BBC World Service

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

Obviously it is right that the BBC World Service is operationally and editorially independent, but that does not mean we cannot have views on what it does and says. For instance, on whether Hamas is a terrorist group, I could not be more clear: it is a terrorist group, and the BBC should say so. Editorial independence does not mean that politicians or anyone else are not allowed a view. We are, and those views should be taken into account.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary mentioned a few moments ago, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, the government review into future BBC funding. What input does he or his department intend to have into the review, given that its scope includes the World Service, which of course gets around a quarter of its funding in grant in aid from the FCDO?

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

Obviously, it would be a bit unfair on my government colleagues to announce at the Dispatch Box exactly what view I will take in these internal discussions, but I strongly support the World Service in a world in which we have so much dispute and misinformation—poisonous channels such as Russia Today and those sponsored by China and all the rest of it. We should be proud of the fact that the BBC is the most respected news source. If you add in BBC television and bbc.co.uk, it does not reach 318 million people; it reaches 411 million people, which makes it the most watched service as well, so we should be proud of that. We have something of a jewel in our crown, and we should support and promote it. That said, I am also proud that I was the Prime Minister who put in place quite a tough settlement for the BBC; but it was a six-year settlement, and that proved that if you give people a consistent horizon of how much money they are going to get, but ask them to make some savings, they can improve the service.

BBC World Service

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate. It is not the first that he has secured on the subject of the World Service and I am sure it will not be the last. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. He said that education is his passion; education is also my passion, and I look forward to hearing his contributions to debates on that subject going forward.

The World Service is an institution that I have supported and worked with for many years; it is one for which I have the greatest respect and admiration as the world’s most trusted and best-known international news broadcaster. It has had to adapt to the effects of cuts—politically motivated cuts—in funding over a period of more than a decade but has adapted to the challenges that that has presented with a determination to maintain the high standards and long reach for which it is renowned worldwide.

When its grant in aid from the then FCO ended, it was widely predicted that the move to licence-fee funding would see a reduction in services and quality of programmes; yet, while to a limited extent the first happened, the second did not, which has been due to the hugely talented and dedicated staff who work for the World Service. Today, its output can be said to be in a good place, with a total reach, as other noble Lords have said, of 365 million each week—a remarkable increase of 50% since 2016.

However, the World Service has achieved that despite, not because of, government. A succession of Tory Administrations have undermined the BBC as an institution, regarding it as insufficiently supportive of government policies. The contempt in which the corporation was held by the Johnson Administration reached its zenith with what I can only describe as the caricature appointment of Nadine Dorries—a long-time outspoken opponent of the BBC—as Culture Secretary. She regularly accused it of lacking impartiality in its programming, so it is somewhat ironic—in fact, it is much more serious than that—that, since her departure, the BBC has appointed a former GB News editorial director as its director of news programmes. Research commissioned by the BBC last year found that the organisation is associated around the world with distinctive British values of fairness, integrity and impartiality. What price those values now?

The World Service always keeps parliamentarians up to date with events in the world’s most troubled areas with its detailed briefings, both online and in person. Two days ago, I was privileged to attend an event organised jointly by the British Group of the IPU and the World Service to show a BBC Eye documentary entitled “Occupied”. That was a stunning secretly filmed record of life under occupation in Kherson that shed light on how the war in Ukraine impacts civilians and day-to-day life. It was very moving and was backed up by World Service journalists giving us their own experiences, as well as a visiting Ukrainian MP giving a first-hand account of life in her country.

Despite providing a small amount of additional funding following the Russian invasion, the Government have again made a political decision to cut the BBC’s funding, with no increases over the next three years. Following a strategic review of the World Service, the BBC’s reaction to that has been to cut its budget by £28.5 million a year from next year, resulting in almost 20% of all staff being made redundant. Whatever else they may be, those staff are not redundant; they are very much needed by many people living in conditions that we can only imagine.

Let us be absolutely clear where the blame lies: it lies fairly and squarely at the Government’s door. It can be argued, as indeed the National Union of Journalists does convincingly in a comprehensive briefing sent to noble Lords for today’s debate, that the cuts might have been more carefully targeted. One example mentioned by other noble Lords is the cutting of the Persian radio service for 17 hours a day. That will certainly be welcomed by the Iranian regime and will leave a void that may well be filled by a Saudi-funded channel. The BBC has been forced to make those cuts as a result of a Government who—no matter what the Minister may say in his reply—clearly do not value the BBC. In the words of the National Union of Journalists,

“These cuts were forced upon it by Conservative ministers who dislike the national broadcaster more than they value the national interest.”


Many in the Chamber today—and, I dare say, much further afield—will endorse that statement.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the essential work of the World Service must be funded directly by the FCDO, as was the case prior to 2011. If I can nudge my noble friend on our Front Bench, I hope that that is a policy that the next Labour Government will feel able to take forward. It should be a given that our Government fully appreciate the huge asset that the World Service is, both to the BBC and to the UK. It should, but it will require a change of Government to bring that about.

Soma Oil & Gas: SFO Investigation

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on what others have said. The Government will await the outcome of an investigation before commenting.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, following his recent visit to the Cayman Islands, Grant Shapps, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, suggested that the Government may be weakening their position on corporate transparency in the overseas territories. Can the noble Baroness state that the Government will firmly encourage the overseas territories to ensure that central registers of beneficial ownership are produced for the companies based in those territories?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not exactly an aficionado of cricket but even I can recognise a wide. In the spirit of co-operation, I will say that what we are doing with regard to Somalia, which is not an overseas territory, is to encourage responsible investment. We are strongly urging the Somali Government to ensure that any resulting investment and benefit from it is shared by the whole country. The benefit is clearly needed to reduce poverty there.

EU: Prime Minister’s Speech

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, this might be termed the “boiling an egg” debate, because that is probably one of the very few things that you can usefully accomplish in the amount of time that each of us has been given to speak today.

I find myself very much aligned with my noble friend Lady Donaghy, who said that she campaigned for a no vote in 1975 for reasons of working people’s rights but has now come round to face somewhat the other way—as, indeed, have I. I would be very concerned should we, as a country, depart from the European Union. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Owen, summed it up best when he described the Prime Minister’s speech last week as the words of a party leader and not a Prime Minister—that is exactly it. I really think that the European Union and our place within it are too important to be used as a way of dealing with a little local difficulty within the Conservative Party.

On the question of a referendum, I will ask: why now? I do not see why at all, but why now? Nothing of any great importance has occurred within the past few months. You could say, “I believe that referendums are appropriate for parliamentary democracy”. Referendums do have their place—certainly they were appropriate in 1975, for the Scottish Parliament, for the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, for the voting system. But what has happened to make this a pressing issue? Furthermore, what is likely to happen of a constitutional nature? I think it is key to a referendum that it should involve something of a constitutional nature. What has happened in the past few months or will happen in the next five years to make a referendum necessary? You could say it could have happened after Maastricht or Lisbon, but I do not see why we should be positing it as a notion now, because there is no constitutional issue per se to discuss. The basic question would be: do we stay in the EU?

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, opened the debate by talking of uncertainty. I think that she talked rather disparagingly of scaremongers. I ask the noble Baroness whether the following are scaremongers: Sir Andrew Cahn of Nomura, Sir Richard Branson, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, the CBI, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Browne, a close confidant of the Prime Minister. These are people of some substance, as indeed is Sir Nigel Sheinwald, who has made some pretty pithy statements in the past few days. So there is a bit more to it than perhaps meets the eye. The response might be, “What about the 50 business leaders who wrote to the Times?”. When you read their statement, it is clear that they did so very strongly from a position of wanting to remain within the European Union. That is different from the wishes of many people advocating a referendum who want us to withdraw.

I think that there will be a referendum, as various noble Lords have said. It is pretty much inconceivable that any of the main political parties will not suggest that at the 2015 general election. Therefore, I think that those of us who are in favour need to start making the positive case for remaining in the EU. We should not just deal with negatives but talk the case up.

I conclude by referring back to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who said that she regarded the prospect of a referendum in 2017 as an exciting one. Well, placing her head in the mouth of a lion might be exciting, but it is not something that I would recommend.

Kashmir

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for initiating this debate on what is an important subject, which, despite the number of Questions that have been asked in this House and the other place, still does not receive the coverage that it merits in this country and indeed further afield.

Perhaps I may read out an answer that I received to a Parliamentary Question on Kashmir, which is as follows:

“Our position on Kashmir is well known and well established. We believe that the best way forward in Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on discussions between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the Simla agreement of 1972. There must be improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/95; col. 1040.]

That answer was given to me on 1 March 1995 by the then Minister, Mr Tony Baldry. Nearly 20 years further down the road, very little—if anything—has changed, except that the violence appears to have escalated.

I spoke about Kashmir in another place on a number of occasions during the 1990s, largely because the issue had been brought to my attention by the sizeable Kashmiri population in my then constituency of Glasgow Central. Indeed, the community was so insistent that I should see for myself the situation in that part of the world that it arranged visits for me to Azad Kashmir. I visited Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and other places to get a better feel of the situation than through the imploring of my constituents, which I assure noble Lords I received much of. There were also many lobbies in London at that time involving people of Kashmiri origin from many UK cities. That was two decades ago but we do not seem to be any further forward.

My noble friend Lord Ahmed outlined the litany of recent human rights abuses in Kashmir, which was really harrowing. That is not just because of what that must involve on an individual level for so many people, not least in terms of rape, which is possibly the worst act of war that anyone can commit—as my noble friend said, it is an act of war—but it seems that while our Government are raising the issue and answer questions in much the same way today as they did in 1995 and since then, nothing seems to change. What steps is the Minister prepared to say that the Government will take to intervene—I use that word advisedly—and make a serious attempt to bring the two countries together with a view to providing a solution?

The Question that we are discussing today mentions self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The original UN resolution, Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, mentioned that there should be a plebiscite. A plebiscite would be for all the people of Kashmir and, as I argued in the 1990s, should not ask merely, “Do you want to be under the aegis of Pakistan or do you want to be under the aegis of India?” but “Are you in favour of an independent Kashmir?”. That is a perfectly legitimate question which only the Kashmiri people can answer. Of course, they have never been allowed to answer that question because it has never been put to them. The question of self-determination underpins this whole issue.

There is no need to regurgitate the history of the issue, which I would maintain goes right back to the day when Maharaja Hari Singh, then the ruler of Kashmir, decided to sign the territory over to India. It is interesting that it was India that went to the United Nations in 1948 for the resolution which eventually emerged and it was then India, as history tells us, that prevented it happening because of disputes over Pakistani troops and their withdrawal from Kashmir. I do not seek to blame one country more than another, because that serves no purpose, but the question of a plebiscite or any kind of self-determination seems to have moved right off the agenda. Even the Hurriyat conference stated as long as 10 years ago that it no longer saw that as a realistic possibility. We have reluctantly to accept that, but it does not mean that we should not seek to offer the people of Kashmir the right to have their say in some meaningful form, whatever that should be. Kashmir is today the most militarised territory in the world, with up to 1 million troops stationed there. I do not know whether it is the longest-lasting territorial dispute—perhaps Palestinians would say that theirs is slightly longer, although it dates from about much the same time—but after three major wars, in 1947, 1965 and 1971, and a very tense standoff in 2002 which we thought at one time might lead to nuclear conflict, the need for intense diplomatic efforts on the part of our Government is urgent. I just wonder why more pressure is not put on the Governments of both India and Pakistan. Is it because India is such an emerging and important economic power now? Is it because Pakistan has to be an ally in the fight against terrorism in that part of the world? I do not know, but we should press for some kind of action. If UN Security Council Resolution 47 is now redundant, why not make it at least a starting point and go back to the United Nations to see whether a new one could be framed or some meaningful way of moving things forward via the United Nations could be found.

This Government have a moral responsibility, as did every other Government in Britain over the past 70 years because of the partition of India, and everything flows from that. I say to the Minister, in not a critical but a constructive way, that I hope she will be able to take back to her colleagues in her department the message that something needs to be done. I think that this Government can play a meaningful role in bringing the two countries together and trying to take things forward.

Middle East: Recent Developments

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, we are indebted to the Minister not just for providing the canvas for this debate but for so expertly opening it by sketching his own thoughts in such an illuminating manner. I should like to concentrate on two aspects of the Middle East, the first of which is Bahrain. In February last year, as the Arab spring spread, more than 100,000 protesters took to the streets of the capital, Manama. The Bahraini Government—for whom we should always read the Bahraini royal family—responded brutally. Four protesters camping in Pearl roundabout were killed, yet, despite that, protesters reoccupied the roundabout and there were large marches involving up to 150,000 participants. These numbers are put in perspective when it is recalled that, in total, there are fewer than 1 million Bahraini nationals.

In March 2011, at the request of the Government, Saudi armed forces entered the country, which those opposed to the regime characterised as an occupation. The following day, a state of emergency was declared and protests subsided after a savage crackdown was launched against protesters. More than 3,000 people were arrested and at least five people died while in police custody. Many of those not directly involved in the protests, such as doctors and bloggers, were targeted and arrested. Some doctors and other medical staff were subjected to torture on the basis that they had done no more than tend the injuries of protesters brutalised by the regime’s own forces and the Saudi forces. It has been estimated by Human Rights Watch that up to 50 people have died since the start of the uprising. Of course, those numbers pale into insignificance compared to Syria but that is not a meaningful comparison.

Meanwhile, doctors have been charged with serious offences and convicted, and have received long sentences—despite the evidence against them rather than because of it. It is surely a doctor’s obligation to try and save lives and there are no circumstances when any medic should be subject to the charges simply for doing so. An international outcry followed the outrageously long sentences handed down to the medics. That even included the USA. In April, Amnesty International published a detailed report on events in Bahrain since February 2011. It was a damning indictment of the so-called reforms introduced by the royal family since then. The report highlighted the killing of civilians, deaths and torture in custody, trials of political activists lacking the basics of a serious judicial system leading to death sentences being passed—thankfully later commuted—and workers and students who participated in the protests being summarily dismissed from their jobs or courses of study. A month ago, the Court of Appeal in Manama upheld the convictions of nine medics and nine others were acquitted. These outcomes, though far from satisfactory, would never have happened but for the intervention by the UN, US and other countries, including the UK, to let the Bahraini royal family know that they had used greatly excessive force in quelling what were legitimate attempts by the Shia majority to win democratic reforms at the expense of the ruling Sunni minority.

I very much welcomed the Minister’s opening remarks on Bahrain. He said that progress had been minimal and that that was not good enough. He said that there was a need for meaningful political reforms. He also said that there had been criticism from some quarters—I am not sure where it came from—of the Government’s engagement in relation to Bahrain. I certainly would not criticise the Government for it. They have intervened and made strong statements. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government will go further and continue to pressure the Bahraini royal family to implement the kind of changes that were called for in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia. Human rights, the right to freedom of expression and the ability to choose their political representatives must not be seen as the preserve simply of people living under regimes with which our Government disagree. Just because we have traditionally had good relations with Bahrain must not mean that these fundamental fights can be relegated to the fringes of our relations with them.

Turning to Israel and Palestine, I find the situation there profoundly depressing. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has already commented on it in some considerable detail. The quartet has now been in existence for 10 years, with Tony Blair as its special envoy for half that time, yet no meaningful progress has been made towards a peace settlement. It may be true, as the noble Baroness suggested, that the quartet is now a busted flush. Certainly, it could be argued that a peace settlement is further away now than it was in 2002. In September last year, the quartet issued a new schedule for resumption of negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority which called for negotiations to be completed by the end of 2012. Suffice to say, that will not happen, not least because the Netanyahu Government continue to ignore international outrage—with merely mild displeasure being expressed by the UK and US Governments—at the continuation of Israel to build illegal housing developments in the West Bank. That matter was again covered by the noble Baroness.

Last month saw a return to violence between the Israeli Defence Force and Hamas militants, which is very much to be regretted. I unreservedly call on both sides not to repeat that violence. All the while, on the Palestinian side, there is a continuing gulf between Fatah and Hamas. In April 2011, the two parties signed an agreement of reconciliation but its implementation has stalled since then. Legislative and presidential elections were both due to take place in the occupied territories in May this year but, following a breakdown in reconciliation talks between the two, elections have now been postponed. It seems unlikely that they will be held before the end of the year.

My noble friend Lord Haskel made remarks in his speech with which I have to take some issue. I would agree that we need to ensure that compassion for Palestinians does not translate into what he termed bigotry against Israel. I would reject the charge that I have ever approached any question relating to Israel in a bigoted way. Yet this is important. My noble friend highlighted the benefits of trade in the Israeli context. I have only had a few moments since his speech to do some very brief research into the question of trade as far as Palestinians are concerned but it is vital to Palestinians.

According to a study last year by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, West Bank trade remains largely isolated from global markets due to restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of goods. According to the World Bank, the absence of container scanners at the six commercial crossing points between the West Bank and Israel constrains Palestinian access to external markets and means that all cargo is subject to physical inspections. That means the loading and unloading of lorries, sometimes more than once. Often, the food and vegetables involved are delayed for so long that they become unsalable. I cannot see how those sorts of restrictions will in any way help the Palestinians to help themselves. When we talk about trade, it has to be recalled that fuel is a vital commodity, yet the Palestinians are forced to import fuel via Israel. If they could import it via Jordan, that would cut the price by half—to the clear benefit of Palestinian communities. That must be borne in mind.

Of course, the biggest restriction on Palestinians is the blockade of Gaza, which entered its sixth year just a few weeks ago. Coinciding with that milestone, a report by Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians emphasised how the extensive restrictions placed on the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza continues to have a real and negative impact on the lives and health of Gaza’s children. The blockade has been the single greatest contributor to endemic and long-lasting household poverty in Gaza. That has meant that families are unable to buy nutritious food and less able to produce it themselves.

The health of children in Gaza prior to the war of 2008-09 was seriously below international standards but is now worse. The Save the Children report states that long-term exposure to chronic malnutrition remains high: it is found among 10% of children under five. The Palestinian Authority has set goals to meet the needs of its children and spends some 11% of its GDP on healthcare. That is more than most middle-income countries. In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars of international aid are directed towards the occupied Palestinian territories every year, yet still child health in Gaza continues to get poorer.

I will not deny that Israel has of course the right to safeguard the security of its citizens but, as the occupying power, it must also allow for the free flow of goods, people and services. According to international laws, Israel is responsible for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population. With the blockade now having been in place for more than five years, will the Minister agree that there is a pressing need for the coalition Government to call on Israel, in the strongest possible terms, to fulfil its responsibilities and end the blockade of Gaza immediately and in its entirety?