’s allies.

In connection to this, I am deeply concerned by the Conservative party’s use of lawfare to bat away the questions I have asked about potential national security threats that predate the issues we are discussing today. In February 2019, I wrote to the then chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), asking him to investigate donations by Ehud “Udi” Sheleg, who had been reported in the media as having strong connections to Russia and as probably not being able to afford the £1.8 million of donations that may or may not be connected to his being appointed treasurer of the Conservative party—I would not wish to speculate.

The reply I received from the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that Mr Sheleg should not need to reveal the source of his wealth. It also threatened me with libel action, with the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, using the same tactics that Russian oligarchs have been using to silence criticism and block investigations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I need to make sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the matter in hand, which is Lord Lebedev and the appointment process.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I am trying to do is set out clearly the worrying pattern of behaviour, but I take your feedback and I will move on.

That brings us to the issue of the Russia report, the delay in publishing it and the failure to implement the vast majority of its recommendations until after Vladimir Putin clearly felt he could invade Ukraine with impunity. This is part of the challenge we face in standing up to the bullying and intimidation from authoritarian rulers around the world. The delays in implementing that report’s recommendations are deeply troubling. Why was this action delayed? We have repeatedly asked that in this House. Perhaps it was because on this Government’s watch we have seen the City of London become a laundromat for the dirty money of kleptocrats and because the Conservative party has been all too reliant on those highly questionable donations we are discussing today. We have also seen serious issues associated with the underfunding of our armed forces, which has left us with Putin being able to go on the march from Georgia to Crimea and authoritarian regimes having grown in confidence over the past decade because of the weakness of western leaders, because of the conflict of interests that undermines their authority. We are exposing that conflict of interests in this debate. It is time for us to shore up our national defences. That needs to be done through legislation such as the Bill that became the National Security and Investment Act 2021. Disappointingly, we have not seen a clear enough position on that, with the Government watering down definitions of critical national infrastructure in that Bill, which makes it harder for the Secretary of State to call in investments suspected of being a danger to our national security. Our legislation on foreign takeovers and investment is far weaker than the equivalent legislation of our allies in all the other Five Eyes countries.

Let me end my saying this: national security is the first duty of any Government, but Conservative Ministers have been putting roubles before resilience, and investment before integrity. We need to see what was in this security advice and we need to know on which date the Prime Minister received the security services’ concerns with regard to Lord Lebedev’s appointment. We also need to know why that was watered down. Appointments to the House of Lords should be on the basis of loyal public service to our country, not friendship with the Prime Minister. Yet the Prime Minister continues to dismiss vital advice time and again, even when Britain's national security is at stake, to serve his own personal interests. I therefore encourage Conservative Members to join us today in standing up for Britain’s national security.

Ukraine

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. The National Cyber Security Centre is indeed offering help to Ukraine for precisely that purpose. Russian cyber-attacks, as the House knows, can be extremely damaging and we can do a lot to help.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Government’s position is that sanctions will be deployed against Russia if there is an incursion, but would the Government consider deploying some sanctions now, as a clear signal to Russia, and saying that if President Putin stands down his troops and withdraws his forces, further sanctions will not be deployed? Would that not be a more effective sequencing of the process?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful argument. As I have said, we already have Magnitsky sanctions in place on the Russian regime, sanctions in response to the seizure of Crimea and Sevastopol already in place—a wide variety of sanctions. I think what we need to do, if I may say so, is build up an instant, automatic package of western sanctions that will come in automatically in the event of a single toecap of a Russian incursion into more of Ukraine.