Sri Lanka

Debate between Lord Triesman and Lord Wills

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I will go back through the UN figures and will provide the ones that I have seen. I was going to go on to say, as my noble friend Lord Wills did, that it appears that in the final stages the figure of up to 40,000 comes near to the death toll. The 18-month inquiry, which concluded in November 2011, covers all 26 years.

One thing is absolutely plain to me: in any civil war of that duration and intensity, the pain between the combatants and the communities from which they come is going to be very great. Significant inter-communal violence, which is very up-close, raw violence, has on the occasions when it has occurred led to the division of countries—for example, India and Pakistan—rather than to an attempt to keep one country in one form.

It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, that one sees a good deal more evidence of peace, which is very good news, but it is also true that there are credible reports of civil rights abuses. I add my appreciation to that already expressed for the United Kingdom forces involved in the de-mining exercise. I had the great privilege of being with those forces in Colombia in South America and saw just how amazing and dangerous their work was. I remember how relieved one felt to be able to go away at the end of a phase when they could not always do so.

Both sides have made credible claims; both have eye-witness accounts; and both seek retribution. One side has sought prosecution of perpetrators, with greater emphasis focused, perhaps understandably, on the shelling of hospitals, which, by common consent, caused considerable civilian casualties. However, I also note that the commission expressed findings even on this issue, stating that it was impossible to say who had been responsible for that shelling.

The report contains findings on many other issues. It apportions blame for the causes of the war pretty evenly between politicians on both sides. It makes it clear that there were no steps taken by the Sinhalese which could have placated the Tamil people. It makes it clear that Tamil politicians worked up passions for militant separation which were impossible to accede to.

While there was support for the report, there has also been significant criticism. A lack of independence in the report has been alleged. Not even minimum international standards of protection of witnesses was accorded to many of those who might have given evidence.

However, I share a view with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby: that the decisions of Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch not to take any part can scarcely have helped the process. It would have been better had they taken part and I am not sure that their reasons for not doing so are sustainable.

Many of the commission’s recommendations could be detailed very extensively, but I highlight those to deal with long-term detainees individually, to publish full lists, to ensure that freedom meant freedom—that is, once people had been released, they should not be re-arrested—to overcome legal delays in process, to disarm illegal groups immediately as a priority, to ensure that there is free movement in the country, to normalise civil administration and to make sure that documents were in languages that people could understand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I often feel—maybe I would—that sport can play a significant role in giving people the opportunity to see each other in circumstances that are not quite so gruesome.

However, people plainly want more, and herein lies the central dilemma. Reconciliation processes seldom satisfy those who have suffered the sharpest distress or grievances. No one in the United Kingdom would willingly accept any process where there was impunity. I do not know that it would ever speak well in our culture; nor do I think that it would speak well in anybody’s culture, because people want their most serious grievances addressed. As we have seen elsewhere, retributive justice after a war of this kind is very unlikely to achieve reconciliation—these are not easy choices to make—but that does not answer the question of impunity. That is why it is an audacious route to take to seek reconciliation in this way and why it is seldom welcomed by all those who seek complete justice or even confirmation that the evidence that they have provided, and on which they rely, is the only accepted truth that should be accounted for.

I am with the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Dholakia, in believing that one has to be clear on both sides about the conditions for success if this is the route that one wants to take. The first condition is that there should be sufficient independence in the inquiry to command support—and I support what Her Majesty’s Government have said about that, which is useful and correct.

Secondly, reconciliation can work fully in my view, even against all the odds, only if substantive outcomes can be achieved in the programme of reconciliation that is recommended. I make these points here not because the international groups have all written to me and urged that they should be made but because I hope for the success of the country and want to think about how that might be achieved. The outstanding evidence is clear; the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the first and perhaps most important point, that political processes have to encapsulate the rights for all groups and the rule of law, and that is fundamental. The aid agencies must be able to reach those needing aid, especially with medicines and medical facilities. I do not believe that there is evidence that that has fully happened, and I wonder whether the Minister has an observation on that.

There are clear failings in the existing IHL regime in respect of internal conflicts in both state and non-state armed groups. Does the Minister feel that there may be progress there? A large number of allegations have been made of abduction, arbitrary detention and disappearances—what is called a different kind of white van syndrome. There do not seem to me to be such clear outcomes as have been presented, and I wonder whether the Minister has views on that. I know from the work that was done in Argentina and Chile that, until those issues are fully nailed down, the families do not go away—and you can understand why. It will never satisfy them. The independent police commission has to function properly, and I am not absolutely clear from what I have read that it does function. I wonder whether the Minister has any observation.

I make one quick observation on Channel 4. Jon Snow is, in my view, one of the outstanding journalists of this generation. He has amazing standards and amazingly good personal, ethical values, which contrast with some others in the media. Yet questions persist about the authenticity of some of the footage of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. It is not for the Minister, but could Parliament perhaps encourage “Channel 4 News” to consider whether it has been deceived in any respect?

[Lord Wills]

I am very curious about this, because I did a lot of work researching all this, including reviewing those particular films. I looked at an Ofcom judgment; there were a lot of complaints about those films— hundreds, I think. Channel 4 was found not to be in breach at all by Ofcom, so I wonder whether my noble friend could specify what doubt there is. I am sure that he is aware that much of the footage in those films was filmed by Sri Lankan soldiers on their mobile phones. What possible doubt is there about the veracity of that footage?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, if my noble friend had allowed me just one more sentence, I was going to go on to say that I personally had no doubt about the authenticity of the films—that is my view. But when people, particularly in the current media climate, believe that it is important to be absolutely certain of these things, an excellent news programme such as I believe “Channel 4 News” is would do itself no harm if it repeated the exercise if it gave greater confidence. I personally have no doubt about the veracity, but my view may not be significant.

Finally, steps could be taken before the conformation of the final arrangements for the state visit, which is also very important—it is not just CHOGM. This is a real opportunity, in the spirit of Commonwealth standards and reputation, not least because the Commonwealth has an outstanding Secretary-General in Kamalesh Sharma, to ask questions, discuss progress and articulate a possible programme and means of verification of the programme. I know that that kind of Commonwealth role appealed enormously—it did in its time to me, and certainly it has done to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and I know that it does to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. For those reasons, I always attach great importance to what can be achieved by that kind of process. If it is done properly, it may well be that the value of the Commonwealth and of CHOGM in this instance will be very well demonstrated.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Triesman and Lord Wills

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, in rising to support the amendments that my noble friend Lord Stevenson has so eloquently presented and to which I have added my name, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests as set out at Second Reading of the Bill on 9 November last year.

The success of “The King’s Speech” at the Oscars, at other awards ceremonies and at the box office this year has been widely celebrated, as indeed has the success of other British films. These are tremendous achievements. “The King’s Speech” was a tremendous achievement for the writer, the director, the actors and everyone involved in its production, and that includes the UK Film Council. As Iain Canning, one of the producers of that film, said, the film,

“wouldn't have been made without the UK Film Council”.

As we have heard and as your Lordships will know, the UK Film Council is now no more. It was abolished last year by the Government by press release. It was hard to understand why the Government took that decision last year, but it is even harder to understand today when we see the tremendous success of these films in which the UK Film Council has played such an important role. The UK Film Council was a flourishing public body competing in a ferociously competitive marketplace. It has helped to treble the turnover of the British film industry in the past 10 years. It supported the development of new filmmakers, funded imaginative and innovative British films, and ensured that British audiences could have access to all the glories of the cinema, with a wider choice of films made available to audiences throughout the country.

So why did the Government do this? In what last year the Observer rather charitably called an,

“impassioned defence of his decision”,

the Secretary of State explained that it was “simply not acceptable” to use taxpayers’ money to fund an organisation that pays its top eight executives more than £100,000 each. That was the justification that he gave. However, the Secretary of State was wrong in saying that. In fact, there were only six such executives, and if that was to be the criterion for scrapping the UK Film Council, why hand its functions over to the British Film Institute, whose latest accounts submitted to the Charity Commission show that seven of its staff received remuneration packages of more than £100,000? That is seven—one more than the number of people in the UK Film Council receiving such packages. It is not clear whether this exercise will save money overall and I would welcome any comment that the Minister may have about whether we will see any savings from bringing those two bodies together.

I entirely accept that no organisation has a right to an eternal existence but, if politicians are going to butcher successful organisations operating in a world of which they seem to have very little knowledge and understanding, they would be well advised to have good reasons for doing so. That is all the more important when the organisation in question depends for its success on a very rare combination of skills: a commercial eye for an audience, an intimacy with the medium, a human empathy with creative artists, the ability to nurture and to develop them, and an inspirational excitement about the cultural and economic benefits which film can offer and which my noble friend Lord Stevenson so eloquently set out. Such organisations are very hard to create and when they work as well as the UK Film Council was working, they should be cherished, not arbitrarily destroyed.

This organisation was scrapped without consultation, just through a press release, and, as far as I am aware, Ministers have not even had the elementary courtesy at any point since then to say anything in praise of the UK Film Council's remarkable achievements, not even about its role in the creation of “The King’s Speech”. I note the contrast with the debate which we had earlier today when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, under assault from all sides of the House, still found it possible to pay tribute to all the good work done by the Youth Justice Board. By contrast, Ministers who take responsibility for this in the other place—I obviously make an exception for the Ministers on the Front Bench in this House who are completely blameless in this respect—have not even had the elementary courtesy to say one word in tribute to the organisation which, apparently, they have so arbitrarily scrapped.

Why should the exceptionally talented people who work for the UK Film Council hang around working for a public body when they all have so many other options—much more lucrative options, in most cases—and when they are treated with such discourtesy by the Secretary of State who will determine the future of film in this country? I understand that the haemorrhaging of talent has already begun. Able and experienced professionals are leaving the public sector for other jobs and no doubt more will follow. Successful organisations such as the UK Film Council exist in a fragile ecology and politicians meddle at their peril.

Of course, there are profound challenges facing film in this country but this casual and ill thought-through decision is not the way to meet them. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has already said that last year the British Film Institute and the UK Film Council discussed a merger and both sides decided, after lengthy discussion and after securing legal advice, that there would be significant problems in making it work. That is not surprising. They are very different organisations. One is essentially a cultural organisation and the other is an industrial organisation. They may sound as though they are all in the same industry and they both have the word “film” in their titles, but culturally, organisationally and in terms of their focus they are very different organisations. It is not surprising that they should have found a merger difficult to work through. That is not difficult to understand at all. It is entirely predictable that much the same sorts of problems are now being encountered in trying to bring these two organisations together. I hope that all responsible Ministers are taking an active interest in the discussions between the BFI and the UK Film Council and can find a way of making this merger work.

Amendment 65A draws attention to some of the unease that has been created by how the functions which have been discharged by the UK Film Council will be discharged in this new era. All mergers, all kinds of takeovers, whatever you want to call this current process, are difficult in every industry and every business. It is notoriously difficult to make them work successfully. I hope that Ministers are not just standing by and relying on all the talented, highly motivated and able people on both sides of this debate to bring this off themselves. Ministers may have to intervene to bring about a successful conclusion and I hope that they will do so.

In responding to the amendment, I ask the Minister to say whether the Government will ensure that the UK Film Council’s research and statistics unit will carry on that essential work long term. I understand that the funding is guaranteed for one year but will they ensure that it is carried on long term? Without a market intelligence function like this, the BFI will be making decisions in the dark. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee what estimate has been made of the impact of not funding film exports. Film exports under the guidance of the UK Film Council have grown by 92 per cent. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson has already said, in 2008, film exports amounted to more than £1.3 billion. At a time when the Government are placing so much of their hopes for economic recovery on growth in exports, why are they taking away the support function from such a crucial industry? Can the Minister name other crucial industries where support for exports has been similarly scrapped?

Can the Minister also say who will take over the UK Film Council’s role in opening up film to as wide and diverse an audience as possible? How will the BFI demonstrate a strategy which reflects its new responsibility for the entire film sector and not just BFI-related exhibition and distribution? What can the Minister say to assure this House that the BFI will be committed to representing the interests of the film industry as a whole as well as the UK Film Council has done in the past? That is crucial as technology and the economic structure of the industry are changing very fast. What can the Minister say to reassure the film industry and this House that the BFI will address effectively such key issues as film theft, piracy, pay-TV platforms, which are especially important now that Sky has become so market dominant in acquiring film rights for television, and the smooth transition of the film industry to new digital models? As I have already said, the BFI has essentially been a very successful cultural body, so what can the Minister say to reassure everyone that it can successfully take on this complex and demanding new role?

In the coming years, Ministers—I direct my remarks to Ministers in the other place—will be judged by how far the film industry measures up to the benchmark now set by “The King’s Speech”. Ministers may move on to new jobs in Government or to none but the Ministers responsible for this decision now risk being remembered as the politicians who carelessly and needlessly destroyed an important part of the infrastructure of the British film industry. They now have to prove that what they have put in its place will be an improvement. I very much hope that they can do so. These amendments give the Government an opportunity to offer reassurance that they now understand that. I hope that they will take it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and join him in congratulating those who won the Oscars. I perhaps should not forget the BAFTAs, which are more local and also well worth winning, as the same pattern of achievement was there.

I want to address the Committee on this amendment as I had the very good fortune to be the first person designated as the Minister for Intellectual Property, a role which I know that the new Government have also taken on as a ministerial post. The enjoyment from that role came from being involved not only in helping to drive forward businesses but in assisting in the development of cultural industries. I was under no illusion while doing so that Governments do not create business; they simply do their best to set out the conditions in which business might be able to thrive. The advantages of doing that are that, certainly in this country, we are unlikely to make much of our living doing many of the things which we have traditionally done, but we make a very good living from being successful in the creative industries.