AN SNP MP has warned that a “revolving door” between Government and Chinese firms risks creating a situation like “Russia all over again”.
Stewart McDonald was questioning Nigel Adams, foreign office minister for Asia, during a meeting of the Foreign Affairs committee yesterday, when he raised the issue of former senior government officials and Crown servants going to work for tech firm Huawei.
The MP for Glasgow South cited four examples of officials who have held senior government posts and now work for the technology firm or are advisors to it.
Huawei was banned from the UK’s 5G network in November last year over concerns about its cyber security, as well as fears that under Chinese law it could be compelled to “act in a way that is harmful to the UK”.
READ MORE: Westminster rules out probe into Russian meddling in Brexit
Huawei said it has never received “such a request” and would “categorically refuse to comply” if it did.
Mr McDonald referenced Lord Browne of Madingley, who quit as chairman of Huawei technologies UK last year; Sir Andrew Cahn, current non-executive director of Huawei and former senior civil servant; the current Lord Lieutenant of London Sir Kenneth Olisa who remains an independent director of the board and the UK Government’s former Chief Information Officer John Suffolk, who is now head of Global cybersecurity for Huawei.
He said: “What's the government's policy for all these extremely senior former government and crown servants going off to work for a company that the government considers is a threat to national security?”
Mr Adams said he was unsure what the “regime” was for former senior civil servants or senior government employees, adding: “This is a matter for those individuals…
“I presume if they've held positions, if they're about to take appointments, they go through the due process…it may very well fall under the auspices of ACOBA [Advisory Committee on Business Appointments].”
Mr McDonald said: “Do you think, for example, it's a good thing that the UK government's former Chief Information Officer serves as the head of cyber security for a company that the government considers is a threat to UK national security? That strikes me as a bad thing. It must strike you as a bad thing.”
The minister responded: “Well of course but it is a matter for that individual.”
The MP asked how the Government was “keeping tabs” on these “extremely senior officials in government and crown servants going off to work for companies that the government considers a threat to national security, and as an arm of an authoritarian regime that Parliament believes is committing genocide.”
However the minister was unable to answer, saying he was “a geographic minister for Asia” and “this is not an area that comes into my competency but I'm more than happy to find out via the relevant government department and get an answer to your question.”
READ MORE: 5G mobile network delayed for up to 3 years as government bans Huawei
Mr McDonald later said he was concerned that the situation looked “a bit like Russia, all over again”.
He explained: “I know that Russia is not your geographical portfolio, but as the ISC [Intelligence and Security Committee] report made clear, we do a lot…to counter Russia as a threat, but at the same time at home, the UK has a reputation as being a safe place for dodgy Russian money and it's just strikes me that there's a kind of similar picture of starting to present itself,
“We can talk hard words on the Uyghurs and Hong Kong and Taiwan or whatever else it might be, but there's a revolving door, is there not between the UK Government, former Crown servants and a company that is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party, that the government considers to be a threat to national security?
He added: “ It strikes me that the minister responsible for that part of the world might have a view on such a revolving door.”
Mr Adams responded: “As I say, it's not within my portfolio, and there very well might be a process, I'm just telling you I'm unaware of what that process is at this current time for government officials and those that have held Crown appointments before they go off and get employed by companies, foreign or otherwise.
“I'll find out for you, I can't give you an answer if I don't know it.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel