My Lords, it is an intriguing question. I like the idea, as a concept, that any of these organisations which plan to meet with leaders of our intelligence services have to put that on a public register. To assist in transparency, that might meet the Minister’s case. In fact, if we do that, it might mean that we do not need the whole scheme for the other 300,000 people. It is an intriguing point. My questions about who is not covered are far less exciting than whether the intelligence community comes into it.
The Minister said he responded to my point but, with respect, I do not know why the Mayor of London is included but the Lord Mayor of London is not. I do not know why The City of London Corporation would not be included. I would have thought, if this is to do with political influence on our country’s interests, the Lord Mayor and the corporation and City of London represent an absolutely prime area where political influence could be sought over policy. I do not know why that is not included.
I do not know why the mayors of Tees Valley and North of Tyne are included but the leader of Glasgow City Council is not. If it is to do with ensuring a sensible way of operating, then, with the greatest respect to the mayor of the 600,000 people in Tees Valley, to include them in this because they are susceptible to foreign influence seems a bit odd when the leader of the council in Edinburgh, the capital city of one of our four nations, is not. I do not know how long this schedule will last, since the Minister says he is thinking about it and coming back, but, in the meantime, if he can respond to that point I would be grateful.
6.30 pm
I am also not sure why NHS leaders are not included within this, given that we know through public statements that our NHS is a source of attack or can be used as a vehicle where foreign influence is sought for government
policy, especially in the context of health emergencies, as my noble friend Lord Wallace indicated. Considering those who seek foreign influence over and impact on the United Kingdom, when we have had alerts from those within the intelligence community that our NHS is a key element of this, I would have thought that NHS leaders should be included if senior police officers are.
I do not understand why those specifically mentioned, such as the chief constable or deputy chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland, have been included but the National Crime Agency is excluded. I can understand the case to say that any interaction between anybody in the Armed Forces above the rank of brigadier, commodore and air commodore, and any foreign entity will have to be put on a register. That includes presumably interaction with entities in conflict-afflicted areas. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me, but it seems quite extraordinary that those foreign entities that may be either in allied countries or indeed for operations will now have to place on a public database the fact that they are preparing to meet a British brigadier. That seems odd—but I am sure the Government have a rational reason to include them.
I am guessing also, given what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, indicated before to me and others about private sector operations, that this will capture every interaction between a foreign military contractor who is operating under either the direct or indirect authority of a foreign power and engaging in the industrial defence sector. Will they have to disclose that they are interacting with someone above the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore?
I think that this falls foul of the issue that was raised before. I respect the Minister’s viewpoint of wanting to have a broad scheme without being specific because, as soon as you get specific, loopholes are created because you start listing one and excluding others. However, that is exactly what proposed new Schedule 13 is going to do—including the situation where the leader of Glasgow is excluded while the leader for Tyne is included. So, if the Minister can clarify those points, I would be grateful.