BBC World Service: Finances
Lord Liddle Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the announcement of the resignation of the Director of the BBC World Service, what assessment they have made of the Service’s finances.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, our assessment of and formal agreement with the BBC guarantees the continued provision of all 42 World Service languages. We provide approximately a third of the funding for the World Service, with the remainder funded from the licence fee. Our funding totalled £305 million over the spending review period. The BBC is operationally independent and responsible for setting budgets. The DCMS is currently leading a review of BBC future funding, including that of the World Service, which it is expected to conclude by the autumn.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I put on record my admiration and respect for Liliane Landor, who has resigned from the job of her life as director of the World Service because she cannot defend the cuts that are now in prospect. Does the Minister agree with me that the World Service is one of our greatest soft power assets? Soft power is crucial to us and to the West, as Russia and China are spending billions and billions on deliberate misinformation. Does he also agree that, given that the value of the BBC licence fee has been cut in real terms by 30% since 2010, the only way to avert this situation is for the FCDO to give more money to the World Service in grant as a matter of urgency?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord on the value not just of the BBC World Service but of the role that the BBC plays, particularly in the current challenging environments on the global stage. We have seen additional funding and support being provided. The noble Lord will recall that last year we announced an additional £20 million of funding specifically to support the World Service on language provision. I note what the noble Lord said about future funding, which is exactly why, in a strategic way, our colleagues at the DCMS are conducting the overall funding review that I alluded to in my original Answer.
Latin America
Lord Liddle Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on obtaining this debate; the interval since the last one has been unacceptably long. In her career, both here and as a Member of the European Parliament, she has always been an assiduous worker for the progressive causes to which she has devoted her life.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am not a specialist in Latin American affairs, but my interest in the area was aroused when I had the good fortune to work in the Labour Governments from 1997 to 2010. As part of that, I met some remarkable people. I met Presidents Lagos and Bachelet of Chile and saw how that country was putting the terrible experience of the Pinochet dictatorship behind it, but in an extremely impressive spirit of generosity and wanting to forgive the past.
I also met President Lula da Silva, who is one of the most remarkable political figures of our age, given his emergence from a poverty-stricken background to become a trade union leader and then President of his great country. Of course he has his faults, but to my mind he grasped the essentials of being a progressive politician. He recognised that he had to work very strongly with the private sector to develop Brazil’s enormous economic potential, but at the same time he was very committed to tackling poverty. Many children and poor families in Brazil benefited from his admirable social programme, which introduced a form of child benefit for every Brazilian family.
Of course, Britain used to be very important in the region, and many noble Lords have referred to George Canning to prove that. I am certainly aware of its importance, as I am from Cumberland and I know that Workington Iron & Steel produced many of the steel rails that built the railways of South America. I am afraid that the days of our imperialist economic success are not going to return. But I am also a child of the post-war era, and we would never have survived without South American ham and corned beef, as we were still on the ration until 1954.
Let me just make a few big points. First, thinking about South America enables us to think about some of the biggest challenges of our time. People have referred to climate change and the paradox of the need to preserve the Amazonian forest while, at the same time, the exploitation of the continent’s minerals and raw materials is a massive opportunity for us all. We need to strike the right balance that results in environmental sustainability.
Secondly, the drugs trade, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, is relevant to Europe but obviously very relevant to South America. It is easy to be critical, but one has to remember the needs of some of the poor peasants who survive as a result of this trade. We have to find a different way to give them economic opportunity.
Thirdly, and most importantly, some speakers referred to the growth of democracy in Latin America. That is very encouraging, and we need to think about how to sustain it. At the same time, I am worried that, on the Ukraine conflict, which for me is an existential defence of democracy, so many people from countries in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere do not automatically and instinctively think of it as a battle for the fundamental rights of democracy. They do not understand it, and this is a great worry.
One of my suggestions to the Minister, even though this is not his area of responsibility, is to think seriously about Britain’s role in this part of the world. As a starting point, I would like an audit of British soft power in Latin America and how we can make more of it—of the British Council, the World Service, the links between universities in Britain and Latin America, and the research opportunities that Latin America offers us. Our universities can also bring an even greater understanding of their culture, history and language. The Government could do that: they could bring everybody together and find a way to get more value from what we already do.
The other thing that we have to think about more seriously is our trade and development strategy for the region. Trade is an issue that I have always followed closely, ever since I worked in the Commission. Last week, I saw that the EU has abandoned its attempt to secure a trade deal with Mercosur, at least for the moment. Now that we have an independent trade policy, what is Britain’s trade strategy in Latin America? How do we relate that to our development strategy? It seems to me that we cannot go to countries and say, “We’ll trade with you only if you do environmentally acceptable things”, if we, as a comparatively rich country, are not prepared to offer aid and development in order to make sure that it is easier for those countries to do the right thing on such issues. Trade and development must be linked, and I am not convinced—this is not a party-political point—that that linkage has so far been established. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Israel/Gaza
Lord Liddle Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, there have been fine speeches in this debate, introduced by the Minister so excellently—I was very sorry that I was a few minutes late to his speech. There is also a lot of high emotion, which I understand. The reason I decided to put my name down for this debate was because I felt that emotion about what happened to the people in the kibbutzes next to Gaza, which I visited on the same visit as my noble friend Lord Austin. There they had created what I thought was a little paradise on earth, with all their efforts over the years—an absolutely beautiful, peaceful, wonderful place. And then this happens.
Nothing can excuse that kind of slaughter. I cannot bear the people in Britain who seem to think that this is something the Israelis brought on themselves. That is an appalling view. I agree with all those who criticised the demonstrations at the weekend, because the whole tone was fundamentally against the very existence of the State of Israel. After what happened in the Second World War and the Holocaust, we all had a moral responsibility to provide a Jewish homeland. It has the full right to defend itself.
Having said that, I hope that the Israeli Government will behave with great care. I very much took note of the remark President Biden made when he was in Israel, when he said that he hoped they would not make the mistake we had made in 2001 after 9/11, and that we had got ourselves into lots of difficulties as a result. He is a very wise man, President Biden.
What my noble friend Lord Reid said in his speech is right. Although Israel is fully justified in taking whatever military action it wants to destroy Hamas— I agree that it is fully justified—it is going to be a pretty horrendous thing. I do not know quite know what can be done about that. I hope that the Israelis will support humanitarian aid for the Palestinians as much as possible. It is very important for them to make clear to the world that this is a fight against Hamas, not against the Palestinians. They must do their utmost—and we should be urging them to do their utmost. They must also adhere, as I believe they do, to the highest standards in warfare to try to minimise violence, but it is going to be pretty horrible and ghastly.
The big question will be how we prevent this turning into a much wider Middle East conflagration. I would have thought that the key here is that there has to be a fundamental change of heart on the Israeli side, particularly of Prime Minister Netanyahu, towards the legitimacy of the Palestinian position. They have got to come up with a new initiative that demonstrates real commitment to a two-state solution. They have got to see how they can get the friends that Israel has made in the Arab world to be guarantors of that two-state solution, and they have to make it look as though this time they are determined to make it real.
I believe that reconciliation is possible. We have seen examples in the world that others have quoted earlier in this debate. The one that I remember personally is when I was attending a dinner in Northern Ireland at which Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley Jr were cracking jokes with each other a few years after all the awful violence that there had been in Northern Ireland. Reconciliation is possible. Yes, Israel must fight to defend itself, but it must also show that it has the generosity of spirit to build a viable long-term solution.
Integrated Review Refresh
Lord Liddle Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, first, I simply reiterate that the IDS—the international development strategy—remains our overall strategy, and that does not change. But the changing global context means we need to go further and faster on certain elements of it, not least international development, and we are supercharging that IDS. I cannot answer the question in relation to the spending commitments. I am afraid I am going to have to put that to colleagues in the FCDO, in whose portfolio that sits. But I strongly agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the threat of drug resistance. This is probably the greatest health threat we face today. We take our eye off that very immediate, very grave threat at our peril. I will make sure that his remarks are heard by colleagues in the department. I also believe that on a domestic scale we should be investing in protecting ourselves—insulating ourselves as much as possible against the threat of drug resistance here in the UK as we reach the end of the pipeline of existing antibiotics, partly as a consequence of our abuse of them.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this paper is a great improvement on its predecessor. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Collins and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. What I fear is that, although it recognises that Russia is the main immediate threat we face, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, says, it does not do sufficient to make sure that we can actually face that threat.
Is it not the case that what we need within the NATO alliance today is a massive programme of European rearmament to deter Russian aggression? Is it not also the case that, of the £5 billion that has been awarded in this defence review, £3 billion will be spent, as it says in the document, on nuclear capabilities and the AUKUS submarines—not on conventional defence? Are we really satisfied that we are doing enough? Does the Minister accept that deterring Russia for us, as a medium-sized European power, must be the top priority?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Not only do I agree that it is a short and medium-term top priority but I think that is reflected squarely in this document. How the additional money is spent is, as noble Lords know, for the MoD to prioritise. Whereas we are a medium-power European economy, we invest more in our Armed Forces than almost any other country in the world. We are a top investor.
Notwithstanding that, we are only as good as our partnerships with allies and friends around the world. The UK has been at the forefront of rallying a consensus against Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine, with some considerable success, in addition to the direct support we have provided to Ukraine’s defence. The UK has stepped up. I do not think we could be accused of underestimating or underplaying the threat posed by Russia. The UK will continue to prioritise this issue.
EU: Trade in Goods (European Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Liddle Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, from this side of the House, I join in the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She was one of the Conservative Ministers in the Thatcher and Major Governments whom I most admired, particularly for her work on overseas development. We are going to miss her a great deal and I thank her for what she had to say.
I also join in the tributes to our committee. I am a member of the committee; I regard it as one of the privileges of being a Member of this House to be able to be a member of its European committee, and I certainly think the chairman has done extremely well since I became a member. He chairs the committee with consistent charm and grace; he can occasionally be tough but is always intelligent and wise in his judgments and I think we would lose a lot from his absence. I also pay tribute to the staff who have managed the adjustment from the grand European Union Committee that we once had to the lesser European Affairs Committee that we are now members of. They have been very helpful, worked very hard and put an enormous amount of effort in: we owe a great deal to them.
I feared that this debate might be something of an unproductive battle of statistics, and I do not intend to go there: I am not going to get involved in doppelgangers, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be pleased to know. I think there are two facts that come out of the analysis of our trade position since Brexit. One is that, although UK trade has recovered in the last year, it has not recovered as fast as other countries’ trade has from 2019. Trade intensity, a measure of trade in GDP, has declined somewhat. We are suffering a bit on trade, but one fact that the noble Lord did not mention, which is one of the most worrying things about the trade position, is that small companies have been particularly hard hit. I regard small companies as the entrepreneurial future of Britain. From those small companies should grow big companies, but one-third of small companies, I think, have dropped out of trading with the European Union. That is an extremely serious problem. I do not quite know, and I would like to ask the Minister, whether the Government recognise that to be a major issue and what they are trying to do to help small companies compete more effectively in the EU. In that regard, I think the fact that European companies can come here without any control, while small companies in Britain face all these controls at the borders, is bound to put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Also, the SPS issue is very important for small companies. We have heard of all the problems with Scottish seafood, plant growers and all that stuff: some of the eminent Members of this House own companies in the plant-growing area. They have faced very considerable problems, yet the Government are taking what I regard as a dogmatic position on SPS. Again, it would be good to hear whether there is any shift from the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in the negotiations, which was that, in any circumstances, dynamic alignment with the EU was completely unacceptable. I am not suggesting dynamic alignment in all areas, but it seems to me that to say it could never be acceptable, you have to look at the price you are paying, and I think quite a lot of small businesses are paying a very high price for a bit of Tory dogmatism, to be quite honest. Are the Government going to reconsider that position in the future?
The debate on Brexit is moving on. I was passionately opposed to it, but I regard my position now as asking how we make the best of where we are. I do not see any prospect of an early return to the European Union; for that to happen there would have to be a settled political consensus in the UK—in other words, a very significant shift of opinion in the Conservative Party about its attitude to the European Union. I do not think that our partners would be in the slightest bit interested in a British reapplication while the political debate in Britain is so heated and divided. We had better accept that and try to make the best of it we can. I have detected a sense in which the debate is moving on. For instance, we have moved away from the position where a lot of people who were in favour of Brexit claimed that we would not suffer any problems in trade as a result of leaving. There are undoubtedly bureaucratic barriers that have been erected, and the TCA is the result, and that is now more admitted than it was two years ago.
It is six years since the referendum; it is three years since we left. The Government have been presumably working very hard on trying to define a policy of divergence which would demonstrably improve our competitive position. In my view, they have not as yet produced much of a positive result; this is a very significant failure on the part of those who were the strongest supporters of Brexit. I am unimpressed by the trade deals that we have managed to deliver, in terms of their economic benefits. I am convinced that there are areas where regulatory freedom would be beneficial, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, in the new high-tech industries, digital trade and all that. However, we do not see much coming out of the Government, and what I fear about the Bill we are going to debate next week is that there is again a sort of ideological presumption that if we abolish all EU law, somehow this is going to result in a great revival of the British economy. If you are serious about this, you have to do detailed sectoral analysis of where divergence might be beneficial. I see very little evidence of that on the Government’s part, with the possible exception of financial services, and most experts on financial services think that the Government are exaggerating the extent of the divergence that they are recommending. We have to make the best of it, and I hope the Government recognise that this is what they are trying to do.
I would be interested to hear what the Government feel their policy will be for the future of regulation; what their policy will be for the revision of the TCA in two years’ time—we have to start thinking about that—and where they see the possibility of what I would call sovereign alignment. If it is in our interests to align with EU rules, that is a sovereign decision of ours, not the EU imposing anything on us. It is up to us, so we should allow for that possibility. At present, it is just ruled out. I think that is a very big problem.
There we are: we must do our best to improve things. I will always remain a passionate pro-European. I believe that events since 2016, particularly in Ukraine, have underlined the importance of close engagement and friendship with our European friends and partners. While we cannot be members of the European Union in the foreseeable future, I will certainly never give up campaigning for a united Europe.
Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (European Affairs Committee Sub-Committee Report)
Lord Liddle Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the European Affairs Committee, I add my thanks for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, does on the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee and for the excellent work of Stuart Stoner and his officials. They work really hard and do their best in a very difficult situation.
We are dealing with a world of second-bests here—possibly third-bests. I have great respect for the views of the unionists that these changes have been imposed on Northern Ireland without cross-community consent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, was the first person who pointed that out to us in this Chamber; it is a fact that this has happened. But there is now no going back to the status quo as it was before Brexit. Brexit has altered everything. It has fundamentally altered relations on the island of Ireland and there is no way that we can go back to where we were as a United Kingdom prior to that.
However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that the European Commission has not approached this question in the most tactful manner. From my experience of working in the Commission, I say that it sees its role, fundamentally, as protecting the competencies of the EU in trade and the single market. It has looked at the Irish question from that very narrow institutionalist perspective and has not taken into account as fully as it should the complexities of the Northern Ireland situation. Do noble Lords think that our Government actually pointed that out? Boris Johnson certainly did not; he was only too anxious to sign off on this protocol agreement in order to “get Brexit done”. He did not give a—sorry, I was about to swear there. He did not care one little bit for Northern Ireland. That should be borne in mind.
How do we make the best of this bad job? We must work much harder at getting effective mechanisms working between the Northern Ireland people, the Assembly and its stakeholders, and the European Commission. The situation requires dynamic alignment, but that has to be done in a way where the views of the people in Northern Ireland are fully taken into account. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested, and I think that there should be a regular consultative forum, where senior people from the Commission go to Belfast and listen to and debate the views of politicians from all parts of Northern Ireland. I am a member of the new UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and we should establish a sub-committee that brings together Northern Ireland politicians and MEPs on a regular basis. That would be very constructive.
We must recognise that this is the world of the second-best and there is no going back to what it was before Brexit.
BBC World Service
Lord Liddle Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife, Caroline Thomson, was deputy director of the World Service in the 1990s.
This has been a very good debate, and what is impressive about it is the very strong support from all sides of the House for the World Service. I particularly pay tribute to the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, because it is important that this cross-party support is sustained. I also put on record what I know to be the case: despite his involvement in the coalition the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was a stalwart defender of the BBC at every opportunity that he had.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on his maiden speech. His arrival in the House does not quite convince me of the virtues of the hereditary principle but at least he will speak from a real-world experience of education. That will be of enormous value to the House.
I have some brief remarks to add to the excellent speeches we have heard. I support the World Service because I am a patriot and believe in Britain. I believe that the World Service is one of the things that makes Great Britain really great. It has phenomenal global reach: two-thirds of the 489 million people the BBC reaches are, incidentally, reached through foreign language-speaking services, a point to which we return. It is a sphere in which we are genuinely world leading, in that phrase overused by previous Prime Ministers. This is world-leading Britain and we must not sacrifice it. It is a tremendous tribute to the quality of the journalism offered there, often by people such as the Iranians based in London, whose families have a terrible time back home because of their commitment to honesty and truth.
It is essential that services modernise with the times. This is why the BBC, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary, has been a tremendous success: it has modernised. I remember that, in the 1990s, there was a great controversy about the proposal of John Birt, now the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to merge the World Service newsroom with the domestic one to create a single newsroom. A lot of people thought that this was dreadful, but in fact it has been a great success and it means that, domestically, we benefit from the network of World Service journalists around the world.
The BBC now justifies what it is doing on the basis of the need for it to become digital—it is part of a digital strategy. I am obviously sympathetic to that; it is certainly the right thing for the domestic audience. But I talked to someone who worked for the World Service for years and he was extremely cautious about the abandonment of language services happening as a result of this shift to a digital strategy, particularly given the capacity of authoritarian regimes to block online delivery when it is most needed. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on this very real point and why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is not making special efforts to ensure that foreign language services in countries such as Iran continue.
I do not know whether the Minister will be proud to make his speech today. It seems to me that the extra money could easily be found to pay for the continuance of these language services. If I wanted to be nasty and partisan, I would say that it is a tiny fraction of the money that the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, allegedly banked as a result of her VIP contract with the Government. Therefore, the Minister has to argue strongly for why he believes that this is all in the interests of the World Service and why we should not be doing more to protect it.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
That is another reason why I agreed strongly with the noble Lord—he was quoting me.
The UK is a fierce champion of media freedom and a proud member of the Media Freedom Coalition, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, rightly cited, and these values are reflected globally in the World Service’s broadcasts. That coalition now has some 50 members, and the UK has been among the most active of them. We co-chaired the coalition in 2019, and we have and continue to fund aspects of it, not least the secretariat. Like the noble Baroness, we recognise the value in that coalition.
Whether debunking disinformation or countering harmful state narratives, the World Service reports on topics that other media outlets simply will not touch. For example, its reporting continues to play a crucial role in challenging the Kremlin’s corrupted narrative, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made in his brilliant opening remarks. I can tell him that one of the facts provided by my team in the Box is that 4.7 million Russian viewers per week dipped into these services in 2021-22. So, it is a valuable resource—more than that, it is a critical resource of accurate information. Its unique, impartial lens allows it to speak to vulnerable and underrepresented audiences around the globe. The World Service promotes a free media, free expression and journalistic excellence. It undermines biased reporting and embodies our democratic values. That is real power. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, it is the jewel in the crown in so many respects.
The World Service was funded by grant in aid from the Government until 2016, when it moved under the mantle of the licence fee. I believe that decision was made in 2010. I will come on to the FCDO role in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, suggested that the FCDO has engaged in spending on trashy Brexit propaganda—I may have got the wording wrong, but those were the sentiments. I do not think the FCDO has funded any such propaganda, certainly not trashy propaganda. I do not believe that is something my department engages in, but if he has any examples, I would be interested to hear them.
Since the decision was made to move to the licence fee, the FCDO has provided the World Service with nearly £470 million in funding through the World 2020 programme. Since that programme launched, as we heard from many noble Lords, 365 million people have tuned in weekly. That is a 40% increase since 2016, which was the start of the FCDO-funded World 2020 programme. The two are linked. It is hard to know exactly how strong that link is, but it is hard to believe that there is no such link.
This has allowed for expansion, including 12 new languages, mainly across Africa and Asia, and enhancements to existing language services including English, Russian, Arabic and Thai. The funding has helped with digital transformation and supported countering disinformation. In response to comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the FCDO has committed to maintain the same level of flat cash funding of £283 million over the spending review period of 2022 to 2025, which equates to £94.4 million a year, of which £76.9 million is ODA and £17.5 million is non-ODA. None of that is licence fee funding; it all comes from the FCDO.
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, we also provided an additional £1.44 million in ODA funding this year, alongside £2.65 million from the DCMS, for Ukrainian and Russian-language services and to support the wider World Service in countering Russian disinformation. These arrangements remain in place, with the licence fee funding the majority of the World Service from a commitment of £254 million per annum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made some very powerful points. She particularly referenced Nigeria. Another batch of information I was able to harvest from my colleagues in the Box tells me that the FCDO specifically funds services in Igbo, Pidgin and Yoruba in Nigeria through the World 2020 programme. That is a commitment that we take seriously and will continue.
However, as noble Lords have recognised, we have to recognise the challenging fiscal environment in which the world finds itself. The BBC, just like households and businesses across the UK, is having to make tough financial decisions and identify savings across all its priorities. As part of that process, it has announced its intention to become a more “digital first” organisation. That has meant changes in the way some services are delivered, which I recognise has raised questions about what this means for global audiences in practical terms.
First, to clarify, the recent announcements confirm that under these proposals, there will be no language closures across the World Service. Audiences will retain access to all 42 language services, but increasingly through digital platforms, which are in any case becoming the most popular mode of engagement. I will come back to that in a second. Yes, the BBC has taken the decision to close 10 radio services by March 2023, including BBC Persian and BBC Arabic—points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. However, in this digital age, radio audiences are shrinking, with no indication at all that the trend will reverse. In an example cited throughout this debate, in Iran, only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly audience of 13.8 million get BBC news solely via radio. The other 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online, both of which will continue, as with BBC Arabic.
Therefore it is unrealistic to suggest, as some have, that the Iranian Government are celebrating this development. The BBC continues to provide not far off 100% of the content that it has been providing, certainly to nearly 100% of the people who have enjoyed and consumed BBC News. For this reason, the BBC has committed to increase investment in digital services, reflecting how audiences engage with their services.
Specifically on Iran, a number of noble Lords asked what we are doing in response to recent threats to Iranian journalists. On 11 November, the Foreign Secretary summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires, Iran’s most senior representative here in the UK, regarding a whole series of very acute, serious threats made against journalists living here in the UK. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that we do not tolerate such threats to life or intimidation of any kind towards journalists or any individual living in the UK. The UK ambassador has spoken with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on four occasions about their complaints of media reporting of the protests in the UK. Like everyone who has spoken on this issue today, we absolutely condemn the Iranian authorities’ crackdown on protesters, journalists and internet freedom and continue to raise these issues with Iran at every appropriate opportunity.
The BBC has set up new units in London, Delhi and Lagos to counter disinformation, producing award-winning investigative documentaries and impactful stories on modern slavery, the rights of women and girls, and local elections. In response to comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a new China global unit will produce content focused on exposing the challenges and realities currently facing China and its fight for global influence, so we are not backing away from attempting to use this extraordinary tool that we are discussing today to try to influence proceedings and affairs in China.
A dynamic Africa content hub will commission and deliver more digital content for all 12 African language services and will provide coverage of the continent for the rest of the BBC. The BBC has said that these decisions will mean less reliance on local syndication partnerships, more ownership of content and greater freedom to broadcast on its own channels. It has also provided assurances that the World Service will continue to serve audiences in need, ensuring continued access to vital news.
We recognise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that some decisions relating to the BBC’s operations will have impacts on jobs; we have already received and responded to questions from the public and both Houses on this subject. It is important to note that the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government, which I think we all value and appreciate. That said, the funding that is currently enjoyed by the BBC is protected until 2025 as per the spending review settlements. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State of the DCMS has made it clear to the BBC that it should continue to make a substantive investment from the licence fee into the World Service to ensure that it continues to effectively reflect the UK, its culture and values in English and through its language services.
The FCDO is working with the DCMS on a regular basis to figure out how we can protect the BBC World Service interests in this transition that is happening. There is a very clear recognition—I reiterate it here—that we understand the value of the BBC World Service. Nothing that anyone has said in this debate so far about its value on so many different levels in any way parts from the position of the UK Government or me as a Minister, and that will be reflected in whatever arrangements are made going forward.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I accept all the noble Lord is saying about how the Government value the World Service, but does he think that the withdrawal of the radio service in Persian is the right thing to do at the present time?
Ukraine: Defence Relationships
Lord Liddle Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
That this House takes note of (1) the impact of the conflict in Ukraine, (2) the implications for the Integrated Defence Review, and (3) the case for the United Kingdom strengthening (a) its relationships with the European Union and other European allies, and (b) its commitment to NATO.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, right at the start of this debate I want to put on record my admiration for the courage and heroism of Ukraine’s people and their president. The Russian invasion of Ukraine constitutes the greatest threat to peace in Europe since the Second World War. None of us imagined that we would ever again witness such terrible scenes of armed butchery on our continent, even though the horrors of Yugoslavia in the 1990s warn us that the blood-soaked legacies of Europe’s history cannot simply be washed away.
I have some experience of Ukraine. Some 20 years ago, the Prime Minister appointed me to head a regular No. 10 dialogue with its presidential administration. We visited Ukraine four or five times, taking in Crimea, Odessa and Lviv, as well as Kyiv, and there were return meetings in London. President Leonid Kuchma’s Ukraine was then deeply divided, caught between its western provinces, which are more nationalist and committed to Europe, and the pro-European east where the oligarchs retained close links to the old Soviet fatherland but did not want a return to Moscow domination. These divisions deepened at the time of 2014 revolution, the deposition and fleeing of President Yanukovych, Putin’s seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of civil war in the Donbass. Putin’s behaviour since then has force Ukrainians to make a choice, with the vast majority choosing freedom and independence, united behind a commitment to a shared European future.
Today, my emotions are very simple ones. Thank God for NATO. Thank God for 70-years of cross-party leadership that learned the lessons of the 20th century: that the world is safer when Britain does not cower, does not retrench and does not abandon our hard-fought values out of political expediency. Also, as a Labour man, let me say thank God for Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who gave us this legacy. Thank God for leaders of the Labour Party such as Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan, who consistently sustained that legacy; and, in my generation, my noble friends Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Reid, both whom I had the privilege of working with very closely. Today, Keir Starmer stands firmly in that same tradition.
The Ukraine crisis shows that NATO belongs to the future not the past. It has shown the crucial role that at present the United States, and only the United States, can play. Joe Biden and his Administration have been magnificent, but the shadow of a re-elected Donald Trump hangs over NATO like a suspended death sentence. There will be no closer watchers of the 2022 mid-terms and the presidential primaries than the occupants of the Kremlin.
I congratulate the Government for a good part of their immediate Ukraine response: tougher sanctions on Russia, help for Ukraine’s devastated economy and rapid supply of weaponry. Yet our support for refugees has been lamentable, and we must do more to sanction Russians and hold them financially accountable for their conduct. Liz Truss’s rhetoric on war aims is overblown; she should remember that it is the brave Ukrainians, not us, who are fighting this war on the ground. Our aim should be to put Ukraine in a position where Zelensky can bring Putin to the negotiating table from a position of strength, not be forced to accede to a ceasefire that offers merely a temporary pause while Russia regroups. That requires Europe and the United States to devise a credible offer of military and economic security for Ukraine that, while not full NATO membership, is sufficient to deter Putin from future adventurism. We should also think about offering whoever emerges post Putin as his successor the potential for a relationship based on mutual security and respect, a return to the principles of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. We must preserve and strengthen NATO, and that means Britain and the rest of Europe rising from our past complacency, matching the gravity of current events with a concerted rethinking of the principles of our defence, foreign and wider security policy.
Ukraine has demonstrated that the key to our security is Europe, not the mushy rhetoric of global Britain. The requirement is a stronger and more united Europe with Britain playing its full part. Brexit is done. Let us for now put it behind us. The priority today is a more constructive approach to the EU and its key member states.
Let me suggest five ways forward. First, Britain needs to articulate a Europe-wide strategy to confront and contain Russia. Last year’s integrated review had some strengths. It half-identified the danger that stood before us: a revanchist Russian state intent on aggressively remaking the post-Cold War settlement. Yet it de-emphasised Britain’s commitment to Europe and the need for new thinking on transatlantic and European collective security. It deprioritised the Army. It focused British grand strategy on a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific to confront the rising power of China. It showed, in Professor Michael Clarke’s words,
“frankly insulting indifference to European partners”.
Its claims to be truly integrated now ring hollow. There was no discussion of oil, gas or energy security; no discussion of the role of Russia as the energy tap for so much of post-Cold War European development; no discussion of the power that OPEC nations continue to hold over the West; and no discussion of how the urgent transition from fossil fuels is now a security, as well as climate change, imperative. Furthermore, the advent of economic warfare against the Russian economy, with unprecedented sanctions, the freezing of central bank reserves and the pursuit of oligarchs across the world, is all new in international politics. The integrated review ignored the complexity of it.
Russia is the greatest threat to European security. Let us understand our objectives and our capabilities and build a strategy in common with our allies that will contain its aggressive ambitions. Only by articulating a common strategy, embracing a multilateral security partnership with our European allies, and only by embracing Europe, will we be taken seriously by the United States.
I have a question for the Minister. Are the Government planning to revise seriously their integrated review in the light of changed circumstances? Secondly, this will require reinvestment in British defence capabilities. The integrated review aspired to prepare us for a military challenge on the far side of the world but disregarded the necessary elements that would support our European partners and enable us to proactively confront Russia. The military was to be reshaped as
“leaner, more lethal, nimbler, and more effectively matched to current and future threats”.
Yet the Army in practice are set to lose their entire fleet of Warrior infantry fighting machines, with goodness knows what to replace them, and one-third of their Challenger tanks. Our land forces are now the smallest they have been since the 18th century.
We have been right to provide weaponry to the Ukrainian military, but we need urgently to replenish the stocks of those weapons that we have sent there. Even before Russia’s assault, the defence procurement budget faced a shortfall of more than £7 billion—incidentally, twice the whole of Ukraine’s 2021 defence budget. Rising inflation represents a further axe to the defence budget today, which is held constant in cash terms. My second question for the Minister is how much money has been set aside for replenishment of the weaponry that we have sent to Ukraine, and where is it coming from? The Government wax lyrical about global Britain, but we lack the capabilities to match words with action.
Thirdly, Britain should be an advocate for sustained investment in Ukrainian reconstruction and dealing with the global fallout from the conflict. NATO did not emerge in a vacuum. There was the Marshall Plan, and the focus on economic and social conditions, which brilliantly demonstrated the superiority of our values and economic system. Circumstances call on us to do the same again today. We must help Ukraine with debt—and, as for the emerging global famine, that is going to test us an awful lot over the coming months. We have to consider using the frozen Russian assets to invest in Ukrainian redevelopment and the mitigation of the global food crisis.
Fourthly, we must transform Britain’s relationship with the European Union, which our Government continue to treat with disdain. In some regards, this is deeply comical—for instance, when the Prime Minister would have us believe that the Ukrainian people’s struggle for their very lives is akin to Brexit. When the Foreign Secretary went to Brussels, she tweeted about her meetings with NATO and G7 allies but somehow forgot that she had been invited to the EU Foreign Affairs Council, a very special step on the part of the EU. Contempt cannot be a guiding principle for British foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary’s notion of an international network of liberty sounds appealing, but what on earth does it mean in practice? Sanctions, aid, energy policy and now weapons provisions are being co-ordinated through the mechanisms of the European Union. We must deal with realities, not fantasies, and build a sustainable partnership with them.
Fifthly—and this will be more controversial, I think—we should work with our European allies and partners to develop greater European strategic autonomy. Some deride President Macron’s advocacy of European strategic autonomy as a typically Gaullist and anti-American thing. I can see friends nodding on the other side of the House. Or they see it as a federalist project with which we should have nothing to do whatever. But in my view, it can be seen as a means of getting the whole of Europe to be serious about defence, as, thankfully, under Olaf Scholz, the Germans now are. It can, should and will complement NATO, not threaten NATO. How long have the Americans and the UK complained about the continent not living up to our NATO responsibilities? As a result of Ukraine, Germany is set to surpass, quite soon, the UK as the third-largest defence spender in the world.
We have no relationship with the enlarged budget of the European Defence Agency. How are we going to take part in procurement programmes? President Macron recently articulated the interesting idea of a tiered European political arrangement, with an outer political community for nations that are not EU members. Is this not an opportunity for Britain, a potential vehicle for closer European co-operation, without rejoining the EU itself?
I have another question for the Minister. What consideration are the Government giving to President Macron’s thinking? A European political community involves no loss of sovereignty for us. For Ukraine, it offers the chance to fulfil its European vocation. Some 86% of Ukrainians support EU membership— even two-thirds of those who live in the eastern provinces. I believe the EU should accept Ukraine as a candidate for membership, but getting there would be protracted and complex and exacerbated by the war. A European political community could give reality to Ukraine’s European vocation much sooner.
In conclusion, Putin is driving Europe together and driving it to change. Britain has to go with the flow. We are thinking a lot about the forthcoming NATO summit, the welcome prospect of Finnish and Swedish membership, the revision of the NATO strategic concept, but we should also be thinking about how we work with Europe’s common security and defence policy. Brexit has warped the discourse on European co-operation for far too long. There is no better time than this moment of acute danger for Britain to change course.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it was a privilege to introduce this debate and it has been a great pleasure to listen to the many and varied contributions we have had, even from very distinct perspectives such as those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the railways and my noble friend Lord Harris on national resilience. I was particularly interested in and am always eager to listen to the very thoughtful contributions from noble and gallant Lords. One of the biggest influences on me when I worked in No. 10 Downing Street was Charles Guthrie, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, from whom I learned an enormous amount and whom I was very privileged to know.
I will make just two big points. First, I am not trying to reopen the Brexit debate; I am talking about co-operation with the European Union. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that the Government were open to new initiatives. That is good. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right that the way NATO was created was first, fundamentally, from a bilateral security treaty between Britain and France—that is what Bevin started with, and then he extended it to Benelux—and then NATO came in. European security must have a European dimension to it. No one picked up on my point about the risks of how the politics of the United States might change to Europe’s disadvantage in the coming years. That is a very serious problem. So I am not trying to reopen an old debate, I am just trying to emphasise that Europe must be a vital part of NATO, and I am very strongly pro-NATO.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave a very comprehensive reply, but I asked him three questions which he did not really answer. The first was whether the Government would reconsider the integrated review. I rather gathered from what he said that they do not think that is necessary—that the integrated review can stand, despite the change in circumstances. I would be very grateful if he could confirm that in a letter to me.
I also raised a point about the funding of defence equipment, given what we have done for Ukraine—are we taking a hit on that in our own defence capacities or is the Treasury willing to open up the coffers to ensure that our defence is not weakened further? I would like a response on that if possible.
Thirdly, our longest and oldest ally is France. Therefore, when President Macron makes interesting suggestions about how European defence and co-operation should develop, it is the duty of the British Government to take him seriously and offer their own response to the points he is making. I wonder what that is and I would be very grateful in future if the Minister would tell me—and I beg to move.
Europe: Foreign Policy and Defence Co-operation
Lord Liddle Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to deepen foreign policy and defence cooperation with European allies, in particular France and Germany.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, European allies are vital in building a network of liberty and in tackling shared challenges. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with many of her European colleagues in recent weeks, as has the Prime Minister, including on the situation in Ukraine. France and Germany are two of our closest partners, and we work with both countries at the highest levels. Our forces regularly operate alongside one another around the world, including defending NATO’s eastern flank.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I tabled this Question before the Ukraine crisis reached fever pitch. I was pleased a couple of weeks ago that the Prime Minister said that he would bring together Europe in a united stance against President Putin, but now all I read is government briefing that Britain stands four-square with the United States, in contrast to the alleged weakness of France and Germany. Despite the Government’s temptation to scratch away at the Brexit issues that remain unresolved, will they now restate clearly and firmly the supreme and overriding importance they attach to a common European and NATO position with our European allies and friends, which in this moment of great crisis should come above all other considerations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, European security is clearly directly linked to UK security, and I do not think anyone questions this. We share many security and defence interests with our European allies, from addressing climate change to tackling malign actors. As one of only two European nations with truly global military reach and the largest European spend in NATO, we remain an essential ally on foreign policy, security and defence for the wider European Union.
Integrated Review: Development Aid
Lord Liddle Excerpts(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Jay in paying tribute to Frank Judd, whose voice we miss today. Not only was he the director of VSO, he was also chief executive of Oxfam, to which he remained committed throughout his life. My wife was chair of Oxfam in his last few difficult years; he was a great support to her.
No one can compete with the eloquence of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in two minutes—he set out the case perfectly—but I want to look at what my noble friend Lord McConnell said: why has this political decision been taken? It seems totally inconsistent with the concept of global Britain. It seems quite unjustified in the present circumstances, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Hayman, outlined. Why has the Conservative Party—this question must be directed at the Conservative Party—which so bravely supported increases in overseas aid in the worst decade of austerity we have seen since the Second World War, now ratted on that commitment? I would like the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to give us an explanation and tell us how much money has been spent on focus groups and opinion polls to test this decision. I suspect that this Government want to pander to people’s worst instincts when our business in politics is to try to appeal to their better ones.