Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has
considered foreign lobbying in the UK. As ever, it is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am going to use this
debate on foreign lobbying to lobby the Government. They have
published their National Security Bill, and the foreign lobbying
registration element is still being written and decided upon. It is
great that that is there, and it is great that we have the
chance—I...Request free trial
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered foreign lobbying in the UK.
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame
Angela.
I am going to use this debate on foreign lobbying to lobby the
Government. They have published their National Security Bill, and
the foreign lobbying registration element is still being written
and decided upon. It is great that that is there, and it is great
that we have the chance—I hope—to influence the Government. I
thank the Minister very much for taking the time to be here.
I am going to argue three points. First, we need a substantially
improved lobbying law—in fact, lobbying laws. What we have is
arguably no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was. Secondly,
there is a specific problem with foreign lobbying, which has been
getting worse over the past decade. Indeed, the problems that we
have had with lobbying arguably go back some 20 years at least.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for the theorists of war
and conflict, in this era there is a blurred line between
espionage, agent recruitment and covert, malign, unhealthy,
unethical influence, and overt lobbying. One should see those not
as being separate, but as being, effectively, on a continuum from
dark to light, and perhaps quite an unhealthy continuum with
respect to some elements.
To ensure the health of our democracy, we need a stronger and
more transparent system, and I want to use my speech to make
suggestions for the Government’s National Security Bill. I would
be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Government are
still committed to having a substantive—I hope—and broad foreign
agent registration process in the Bill. By that, I mean a
registration process that involves not only those people who work
within a narrow definition of lobbying, but a broader definition,
which, in our era, should include the lawyers, the public
relations people, the strategists and the enablers not only for
foreign states—that is another critical element—but for the
formal and informal proxies such as oligarchs, major corporations
and broadcasting entities that are obviously linked to those
states, especially when they are effectively one-party states
with a different and non-democratic tradition.
Primarily, I am talking about Russia—in the past three months,
the situation with Russia has changed from light to dark—as well
as China, Iran and their proxies. Some in this country argue that
such measures should cover countries such as Saudi Arabia, which
is an ally—a close ally—but which does a great deal of lobbying
in this country, as do other friendly states.
There is also a debate about how we treat people and about
whether we should have one set of standards or a sliding scale.
Do I think that Oleg Deripaska should be treated in the same way
as New Zealand’s tourist board? No. It would be welcome to have a
light regulatory process for foreign entities such as Sweden’s
trade authority or New Zealand’s tourist board, but for a Russian
oligarch—many of whom have been sanctioned, so this is slightly
hypothetical—or a firm such as Huawei, we should insist on much
higher standards.
Let me say by way of background that we know that, around the
world, Governments and their proxies make extensive use of overt
lobbying and influence campaigns. There is nothing inherently
illegal about that, although some might consider it unethical.
However, a number of hostile states—including, but not limited
to, China and Russia—have utilised lobbying as part of their
operations against our national interest. Arguably nowadays,
covert influence is part and parcel of hybrid forms of conflict.
Indeed, in both Russian and Chinese doctrine, hybrid conflict is
specifically talked about in terms of military and non-military
tools. In Russian doctrine, the first characteristic of modern
contemporary conflict is the linkage of military effect with
non-military effect, be that information politics, economics or
suchlike, of which overt and covert malign lobbying are very much
part.
I am glad that the Government have said that this is a problem.
In 2019, they declared they would reduce the threat posed by
hostile state activity in the UK; that is great.
(Wycombe) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend to explain what he means by covert
influence? Does he mean intelligence agents using the cover of
being lobbyists, or something else?
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.
(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
(), 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 () 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?
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—
Dame (in the Chair)
Order. I remind everyone who will be contributing to the debate
that the rules say that if you are going to identify a Member of
the House of Commons or indeed the Lords—not necessarily by
name—you have to have informed them in advance. Has the hon.
Member done so?
I have not done so, so I should be much more circumspect.
Dame (in the Chair)
I know this is a very difficult area. May I ask those who are
speaking in the debate—not only the hon. Gentleman—to bear those
rules in mind when they make their speeches?
You are right, Dame Angela. Thank you very much for correcting
me. I shall be a bit more obtuse about—
(Rhondda) (Lab)
Obscure, maybe.
Obtuse and obscure.
Together with lawyers, accountants, estate agents, public
relations professionals and other enablers, lobbyists have formed
a buffer around these people. I know that the case with Russia is
clearly changing very dramatically—it has been rather forced on
us by conflict—but China is another important case that concerns
me. I say that as someone who knows that the Government are
moving in the right direction, and who is incredibly grateful for
the work that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign
Secretary have done in this area.
It concerns me greatly that we have not yet made the link between
China and Russia. The west has economic dependency on both, be it
through trade or energy. Both those countries have dictators for
life, and we know that power corrupts and that absolute power
corrupts absolutely, so do we really think that President Xi will
turn out to be better than President Putin? I would be sceptical.
Both covet territory outside their control, both have
aggressively rearmed and, perhaps most importantly, both
propagandise their people against us and are shaping their people
for war in the information and narrative space. China is more
sophisticated and richer, and it arguably treats some of its
people, especially its Muslim people, worse. It is a rising
power, whereas Russia is a declining power, but there are too
many similarities between them to claim that China is not Russia.
It is a more sophisticated version and, as people such as Clive
Hamilton argue, many of its covert activities are just more
sophisticated versions of the same thing.
Like the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist party uses state,
non-state and quasi-state actors through the United Front Work
Department and “cultural and ‘friendship’ associations”. It is
alleged to spend some $10 billion a year on external propaganda
efforts. The Chinese state also makes use—perhaps more than
Russia does—of quasi-state entities, and Huawei is a case in
point. It has provided trips, sports tickets and donations to
all-party parliamentary groups, and has employed a former head of
GCHQ and a former UK chief information officer. It has also used
several lobbying firms, and has employed a former head of Ofcom
and even a former head of the Foreign Office.
In September 2019, Huawei gave £150,000 to Jesus College,
Cambridge, which later produced a White Paper that was favourable
to Huawei’s inclusion in the UK’s 5G network. It has done many
other things; what I have mentioned is just the tip of the
iceberg. What concerns me is that, while this was happening,
Ministers whom I respect very much were arguing that Huawei was a
private entity—a private firm. I do not expect Ministers to be
geniuses, but that situation was uncomfortable.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On the point about higher education selling its soul to the
Chinese Communist party, surely it is not just the Government’s
role to regulate their engagement with foreign actors. It is also
for other entities in the country, such as higher education.
The hon. Member makes a very important and valuable point.
Cambridge University’s relationship with China is very unhealthy,
and Professor Stephen Toope’s leadership of Cambridge has been
pretty depressing and questionable. He is not here to defend
himself, so I will be careful what I say, but I note that the
more woke Cambridge has become, the more it seems to have sold
itself to the Chinese state, which I do not think is necessarily
a defence of the values that it should be standing up for.
I think that higher education would say it needs clear guidance
from the Government. On the foreign agent registration process,
it would be excellent if the Government had something to say on
the need for universities to register and to explain why they are
taking on some students, because we have had Chinese military
students coming to study PhDs in sensitive dual-use areas. We
need to question that to ensure that we are doing the right thing
and that we are not aiding countries to develop technologies that
will be used against us.
I will wrap up in the next five minutes, because I am aware that
I have taken a long time—my apologies.
We need to improve lobbying laws. I suggest to the Government—I
will write separately, but the Minister has the study I produced
for them two years ago—five major reforms to tackle the issue of
foreign lobbying in the UK, which I hope would create better law
and a better National Security Bill when it comes up.
First, we must create laws to compel individuals and entities
that lobby in the UK on behalf of hostile states and their
proxies to record their activities on a national register. I hope
the Minister will take this on board in the constructive way that
it is intended. Consultant lobbyists are important, but they are
only one part of the problem, as many of us know. Hostile or
potentially adversarial states make use of non-lobbyist
individuals and entities—cultural entities, educational entities,
public relations consultants, research firms, reputation
managers, law firms and banks. If someone does work that impacts
on policymaking or the political world, they need to be
registered. In this day and age we need a broad, not narrow,
understanding of what that means for the public good, and for the
honesty, integrity and transparency of the political system,
which we all want to see improved and strengthened. Nobody wants
to sleazify our political, economic or legal system, so we need a
belt-and-braces approach, while understanding that the demands we
put on the New Zealand tourism board would probably be very
different from those we place on a foreign entity, such as Huawei
or the Confucius institutes. I note that the normally rather
left-wing country, Sweden, has banned Confucius institutes.
Should we?
Secondly, we should create laws to force foreign Governments and
their proxies to disclose when they spend money on political
activities in the UK. Thirdly, we should create laws to bar
foreign Governments and their proxies from providing political,
financial and other support during election periods. As at least
two hon. Members have said, there is a question mark about
donations, and I know from previous debates that people with dual
nationality are an issue. That debate is obviously not going to
go away.
Fourthly, we should create laws to compel foreign Governments and
their proxies to label and disclose materials and campaigns
undertaken in the UK, including online, not only during election
periods but more generally outside election periods, so that we
know where advertising is coming from. People should be able to
see those messages, which are perfectly legal, but they should
understand their provenance. Fifthly, I would make those laws
enforceable by significant criminal penalty, so that people who
break the law and do not uphold high standards have an
expectation that the punishment will be a bit more than a slap on
the wrist.
There is a further series of options; they include the following.
Should we have a one-tier or one-size-fits-all regime? Should we
have a weak, moderate or strong regime? Should we have a two-tier
system that either requires nothing of some foreign entities or
has a low bar for the sort of information that is required? We
have a laissez-faire approach, which is not entirely unhealthy;
it is good for our economy. I recognise that we want people to be
free to set up in business, and set up what they are doing in
this country. My suggestions are not about creating layers of
bureaucracy for the Swedish food producers association or the New
Zealand tourism board, but every time Huawei hires a lobbyist, we
should know. Every time Huawei approaches a Member of the House
of Lords or the House of Commons, we should know. If people want
to do work for these people, we should know.
People complain about MPs, but I do not think MPs are necessarily
the biggest problem—I am not trying to do a mea culpa for us all.
The biggest problem is the law firms and people with significant
legal and financial power, who do not exist in as transparent a
world as we do. Although clearly some of the most outrageous and
obvious—how should one say it?—lapses of judgment are often seen
in the political world, real power is also influenced by civil
servants and Spads. It used to be influenced by the European
Commission, though clearly no more in this country, and it is
also influenced by significant legal and finance firms. If they
are impacting, via lobbying, the business of politics and policy
in this country, they should be covered.
I will give one example: Huawei. There is a case to argue that
Huawei did not do that much direct lobbying for much of its
existence in this country, but that it worked through BT, which
effectively became the Huawei spokesman in this country and
Huawei’s chief defender. BT may say, “It is rather more
complicated than that,” but Huawei was, arguably, effectively
influencing UK policy through UK firms that were in business with
and economically aligned to Huawei. I think that became a
significant problem in the last few years. I am delighted to have
played a modest role in the campaign to ensure that Huawei was
not part of the 5G network, which was absolutely the right
decision. I thank the Government for listening to me and other
Members on that issue, and indeed the US Administration as
well.
To sum up—I thank hon. Members for giving me a little more time
than I said I would take; my apologies—we need to substantially
improve lobbying laws, because the laws we have are genuinely not
fit for purpose. Do we really want to have these endless lobbying
scandals in our legal and political culture, which come around
like a carousel every few months, every couple of years? We have
the chance to do something better; I very much hope that the
National Security Bill will tighten that up. The Minister has
been generous enough to say that she is sympathetic towards these
arguments, and I thank her.
Within the domestic lobbying framework, there is a specific issue
with foreign lobbying. As I said at the beginning, it is
important to understand that, whether we think it and see it or
not, other states see this action as part of a hybrid conflict
model. It is almost the first line of attack—to try to shape our
opinions, to try to separate us from the US and to try to get a
narrative and message into our economic, legal, political and
informational debates in this country. We want a free society,
but we need to understand that we have to protect that free
society. At the very least, people need to know where some of the
messages and campaigns come from.
In this era, there is a battle between open and closed societies.
We have seen that most recently from the Ukraine war, but we
might see it in the future from China in a Taiwan war, or a
confrontation with the wider world. We need to do what we can to
defend the open society. The way we best do that is by ensuring
transparency, honesty and integrity in our political system.
Ensuring that we have strong and fair laws over lobbying and
foreign lobbying is one of the critical ways we can do that.
9.57am
(Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame
Angela. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight () can speak as long as he likes
on this subject as far as I am concerned. I have had quite a lot
of conversations with him in private. He is the House’s expert on
this issue and he does us all an enormous favour in raising these
issues.
I agree with him; I think we have been too naive for too
long—ineptly naive, in some cases. The most striking statistic in
this field that I have come across recently is that of the people
sanctioned this year by the British Government in relation to the
activity in Ukraine, at least 10—10 that we know of—were people
who were given tier 1 visas by the British Government in the last
few years. In other words, we were inviting people in, letting
them sit down and purvey their view of the world in the UK,
largely because we were just interested in their money. In the
end, Putin has seen us be so craven about Russian bling and he
has felt that we are weak and corrupted, and that has emboldened
him. It is one of the things that has assisted in what has
eventually happened in Ukraine.
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?
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.
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that the
allegations have been disproved. Will he join me in imploring all
Members who engaged in making those allegations to accept that
they have now been disproved?
I think it is a matter for individuals to make their decisions on
that. I have said what I said and the hon. Gentleman knows why I
said it. There is not a formal process for a Back-Bench Member to
correct the record. That exists only for Ministers, although they
have been notoriously poor at doing it. As the Speaker said at
the beginning of this debate: if Members are able to correct the
record, it is important that they do so.
I used to be a lobbyist for the BBC and I was always trying to
persuade Governments to do things. In and of itself, lobbying is
not a bad thing. Indeed, the word “lobby” comes from Parliament
because it was the entrance to St Stephen’s Chapel, which was the
lobby where people could grab hold of a Member before they went
into the House.
I remember sitting on the Public Bill Committee for the Mental
Health Act 2007. I was not an expert on the treatment of mental
health patients, and my participation in that Bill Committee
relied on lobbyists, some of them from mental health charities,
some from patients groups, and some from the pharmaceutical
industry. In the end I had to make astute judgments when people
were trying to influence me, but of itself lobbying is not wrong,
although it needs to operate under strict standards. Even foreign
lobbying is okay, or we would not have a Foreign Office. Of
course, it was Sir Henry Wotton, a Member of Parliament from 1614
to 1625, who, when he was a British diplomat in Augsburg,
said:
“An ambassador is an honest”
gentleman
“sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”
The Minister is nodding. I am not sure whether she is in favour
of an honest gentleman or lying.
In this country, in the modern era, we have to be very careful
about covert operations in the UK. I think that particularly
because we are a free society, believe in the rule of law and
have a democratic process that is very open, sometimes we are
more vulnerable than others might be, and we have to be cautious
and alert to pernicious lobbying from state actors and their
proxies who do not wish this country well. That applies to not
just a few countries, but quite a significant number.
I am aware, not just because of what I get myself but other
Members as well, of attacks that are co-ordinated directly out of
St Petersburg on individual Members of this House and the House
of Lords, particularly those who have been critical of the Putin
regime. The attacks are co-ordinated and are deliberately
inciting. They hide behind anonymity and often they are fake
accounts. It looks as though 100 people have attacked the
individual Member, but that is because there are 100 fake
accounts all created by the one person. We do far too little in
this House to make sure that that is exposed and made clear.
I have often worried that the Government have repeatedly refused
to investigate the Russian activity and determination to try to
undermine the political process in this country. I note that this
Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister both said that
they had not seen successful attempts to undermine British
democracy. I do not know what success means in their minds when
they say that. It seems preposterous that they will not
investigate.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight says, the law courts are a
very useful tool for proxies of state actors overseas who want to
ensure that any criticism of them is closed down. We have seen
several journalists and authors dragged through the courts, at
extreme expense, by people with very deep pockets. I am hopeful
that the Government will address that in legislation later this
year. I also point to some broadcasters, such as Russia Today. I
do not think any British politician from any political party
should have taken money from Russia Today. It is a scandal that
many took many thousands of pounds from Russia Today. All those
who did should be completely open about it, because they have
effectively and knowingly been not just useful idiots but
deliberate agents of a foreign state. The same would apply to
other broadcasters from other states, including Iran.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight rightly mentioned advertising
on Facebook. One of the ways in which Russia has sown discord and
misinformation around the world is illustrated by the situation
in Catalunya, which I am particularly aware of. There they put
across all sorts of imagery that was later proven to be
completely false. None the less, it got lots of clicks and got
everyone very excited and condemning the Spanish Government, even
though it was all proven to be untrue. We must take that
deliberate attempt to sow discord in western societies very
seriously. I have always wanted, and I still want—notwithstanding
the objections—to end anonymity on social media. For some reason,
people feel able to write things on social media under the cloak
of anonymity that they would never think of saying to another
person or writing in a letter that they had to put their name to.
I think that is cowardice, but it is also disrupting the British
democratic system.
I am not sure whether you, Dame Angela, are among the Members of
Parliament on the Russian sanctions list. It is quite interesting
that none of the Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee who
wrote the “Moscow’s Gold” report a few years ago, which is deeply
critical of the Russian Government, is on the sanctions list. I
can only presume that we are on the hit list instead.
I wrote to the Russian ambassador to make the point that although
they are alleging that all these British MPs are Russophobic, we
are not Russophobic. We love Russia; we have loved the Russian
people, though sometimes the television presenters do make one
doubt their sincerity when saying that they love people
regardless of their nationality. We are not Russophobic; it is
just that we have a beef with the actions of the Russian state
under President Putin. The ambassador wrote back to say that the
list provided was just one of several sanctions lists that
already existed, and that was one that they were now revealing. I
can only presume that other people are sanctioned but we do not
know about it.
Parliament is particularly vulnerable. I hope the Minister will
take that away from this debate. We have hundreds of all-party
parliamentary groups. The Committee on Standards, which I chair,
has produced a report on this. The head of security here is very
concerned, as are the two Speakers, about the vulnerability of
the Parliamentary system because of the way that APPGs are
funded, sometimes directly by foreign Governments and sometimes
indirectly, and sometimes probably not as accountably as we would
like. Some countries forbid members of their legislative body
from taking any form of hospitality of any kind, let alone
several thousand pounds-worth of trips abroad, from a foreign
state. We should consider that.
I believe that it is important that British Members of Parliament
have strong working relationships with Members of Parliaments in
other countries, but we should fund that, not let it be funded on
an ad hoc basis by other countries who may want to do us harm. I
am one of the Members who went to Qatar. I went as a guest of the
Qatari Government because I wanted to argue with them, really,
about the way they intend to hold the World cup. I note that a
large number of Members have been taken to Qatar at great expense
by the Qatari Government over the past year. Is that appropriate?
In the end, I wish I had not gone on that trip. I suspect we need
to address that issue. Incidentally, the director of security in
Parliament told us that the biggest anxiety was that these groups
are not necessarily funded directly by the Governments, but by
their proxies, through third, fourth or fifth parties. We need to
tackle that.
In the US, Congress has to produce an annual report on the
lobbying of Congress by foreign actors. Why do we not do that
here? One of the House’s Committees should produce an annual
report to Government, perhaps with the assistance of Government,
on foreign states’ actions in lobbying Parliament.
I also think we ought to have a new offence of aiding and
abetting a foreign state as a Member of Parliament or as a peer.
I am not quite sure how I am going to word this—I hope somebody
is going to help me with it; the Clerks are normally very
good—but I think that there should be an amendment to clause 3 of
the National Security Bill to address that.
My argument is that lobbying must always be in the open.
Transparency is how we ensure that there is nothing pernicious,
vicious or inappropriate going on. Ministers should reveal all
significant attempts to lobby them in a timely fashion. The
Standards Committee has produced a report today stating that we
must end the current exemption whereby, if two Members of
Parliament go to the same event that is paid for by a foreign
Government or by anyone else, a Minister does not have to declare
it for months and months and does not have to say how much it
cost, but a Back-Bench or Opposition Front-Bench Member has to
declare it within 28 days. Surely all Members should be treated
equally.
That is why it is important that Ministers should reveal all
significant attempts to lobby them, including via hospitality,
tickets, dinners, accommodation, holidays, travel and individual
meetings. For instance, it is an absolute mystery to me why the
UK took so long to sanction Deripaska. Greg Barker—who is, I
think, no longer a Member of the House of Lords—was effectively
acting as an agent of Deripaska, who is now sanctioned because of
his corrupt involvement in the Russian state. However, we did
nothing about it. Why was that? I want to know.
What about Abramovich? Why did that take so long? There was even
a moment when the Prime Minister though that Abramovich had been
sanctioned, but it turned out he had not. I suspect that that was
because the Home Office was saying, way back in 2018 and 2019,
that Abramovich was a person of interest; in other words, he was
dodgy and it did not want him coming to the UK, and therefore it
was not going to allow his tier 1 visa to be renewed. However,
the Foreign Office refused to sanction him. Was that because of
the direct engagement of Abramovich with individual Ministers? I
ask the question because we need to know the answer.
Finally, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is absolutely right
about the need for a proper register of lobbyists working on
behalf of foreign agents. I do not think someone should be able
to simply say that they have lots of clients in this House; they
should have to list all clients in both Houses. For my money, I
would also say that Arron Banks should have been on that list. Of
course, when anybody is on that registered list, there should be
a ban on Members of either House engaging with them financially
or in any other manner.
We have been naive for far too long. We need to tackle all these
issues, especially as they apply to state actors from Russia and
China. Otherwise, we will lose the precious democracy that we
believe in.
10.14am
(Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Dame Angela. It is a special privilege to speak in
this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight () for bringing this important
issue to our attention and for his knowledge. It is a pleasure to
follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (), who has a deep interest in
this matter. Both he and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight bring
real knowledge to the debate.
I am someone who sees the benefits of lobbying, as referred to by
the hon. Member for Rhondda, in certain circumstances in this
place. Lobbying for the right reasons has changed my opinion and
opened my eyes to many issues. It has helped to increase my
knowledge and better understand subjects, and has provided me
with information as a Member of this House.
Seeking to unduly influence a Member changes that. While we must
all hold ourselves accountable for decisions, there is a role for
restrictions or protections—a term that I would rather see
used—to be put in place in this House, which should not point the
finger.
On several occasions over the past few years, we have seen the
impact that foreign lobbying can have on a democracy and the
undue influence of some lobbying, which many Members have
highlighted, that probably has its roots in Chinese or Russian
politics. While the impact of some of that lobbying may
inevitably have been over-emphasised, there is a root of truth
that this House has not been untouched by Chinese and Russian
influence.
It is a crucial that the UK has a platform to introduce safe
lobbying, as there is nothing wrong with lobbying as long as it
is done correctly and does not put our democratic process at
risk. Democracy is the heart of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is great to be here and to
discuss how we can strengthen that in a positive fashion.
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for putting together
his briefing on foreign interference. It had much detail and was
powerfully put. It provides a real insight into the steps we can
take to regulate our lobbying. Lobbying is a key characteristic
of politics, domestically and internationally, for foreign
agents. The issue lies in lobbying being part of the operation of
foreign agents to undermine political institutions. That has been
seen many times, not only in relation to China and Russia, but to
other countries as well.
Countries such as Australia and the United States of America want
to adopt legislation, such as FARA and the Foreign Influence
Transparency Scheme Act, that aims to regulate foreign lobbying.
It will mean that foreign agents and their proxies will be
legally obliged to register themselves and make their activities
public knowledge. I look to the Minister for her response about
our future plans. Do the Government intend to do something
similar to what Australia and the USA have done?
The UK and its respective devolved Administrations are also at
risk of foreign interference. We are a leading democracy and, as
the hon. Member for Isle of Wight stated in his report,
“a centre for the international finance, legal and media
worlds”.
We are very much a kernel—a core—for that. The briefing notes
accompanying the 2019 Queen’s Speech stated that the UK would
work to
“reduce the threat posed by Hostile State Activity”.
We have seen attempts to manipulate devolution, which the
Government confirmed in its own information relating to the
Scottish referendum. It is my responsibility to ensure that
Northern Ireland is protected against any foreign threat through
illegitimate lobbying. Attention must be given to the four
Governments within the UK, not just our Westminster Government. I
return to my original question to the Minister and ask what
action will be taken to ensure that the devolved
Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly in my case—can have
direct contact with the Minister in order to ensure that we can
protect and rebuff the groups that are unduly lobbying?
Alongside the debate about lobbying is the issue around social
media, which has never been more prominent in political life.
Covert digital influence campaigns increase the scope for
misleading information when it comes to election time, when
foreign influences may pay an instrumental amount of money to
portray false information. There are lots of false stories, and
the media must address that as well.
Oligarchs, in particular those from Russia and other
authoritarian regimes, act in the shadows with no regulation. As
the UK is an open society with no legislation to check such
things, that leaves us vulnerable to outside interference and
cyber-attacks. Russia has used both state and non-state entities
to partake in unauthorised activity in the UK. These have been
described by the Chief of Defence Staff as the “grey area”
between peace and war—how true that is.
Many tools involve military influence, but we must not forget
political, economic and social influences as well. Owing to the
UK’s lack of legislation, there is little transparency about what
is actually illegal and worthy of punishment. The 2014 lobbying
Act is narrow and out of date. Does the Minister intend to
address that? If so, perhaps a timescale for consultation and
ultimate legislative change would be helpful. That should allow
for fuller discussion of the steps we can take to protect and
preserve the political institutions of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I welcome ideas for the reform of foreign lobbying
in the UK—particularly a law that compels individuals and
entities lobbying in the UK on behalf of hostile and
authoritarian states to record their activities on a national
register so that we know who they are and so the protections that
we need and desire can be delivered. The British public have a
right to feel protected and deserve to know the full extent of
foreign influence in the UK and the devolved institutions of
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
This debate has been helpful, Dame Angela. I thank the hon.
Member for Isle of Wight for bringing it forward, and thank
others for their contributions. I very much look forward to what
the Minister has to say and, indeed, to the shadow Minister’s
contribution too.
10.21am
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela. As I sum up on
behalf of my party, I cannot help but feel that this is a very
British debate. I am unsure whether anyone here is particularly
opposed to better rules for those lobbying on behalf of foreign
Governments. The evidence—which the hon. Member for Rhondda
() has alluded to on many
occasions, not only in Westminster Hall but in the main
Chamber—that it has damaged the fabric of our society, and of the
national security risk, has been clear.
I fully expect the Minister to rise to their feet, acknowledge
the issue and the pertinence of the rhetoric deployed by all of
us here today, declare that something must be done, and, if they
will forgive me, then do absolutely nothing about it. I would be
delighted to be proven wrong, but this type of action has been
trailed for quite some time without any evidence that we are any
closer to either the stricter regulation of lobbying or any sort
of foreign agent registration.
Now, that is not to denigrate the quality of any of the
contributions made here today—from the hon. Member for Strangford
(), the hon. Member for Rhondda and, indeed, the hon.
Member for Isle of Wight (). We did at least agree, I
think, on the issues of higher education across these islands. I
would say to the higher education sector that it must not only
look in the mirror and reflect on what it sees in its
relationship with the Communist party of China, but change what
it sees.
On my party’s position, our ask is simple: the UK Government must
follow the example set by our colleagues in the Scottish
Government and create a fit-for-purpose lobbying register to
improve transparency and accountability. The Lobbying (Scotland)
Act 2016 came into full operation in 2018 and was designed to
improve transparency of face-to-face lobbying contact between
organisations and Members of the Scottish Parliament, members of
the Scottish Government—including Scottish Law Officers and
junior Scottish Ministers—special advisers, and the permanent
secretary of the Scottish Government. Transparency International
has called on the UK Government to replicate that and set up a
comprehensive lobbying register for the United Kingdom Parliament
that includes relevant information, and for the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments be replaced by a statutory
body with sufficient authority and resources to regulate all that
goes on here.
Members who pay attention to such things will know that my
parliamentary group wrote to the Government’s anti-corruption
tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (), asking him to rapidly reform
lobbying rules following the second invasion of Ukraine by the
Russian Federation. When that secondary invasion began in
February, as some Members have already intimated, we had a dismal
roll-call—I will not mention any by name, Dame Angela—of the
assorted MPs, Lords, former MPs, former civil servants, and the
like, who had sold their expertise to firms linked to the Russian
state. While it was certainly the most dismal example, anyone who
had been paying attention—quite a few of them are in this room
right now—had been warning about the dangers of allowing that
sort of activity to go on unchecked.
I think the hon. Member for Aberavon () mentioned the Russia
report, but it is vital that we do not get somehow embarrassed
about bringing it up. The findings of this report, from a
cross-party Committee with a Conservative majority, were clear:
the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of
enablers—individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for
the Russian elite in the United Kingdom. Yet nothing—absolutely
hee-haw, as I say in my part of the world—was done to implement
it.
The biggest fear, especially when we are about to listen to a
Minister smother—forgive me—an attempt at a proper legal
framework for lobbyists with kindness, is that if we are unable
to take full responsibility for those who lobby on behalf of a
hostile regime such as the Russian Federation, then I wonder,
really, who is going to take responsibility when this sort of
thing happens again and again. Because we not just talking about
Russia, as many here have alluded to today; plenty of people in
debate have mentioned “communist” China. The resources and the
global reach of Chinese Communist party-linked companies simply
dwarf that of those from the Russian Federation. It might not be
the most agreeable thing to say, but I think that one of them
happens to be the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the
UK led in setting up. While China is not necessarily a hostile
state—I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Strangford—we
certainly know that it is a hostile, anti-democratic economic and
political competitor.
My biggest worry about those who work on behalf of states that
are also nominally neutral, which I think the hon. Member for
Isle of Wight alluded to—
Briefly, the hon. Member is right to point to a better
definition. When I was talking about “hostile” states, probably I
should have changed that to “hostile, adversarial and potentially
highly competitive”, which I think is probably a better
definition.
I will not disagree with the hon. Member on that, but I go back
to the point I was about to make about states that are nominally
neutral or even allied to the UK and how we hold them to account.
I am thinking particularly about the Gulf states—nominally
allies, yet ones whose Governments have shown themselves capable
and willing to act in the most heinous ways on the territory of
ostensible allies.
The jamboree for the real estate, legal and general enablers of
Russian money might have ended, but let us be in no doubt: it is
going to keep rolling on for all the rest of them, allies or not.
The increasing gentrification and sterility of much of central
London will become emblematic of the hollowing out of UK
institutions on behalf of this global capital.
If that sounds bleak, that is because it is. But let me end with
one final appeal to the Minister. It would give even this
inveterate Scottish nationalist great joy to see our devolved
Administrations lead the UK in implementing a proper system of
lobbying regulation, which I alluded to earlier in my speech; but
I am afraid, Dame Angela, that I will not be holding my
breath.
10.27am
(Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight () 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 (), 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 () 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.
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?
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.
10.37am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office ( )
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela, I
think for the first time, and I thank you for the timely
opportunity to debate this important topic. I thank in particular
my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (), who introduced the debate, and
express my gratitude to the good number of Members who are
present today for their active participation in the debate.
As several Members have noted, the UK is a vibrant,
international, open and welcoming country with which to do
business. The Conservative Government will continue to welcome
foreign investment and business to this country. However, in
order to protect that openness and vibrancy, it is critical that
we have robust measures to provide transparency on legitimate
lobbying and have powerful tools to hand to deter illicit or
harmful activity when that arises. To ensure transparency of
legitimate lobbying activity, the Government regularly publish
details of ministerial meetings with third parties, so everyone
can see who Ministers meet with, and about what.
On illicit activity, let me first be clear that we have robust
structures in place to identify foreign interference and, where
necessary, take proportionate action to mitigate the threat. The
recent Christine Lee case is an example of that.
We are going further. The Government have announced their plans
to strengthen powers to tackle illicit finance, reduce economic
crime and help businesses to grow. As noted in the Queen’s
Speech, the Government will bring forward the economic crime and
corporate transparency Bill, which will include measures to
reform the role of Companies House and improve transparency over
UK companies.
Will the Minister confirm whether there will be an additional
commitment from the Government to reform Scottish limited
partnerships, which are a valuable conduit for dark money coming
into the UK to undermine our democratic process?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent question, and we
will write to him with an answer to it.
The legislation will include measures to reform the role of
Companies House and improve transparency with respect to all UK
companies, and it will build on measures in the Economic Crime
(Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which was passed in
March, to establish a new register of overseas entities,
requiring those behind foreign companies who own UK property to
reveal their identity.
Furthermore, as has been stated several times today, the National
Security Bill, which was introduced to the House on 11 May, will
provide our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new
offences, tools and powers to detect, deter and disrupt threats
from those acting on behalf of foreign states with a harmful
purpose in the UK, such as seeking by illegitimate means to
influence public figures or target our democratic way of life. As
my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight helpfully mentioned,
the Government have made it clear that there is a threat and they
are seeking to address it.
During the course of the debate, I have checked the website of
the Security Service, MI5. It defines espionage and concludes the
definition as follows:
“It may also involve seeking to influence decision-makers and
opinion-formers to benefit the interests of a foreign power.”
That firmly fits within this debate.
The Minister mentioned using illicit means, but could she please
be clear? The Security Service does not refer to illicit means,
but just “seeking to influence”. The crucial point is this: could
MI5 be doing more to help Members of Parliament? The hon. Member
for Rhondda () referred to people being
“ineptly naive”. Is there more that the Security Service could do
to brief Members of Parliament about what to look out for if we
are to play our part in counter-espionage?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. One or two nights ago,
a meeting about security was held for Members, which led to a
very wide-ranging conversation. People have taken his point, and
I am sure there will be another meeting. I am grateful for his
suggestion.
As part of the National Security Bill, the Government will bring
forward a foreign influence registration scheme, which will
require individuals to register certain arrangements with foreign
Governments to deter and disrupt state threats activity in the
UK, bringing the UK into line with our allies, such as the USA
and Australia, with their FARA and FITSA, as mentioned by my hon.
Friend the Member for Isle of Wight.
It is completely true that, hastened by war, we are now moving in
the right direction; two economic crime Bills and the National
Security Bill are going to be very positive. However, can the
Minister give an indication of whether the Government will have a
broad understanding of what constitutes lobbying, or whether they
will have a narrow definition that lobbying is done only by
“lobbyists”? It is the former, broader understanding of lobbying
that would be the biggest help in framing the lobbying elements
of the National Security Bill.
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend has come to the kernel. He has put his point on
the record, and I am sure the people in the Home Office will have
heard his plea.
It is welcome that Parliament is paying close attention to this
topic. I congratulate the Committee on Standards on its recent
report on APPGs, mentioned today, which notes that improper
influence and lobbying by hostile states is a key threat facing
APPGs today. I welcome that report but, of course, it is a matter
for the House to decide on the rules governing APPGs. The
Government welcome any approaches that mitigate the risks.
I also want to confirm, with regard to foreign lobbying, that a
business or organisation undertaking consultant lobbying on
behalf of a Government outside the UK or an international
organisation would be required to register and declare that
Government or organisation as a client. To answer the right hon.
Member for Rhondda—
No, honourable.
Mrs Wheeler
Well, it is only a matter of time, I am sure. Regarding the Home
Office report, I can confirm that the Home Secretary will provide
an update imminently, in due course.
Which is it?
Mrs Wheeler
It is both.
Members have taken so much interest in the debate, and I
appreciate the level and depth of information that they have
brought to it.
I asked a question about contact with the regional devolved
Administrations, in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly,
regarding those in privileged positions, to ensure that the
protocol and protections that will happen here can filter out to
the regional devolved Administrations.
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must work in close
conjunction with the devolved Assemblies on anything that happens
in the UK Parliament.
I hope that is reciprocated, and that things come from the
devolved Administrations to this place. The Scottish Government
already have the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016, which was
implemented in 2018. I hope the Minister will listen to them on
how that has impacted lobbying north of the border.
Mrs Wheeler
Indeed. That is a very fair point, and I am sure the Home Office
will have heard it. To conclude—
Before the Minister concludes, will she give way?
Mrs Wheeler
Of course.
We have a few minutes, so we might as well take them up. I will
intervene twice, if the Minister lets me. The Committee on
Standards has said that at the moment some Members chair an awful
lot of APPGs for foreign territories. We have wondered whether we
should not have a limit so that a Member is allowed to chair,
say, only six or 10—certainly not 28. Perhaps it would be a good
idea if Members were not able to receive any financial support
from foreign Governments. Would the Government support those two
measures?
Mrs Wheeler
I am afraid I will take that under advisement.
I shall try another one. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)
made a really important point, which is that most hon. Members
have no understanding of whether somebody who comes through the
door is operating on behalf of a foreign state. Of course it is
up to us to make our own judgment calls, but there probably ought
to be a means for a Member to ascertain confidentially whether
the person they are dealing with is a person of concern to the
Government. The Minister will not be able to answer that today,
but will she take away the serious point that the hon. Gentleman
makes?
Mrs Wheeler
I will take that away and reflect on it. That is a perfectly
reasonable question.
Just as a point of information, there is a leaflet available to
Members of Parliament—I think it is A5, folded over; a very short
booklet—from the Security Service, which tells them what to look
out for when they are targeted by foreign intelligence services.
I hope all Members will take the opportunity to get one from the
Vote Office.
Mrs Wheeler
This debate is giving us all more information than we had an hour
and a half ago. That is very good news.
Thank you very much for chairing this debate so well, Dame
Angela. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I wish
everybody a good day.
10.47am
I thank all Members for taking part and you, Dame Angela, for
chairing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered foreign lobbying in the UK.
|
