British Council Contractors: Afghanistan

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on British Council contractors in Afghanistan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

Last August, when the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating so rapidly, the UK Government worked at great speed to evacuate more than 15,000 people from the country within a fortnight. This was the biggest mission of its kind in generations, and the second largest evacuation carried out by any country. We are right to be proud of what our British forces and others achieved at that time. Those evacuated included British nationals and their families and about 500 particularly vulnerable Afghans, including some British Council contractors, journalists, human rights defenders, campaigners for women’s rights, judges, and many others. All former British Council employees who wished to resettle have arrived in the UK, with their family members.

The British Council played an important role in Afghanistan in working to support the UK mission there and to promote our values. It is right that the Government do the right thing for British Council employees and contractors, and that includes resettling eligible contractors if they are at risk. Therefore, in January this year the then Minister for Afghan Resettlement, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), announced the launch of a new Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will resettle up to 20,000 eligible people over the coming years. There is no application process for the scheme, but people can express an interest in resettlement.

Eligible individuals will be referred for resettlement via three referral “pathways”. Under pathway 3, we are committed to considering eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors as well as Chevening alumni. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will refer up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region to the Home Office for resettlement, including eligible family members. On 20 June the FCDO opened an online system, whereby eligible individuals can express their interest in resettlement.

[Mr Baron]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her response.

Members on both sides of the House have expressed our pride in and gratitude for Operation Pitting. However, I must say to the Minister that about 180 British Council contractors remain in Afghanistan, 85 of whom have been classified by us as being at “very high risk”, while a further 90 or so are deemed to be at “high risk”. They live in constant fear for their lives, moving from safe house to safe house as they are hunted by the Taliban. After questions in the House and a positive meeting with Lord Harrington, we finally secured a written ministerial statement last week announcing the opening of the ACRS on Monday, and that was welcome.

As the Minister mentioned, there is now a window for British Council contractors, GardaWorld employees and Chevening scholars to submit expressions of interest in coming to the UK, but this application window is open for two months, which may mean that submissions will not be processed by the Government, or decisions confirmed on individual submissions, until the middle of August. That would further delay the contractors’ journey to safety. However, responses to my written parliamentary questions earlier this week suggest that there might be some flexibility to allow applications to be processed before the window closes.

I suggest to the Minister that there is too much ambiguity, given the urgency of the case. It is clearly unacceptable that, 10 months after the fall of Kabul, we remain in this situation in which contractors—not just British Council contractors, but personnel who have promoted British interests, values and culture in Afghanistan—are still trying to sort out an application process that has taken too long as a result of bureaucracy. I therefore seek clarification on two important issues, and I would appreciate that clarification, because I do not want to keep coming back to the Chamber to pressurise the Government. I want answers, to help these people.

First, will submissions from those who are deemed to be at “very high risk” and “high risk” be processed before the closing of the application window in two months’ time—and here we are talking about the third week in August? Secondly, will their relocation to the UK or, in the interim, a third country, also be expedited so that they are able to leave Afghanistan as soon as they have been approved under the ACRS?

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend has played an important role in championing the British Council, which does amazing work across the world—I have seen a lot of that work at first hand. It is absolutely right that we try to support the contractors, which is why we have made this online scheme available. We need to give people reasonable time to submit their expression of interest. I will look at the issue of very high-risk individuals, but we have not stopped taking people from Afghanistan since the end of Operation Pitting last August. In fact, another 4,600 people have since come to the UK, many through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, including Ministry of Defence contractors and a wide range of other people such as members of the LGBT community, journalists, prosecutors, women’s rights activists and some country-based staff. Those 4,600 people have come here, and others have been referred through the UN pathways.

Ukraine

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is about the future of freedom and democracy, and the future of European security. The Ukrainians and President Zelensky are fighting bravely. They are fighting not just for their own future, but all our futures, and they deserve all the help we can give them: humanitarian support, lethal aid, and the moral and diplomatic support that we are providing.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to say that Putin must not gain from this appalling aggression. There will be no letting up on sanctions. We want to see sanctions tightening. Putin will pay the cost. He will be held to account in the International Criminal Court. We are working with our allies to collect evidence. Of course, we need to make sure that Ukraine is rebuilt following this appalling war and the appalling devastation that the people of Ukraine have experienced.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right that we want to see sanctions increase. In the case of banks, the UK has imposed the most bank sanctions of any of our allies. We want our allies to follow suit, and we want to do more in terms of completely de-SWIFTing the Russian economy and tackling banks of strategic importance, such as Sberbank. We also sanction more oligarchs and other entities than either the EU or the US does. We want to do more, we will do more and we want our partners to do more.

The most crucial thing of all is cutting off the supply of finance from oil and gas. That is what will completely debilitate the Putin regime, and that is why we want the G7 to agree a very clear timetable to end dependence on Russian oil and gas completely. It is vital that we never go back to being dependent on an authoritarian regime for core parts of our economic survival. With next week’s NATO summit, we have an opportunity to move forward with those plans. I encourage all our allies to work with us on this, because the only thing that Putin will understand is tougher sanctions and more defensive aid.

We have boosted our defence spending, and we continue in talks with our NATO allies about boosting the eastern flank. The UK is also leading with the joint expeditionary force, working with our allies around Europe. I talk to my European counterparts all the time. We are committed to boosting European security and working with our friends right across the EU.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Perhaps for too long, the west has harvested the peace dividend, but there is no doubt that we have entered a new era in the battle for democracy globally. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do what she can within Government not only to make the case for a sustained and substantial increase in defence spending, but to ensure that our soft power capabilities are adequately resourced, for the very simple reason that jaw-jaw should always be preferable to war-war?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the peace dividend. The reality is that, right across the west, not enough has been spent on defence. Meanwhile, the Russians have been building up their armed forces, their military capability and their disinformation efforts. One thing I have done is to re-establish an information unit in the Foreign Office to tackle Russian disinformation. We are working to get that information into Russia so that the people of Russia have a clear view about what is going on, in contrast to the propaganda from their Government. We are also working on expanding our soft power, whether it is through the BBC or other outlets, to get the truth across to the people of Russia. As to my hon. Friend’s other point, I am sure that he will be raising it with the Chancellor at Treasury questions very soon.

Future of Soft Power

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I will call John Baron to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of soft power.

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Ms Rees. I thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting it and the Minister for Asia and the Middle East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for attending. I know she is very busy.

It is fair to say that the west has relaxed its guard and enjoyed a peace dividend following the cold war. We thought the concept of democracy would sweep the field—that the very righteousness of the cause would sweep all before it—and it therefore required little investment. But democracy is a fragile concept; it needs nurturing, encouraging and protecting. Many in this world do not share our values. As Ukraine has shown, we are engaged in a new battle for democracy. If there was any doubt about that, we need only look at the recent UN vote on the cruel invasion of a sovereign country, where more than half of the world’s population as represented by their Governments did not condemn it.

In this new era, this new cold war, we need to talk softly and carry a big stick, if we are to defend our values. Our values have stood the test of time but, at times, have required defending. I suggest that we now require a significant and sustained increase in spending on both hard and soft power capabilities. Soft power was a key factor in our victory in the cold war.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was President Roosevelt who said, “Talk softly but carry a big stick”—I understand it is an African proverb. If we are going to have soft power, we need to have hard power behind it to back it up, otherwise it does not work. I think we are at the stage where we have learned from our mistakes in the west. It is time to get it right.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have to do more to realise that democracy needs defending. We have to step up to the plate—not just this country, but the west generally—and commit sufficient resources, to ensure that we can talk softly, which we should always do first, but carry a big stick, because the big stick reinforces the weight of the soft diplomacy. We live in a hard world, but people will listen if they think we have assets that could be committed. I am an ex-soldier. War should always be the measure of last resort, but we need to talk and have the assets behind us to reinforce the weight of those talks.

This country should be proud. We have the BBC World Service, the British Council, our music industry, our culture, our values and the rule of law. There is little doubt—in fact, it has been shown through various measurements—that the UK is the world’s soft-power superpower, and we should be very proud of that.

During the invasion of Ukraine, the number of listeners to the BBC World Service in Russia went up three or four times. Listeners to the Ukrainian service went up to 5 million. Yet we are still debating whether the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring budgets should be ringfenced. There is a question mark over their funding.

The British Council last year was in touch with more than 750 million people worldwide for education, arts and the English language. That is a phenomenal achievement. On the UK music industry, I will share with colleagues that I am not very good at contemporary music, but I am reliably informed that three of the top 10 artists came from these shores. That is punching above our weight and helps to create the positive view of this country—there is a lot to be positive about—but it also reaches out and makes contact with people globally.

There is, however, growing competition for influence. We cannot stand still. Individual states, many of them not democratic, are looking to invest and are investing to enhance their soft power around the world. Cultural institutes such as the British Council are an effective way of doing so, and one which truly global nations all employ. As chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I will confine my remarks to that wonderful organisation.

I remind the Minister that other cultural institutes of other countries receive far greater amounts and proportions of public funding, between 40% to 50% of their total income. Whether it is the Goethe-Institut, or Confucius Institutes, or whatever, they get around half their income from the state. The amount is only around 15% from the British Government, because the British Government have said that the British Council must rely on its own commercial activities to help fund its endeavours. That is fine, except when those revenues fall through the floor in a pandemic year. It is, therefore, with regret for many of us—across the Floor in this House, but also in the other place—that the Government did not fully compensate for the loss of commercial income by the British Council as a result of the pandemic.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention, and for his fantastic work for the British Council. Its work is crucial—he is highlighting the loss of revenue—but we often forget about the revenues it generates through its great work and the number of people it introduces to British education and infrastructure. People who go through the British education system become allies of the United Kingdom, and continue that in their businesses and the posts that they hold, including Chevening scholars. The British Council does a tremendous amount of work that is rarely recognised, particularly in terms of funding.

[Mr Baron]

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Sometimes we talk about figures and percentages too much in this place. We need to step back and realise that the British Council does an awful lot of good work that reaches into people’s lives on a global basis.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his work chairing the APPG, of which I am a member. He makes the point around soft power and the value we get from that. The British Council really does punch above its weight, as does the whole UK, in terms of soft power, but there is a price for liberty, which we are seeing all too clearly around the world at the moment. That price is eternal vigilance. That means we need to invest in those assets, such as the British Council. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is vital?

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree. I have been remiss in not thanking APPG members for being here today and contributing to the debate.

I am conscious that others want to contribute. I know we have half an hour, but I do not want to speak for the full 15 minutes. I want to address the issue of funding with the Minister, because funding the British Council was one reason I applied for this debate.

Let me be clear: the Government were generous in increasing the budget to the British Council during the pandemic, but the problem is that it was still £10 million short of fully compensating the British Council when it came to its commercial activities. For those who do not know—I do not think anyone here does not—its commercial activities essentially centre on teaching English in the far east.

Being £10 million short, it had to close 20 country operations, which is an ongoing process. Those countries were Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Switzerland, Belgium, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Afghanistan, Chile, Namibia, Uruguay, South Sudan and Sierra Leone. That is a long list of countries, including the Five Eyes and others, where we should not be closing the British Council’s soft power operations.

The British Council wants to be ambitious about what it delivers for the UK, in partnership with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, when the world reopens for business and manages the shock of Russian aggression in eastern Europe. However, looking at the CSR—the comprehensive spending review—budget going forward, having the 20 closures in train, we were delighted to see a 21% increase in funding for the FCDO over a three-year period. The Minister will recognise that figure. Yet, we now find that further cuts are being proposed to the British Council, below the £171 million of annual public funding that the council needs to carry on its sterling work across the global network, when it put its bid in to the FCDO.

In other words, despite the FCDO receiving a 21% funding increase over the three-year period, the British Council was going to be cut. Those negotiations are ongoing. I implore the Minister to have a look at the figures and to try and ensure that there are no further country closures, because the British Council is already having to deal with 20 from the previous cuts. Any more would hardly fit with the ambition and concept of global Britain. We need to show solidarity with our friends and allies, not only to counter the rising threat of autocracy around the world, but to secure much needed trade deals for the UK. We stand less chance of doing that if we are cutting our soft power capabilities in key countries, many of them strong allies of the UK.

In conclusion, my questions to the Minister are threefold. First, will she confirm when the British Council will receive notice of its full allocation for the spending review period? I ask that because the organisation cannot be expected to make any plans given the uncertainty created by this lack of notice; it needs to know sooner rather than later.

Secondly, will the Government confirm that the current negotiations will not result in a further cut, itself resulting in further country closures? I hope the Government get it, in the sense of understanding that we need to strengthen the UK’s soft power capability during this moment of global stability.

Finally, will the Government stop touting the figure of a 26% funding increase? I have heard it bandied about so often, but it is misleading because it is comparing a pandemic year with a non-pandemic year. It is not comparing like for like. Despite a 26% increase in funding, the figure was still £10 million short of fully compensating the British Council for its loss of commercial revenue during the pandemic year, which is why it had to close 20 country operations. Hiding behind percentage increases does not mask the truth that we withdrew from the world stage, because there was a £10 million shortfall that resulted in those 20 county closures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Mr Mahmood]

rose—

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Order. This being a 30-minute debate, we do not usually take contributions from other Members unless they have permission from the Member in charge and the Minister.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Member has permission from me, Ms Rees.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate, which I am pleased to respond to, and I thank him for all his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council. I am also grateful to the other Members who have contributed to the debate through speeches and interventions. I will try to address some of their points as well as answering the questions put by my hon. Friend.

The UK’s soft power is rooted in who we are, our democratic values and our way of life. It is central to our international identity as an open, trustworthy nation. Our strength in this area is widely recognised. In a recent British Council study, we ranked as the most attractive country for young people in the G20. Only yesterday, the latest global soft power index was published, placing us second out of 120 countries. Other countries trust the UK; they appreciate our values and they want to work with us. They are enthusiastic for our culture, from our premier league football to our music. Of course, there are our brilliant products, from cars to fashion and food.

We must never take our soft power for granted, especially now that freedom and democracy are under attack and we see disinformation all around. We will continue to build our influence and seek to inspire; to forge links with people around the world to promote our values. This is how we will champion freedom and rights on the international stage, and challenge those who seek to tear down democracy. We are blessed with many wonderful and powerful tools in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay mentioned what I will describe as the battle of the values. Our international leadership, which we demonstrate every day, is crucial in the battle for hearts and minds. We are showcasing it through our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Putin’s barbaric illegal invasion, and in our steadfast support for our democratic partners, through the UN Security Council, NATO, the G7 and partnerships such as AUKUS. Beyond that, we are championing open societies and promoting the rule of law through our economic, security and development leadership.

The British Council is another vital instrument for our influence overseas. It demonstrates our strength and values in practical ways, building trust and opportunities between nations. The British Council, which has been a trusted partner for more than 85 years, teaches the English language and promotes UK education, arts and culture across the globe; operates in more than 100 countries and reaches 76 million people; promotes UK higher education through Study UK; showcases British creativity through arts such as the current UK/Australia Season; and provides English language and teacher training. The British Council delivers for the whole UK, forging theatre connections between Wales and Nigeria, and cultural networks between Northern Ireland and India. Building on the success of COP26, it has connected young people in Glasgow with its global schools network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay referred to the British Council’s offices. In a digital age, it would be a strategic mistake to judge the British Council’s impact in a country purely and solely by the physical presence of an office. During the covid crisis, the British Council embraced new technologies, including online teaching platforms, which were vital to its operations—as they were to all our operations as we sat in front of Zoom and its equivalents. The British Council has ambitious growth targets: by 2020, 30 million people will experience UK arts each year, an increase of 800 million in five years; and one in 10 people globally—more than 140 million people—will learn English through the council.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amanda Milling]

I will give way, but I was just about to answer some of my hon. Friend’s questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I look forward to receiving the answers. Of course we live in a digital age, but a physical presence is still important and very symbolic. Presidents and Prime Ministers of countries that we are pulling out of raise it with our own ambassadors. The fact that they are upset by that is a mark of the importance that they attach to the British Council. Will the Minister reflect on that?

[Amanda Milling]

I will talk a little more about the offices in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have allocated more than £560 million to the British Council to support our shared goals—that is a generous deal in the current financial climate—including £180 million in grant and aid funding for 2021-22, which is an increase of £40 million over last year. The British Council’s non-official development assistance allocation was £39 million, which is triple its 2020-21 baseline. Although we have had to make difficult decisions in other areas, we have increased the money that we have made available to the British Council. The challenging fiscal environment continues, and we are working closely with the council on final allocations for the coming settlement review period. They will be confirmed at the conclusion of the Department’s financial and business planning process. As we look to the future, our partnership will continue to be vital.

On the operational structure and offices, the country presence remains an operational matter for the British Council. As I say, we are working closely with it on the final funding settlements.

I also want to mention the BBC World Service, if I have a bit of time. That is another organisation that is really important in promoting our values.

[Mr Baron]

Before the Minister goes on, will she give way?

[Amanda Milling]

Quickly.

[Mr Baron]

I take on board what the Minister says about the budget being operational, but when a budget is cut—it was cut, in effect, because there was not full compensation for that loss of commercial revenue—these are the decisions that come out at the other end of the sausage machine. The funding is not there. I support everything she said about the British Council—she has spoken very eloquently about it—but those are just words unless we fund it appropriately. Will she address my second question, which is perhaps the most important? At a time when the FCDO budget is increasing by more than 20% over the three-year CSR period, why are negotiations ongoing that, as I and colleagues understand it, suggest a cut to the British Council? That does not make sense when we have this fight on our hands in the battle for global democracy.

[Amanda Milling]

My hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for the British Council, but, as I say, we are working closely with it while we reach the final funding settlements following the spending review.

May I please have a couple of minutes on the BBC World Service? It brings high-quality impartial news to global audiences across the world, including in regions where free speech is limited. It reaches 364 million people every week with an increase in audience numbers of more than 40% since the FCDO-funded World 2020 programme began in 2016. It delivers in 42 different languages, and the licence fee currently funds English and another 29 from a commitment of £250 million a year. The FCDO World 2020 programme funds an additional 12 language services across Serbia, India, Africa and Asia, with additional funding provided to existing services in Russian, Arabic and English.

I probably do not have time to go into that in much more detail. We have talked about the importance of the British Council and of the BBC World Service, and I also want to talk about the overseas network. Another huge soft power asset is our diplomatic network, which is one of the largest in the world. We have 282 posts in 179 countries and territories staffed by 4,500 staff from across Government. Our network promotes our values and delivers our priorities with positive impacts right across the world.

In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay for securing the debate and for everything he does to promote the British Council and fight its cause. He is a real champion for the British Council. I reiterate that we are determined to use every soft power tool we have to promote open, democratic societies across the world. We will to cherish and sustain our assets, from the BBC to the British Council, championing education, culture and diplomacy, making a positive difference, standing up for our values and demonstrating the international leadership that is so vital in these incredibly challenging times.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As we have said, the Home Office has established a forward presence in Poland, but also in the other countries bordering Ukraine, to facilitate the forward passage for those wishing to come to the UK. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made it clear that we intend to have a generous offer to the Ukrainian people of a refuge to those seeking that, and we will continue co-ordinating with the Home Office in its work to establish routes to the UK.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Apart from humanitarian reasons, there are siren voices suggesting that we should commit to a no-fly zone in Ukraine, notwithstanding our existing support to the country and our commitment to article 5 and to NATO. Will the Minister assure the House once again that there is no intention to intervene directly militarily in this war, for a host of reasons, including the fact that it would lead to a wider conflict?

[James Cleverly]

The UK should be rightly proud of the support that we gave to the Ukrainian armed forces over a number of years through Operation Orbital and through the early deployment of NLAWs, or next generation light anti-tank weapons—the anti-tank missile systems that have proven so effective—and we will continue to provide support to the Ukrainians in their self-defence. The Secretary-General of NATO has made it very clear that it would be wrong for NATO to engage directly in the conflict with Russia that is the inevitable by-product of a no-fly zone. Putin is desperately trying to paint this as western aggression against Russia. We must not do anything that will allow him to perpetrate that perverse distortion of reality.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The second half of the Opposition’s motion relates to the economic crime Bill and, as many do, I have great sympathy with the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House over a period of time. I look forward to the economic crime Bill being introduced, and I think we could go further. We could provide further resources for the National Crime Agency, which has asked for them, and many of us on both sides of the House are underwhelmed by the extent of the British sanctions so far in response to what is clearly a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It may be that we are not party to deliberations on the calibration of the response from western allies, and it may be that Nord Stream 2 was phase one and the City of London withdrawing its facilities will be a further step. In the absence of knowing what those deliberations are, the Government, on the face of it, have clearly not done enough in response through these petty, small sanctions considering the scale of the crime itself—the invasion of a sovereign, democratic country. With Members on both sides of the House having called it out as an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, we should remember that it is not a one-off. This Russian aggression started with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Not everybody outside this place knows that 20% of the country of Georgia, a fifth, is still occupied by Russian troops. We tend not to dwell on that too often, but it has been followed by the annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine. It is abundantly clear that Russian aggression must be met with the strongest possible response, including by providing the Ukrainian Government with all the means required to defend themselves.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Given that Georgia was 2008 and Crimea was 2014, should we not have been better prepared for sanctions?

[Mr Baron]

I told the House yesterday that I think we should have stronger sanctions. And it is not just about stronger sanction, as we also need stronger defence and more defence spending.

In the absence of any knowledge about the calibration of our response—that is not to say it does not exist—the sanctions were pitifully woeful. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been very underwhelmed by them.

We need to do everything we can to provide the Ukrainian Government with all the means required to defend themselves. That means economic support and additional supplies of lethal weapons with which to protect their sovereignty, primarily and hopefully to act as a deterrent but also, if it comes to it, for use in battle. If Russia does invade, there will be an ongoing resistance to support. NATO must also continue its programme of beefing up deployments across eastern Europe, the high north and the Black sea. We must show to Russia that NATO is serious about protecting its members, and we must remind Russia of our article 5 undertaking.

There are people in this country who say this is overly aggressive, but we should make it absolutely clear in this place that we do not seek conflict. I was a soldier back in the 1980s, and I remind the House that I have consistently voted against our military interventions over the past two decades. I opposed war in Iraq, believing that we went to war on a false premise. I opposed the morphing of the mission in Afghanistan after we had got rid of al-Qaeda in 2001. I was the only Conservative MP to vote against our Libyan intervention. And I opposed trying to arm certain sections of the rebels in Syria, as I felt that we underestimated the task at hand and that those weapons would have fallen into the wrong hands. I was opposed to all of that, but, as a former soldier, I also recognise that strong armed forces are the best way of deterring aggression.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On deterrence after the fall of the Soviet Union, this political state, along with a range of other western states, gave opportunity for finance through oligarchy yet ignored ordinary Russians. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if we had supported ordinary Russians to get the benefits of freedom and liberty in the west through golden visas for them, we would not now have 190,000 Russian troops on the borders of Ukraine?

[Mr Baron]

That is a bit of a tenuous link. Let us be clear: an aggressor is going to consider invading a country regardless of what visas have been given in a third country. Having said that, I agree that we need to look at this, and I made that point clear when I first stood up.

We need to be clear that we need strong defence. One reason I opposed those recent interventions over the past 20 years is because I felt that they distracted us from the real business of countering traditional state-on-state threats. War should always be a means of last resort, once all other avenues have been exhausted, but the real danger was state-on-state threats, including Russia and, increasingly, an assertive China. We all know that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but jaw-jaw is most effective when supported and backed up by strong armed forces, because potential adversaries then listen. After a decade of hollowing out our defence capabilities and cutting the number of soldiers, we need to get serious about defence and reverse those trends. The Prime Minister is right to say that we have had the largest increase in the defence budget since the end of the cold war—we are standing at about 2.4%, if we believe Government figures—but I suggest that we need to do much more. We still have the smallest Army since the Napoleonic times, if not before. We still have too few ships able to guard our aircraft carriers, and our air defences are thin. As a former soldier, I can promise the House that there is no substitute for boots on the ground. I buy the technology argument—everything about drones and how we have to be up to speed with cyber and all the rest—but there is no substitute for boots on the ground if we want to dominate ground. That is a simple fact.

I ask the Government to seriously think about this, but I also ask the Opposition to do so. For 20 years I have been in this place and I have banged on, together with others, on both sides of the House, about the need for increased defence spending. That has largely fallen on deaf ears. Some Opposition Members will remember that in 2013 I led the revolt from those on the Government Benches on the Bill that became the Defence Reform Act 2014, which was cutting regular troops and trying to replace them with reservists. With the help of the Scottish nationalists and Labour, we tried to get the Government to think again. Unfortunately, I was unable to carry a sufficient number of Conservative Members, but we came close. So I am not standing here being a hypocrite and suggesting this in a way to try to make party political points. I am asking the Labour party, the official Opposition, to do something. The establishment in this country still does not get it on defence. We need a substantial and sustained increase in defence spending, to act as a deterrent, not to be used in an offensive manner. Deterrence is the best way.

The Labour party has a very proud history in this area. It was a Labour Government who signed us up to NATO and who were determined that we had a nuclear deterrent. I suggest to the official Opposition that we need to start at 3% for defence spending but not tie this to a particular percentage of GDP, because GDP fluctuates. We need to start at 3% and then build on it, because we are entering an era where there is a battle for democracy yet to be had. I hope I am not being too dramatic when I say that. We need strong armed forces for that, and the Labour party, the official Opposition, has a role in this.

Having these debates is great, but we have had them so many times before about defence spending and other issues and interventions. If the Labour party was to say, “We are going to commit to a substantial and sustainable level of defence spending”, it would move the dial in the debate. The official Opposition would be surprised at just how much support there is on the Conservative Benches for a substantial increase in defence spending—well above the 2.4% figure we heard bandied about by the Prime Minister yesterday. The official Opposition have an opportunity to move the dial on this, and I encourage them to take it. This is an important issue on the doorstep, contrary to what many people suggest; people are proud of their armed forces. There is also an opportunity to be a force of good for the Union, as we are proud of our armed forces across the four nations of the UK.

I am conscious that others wish to speak, but may I briefly return to this point about the new era we have now entered with regard to the battle for democracy? We believed that democracy would sweep the field after the cold war, because it was blatantly obvious that it was the right thing, but democracy is a fragile concept. We fundamentally believe in it in this place, but let us never underestimate the number of oligarchs and totalitarian individuals out there—states, even—who want to overthrow democracy. We have to nurture, encourage and protect it. But what are we doing? We have a weak foreign policy when it comes to potential aggressors, and not just potential ones; when there is an invasion of a sovereign country we are debating quite petty sanctions. We need to step up to the plate.

I also suggest to the House that this is not just about hard power—quite the contrary, as the cold war was won largely because we won the soft power battle. We need to further finance our diplomatic sources and our diplomacy generally. One reason why I voted against the Libyan intervention, when I was the only Tory to do so and was very unpopular with my own party, was because we simply did not know what was happening on the ground. We did not have the diplomats there kicking the tyres and feeling the dust. We used to have great expertise in this area but we have hollowed it out, through cuts, and those cuts can be counterproductive. They can be a false economy. If we do not know what is happening on the ground, these decisions are much riskier. Satellites and technology take us only so far; we need experts on the ground.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I concur with what my hon. Friend was saying a moment ago about the need for the Labour party to commit to greater defence spending. Labour Members often challenge us about the need to increase development spending and I agree with them on that. He mentions diplomacy as well, and I wonder whether there is the opportunity for a cross-party agreement on sustained investment in our defence and our diplomatic service, and restoring development spending to 0.7% as soon as possible—and perhaps even going beyond it? I wonder whether there is an opportunity to increase all of our commitments to the international community and perhaps achieve a cross-party consensus.

[Mr Baron]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention, and I certainly think there is greater scope for cross-party consensus on these key issues. We come together in condemnation of Russia and events such as this, but we need also to come together on such things as defence spending and diplomatic spending.

Let me return to soft power. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, and I know that some Members on the Opposition Benches have served with the British Council. We work together in trying to promote the interests of the British Council, but let me cite a further example of where we are going wrong as a country. Last year, the Government failed to meet the £10 million shortfall between the British Council’s commercial activities—predominantly the teaching of English in the far east, mostly in China—and the money the Government supplied. That £10 million shortfall has resulted in the closure of 20 country operations. That is not global Britain or the furthering of the interests of soft power. The British Council is a key instrument of our soft power capability. We are a soft power superpower, but we should never take that for granted.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is taking us on a journey. I appreciate the point he made about increased military spending and an increase in boots on the ground in our armed forces, but does he feel that we as Members of Parliament do not have the full facts, whereas Ministers and officials do and see far more than we do? It is not necessarily right to criticise them for what they may or may not have seen. On top of that, we should be aware that there must be a sliding scale in respect of the sanctions on Russia. We cannot put everything on Russia all at once; we have to see how the situation develops.

[Mr Baron]

I am afraid my hon. Friend has greater faith than I have. We have an excellent civil service and, by and large, parties on both sides of the Chamber have supplied good Ministers, but I would not have blind faith in every single Minister or official. The bottom line is that we are making cuts when there should not be cuts. When it comes to the calibration of the response, what my hon. Friend says may be the case, but there has been no calibration of the response since Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. There has been absolutely nothing, so I would not necessarily assume that we should suddenly come round and say there must be a calibration now.

I have had the nod from Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am conscious that I need to move on. On the issue of soft power, in addition to the closure of 20 country operations last year, we face further country closures this year because, despite the FCDO’s budget going up 21% in the comprehensive spending review, the British Council’s budget is, believe it or not, falling again, stirring up questions about cuts.

In conclusion, in taking on the oligarchs and those who do not believe in democracy, we have to have a rounded response. We need to increase defence spending—I have called on the Labour party to help us to move the dial on that and to work in as cross-party a fashion as possible; we need more money for the diplomatic service; and we need to make sure we fund every avenue of our soft power capability, because it is going to be a battle of minds and ideas as much as it is going to be a battle of hard power.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I respect the right hon. Member’s experience and agree absolutely with his intervention. Let us call things what they are: not breakaway republics, but step-by-step annexation; not peacekeepers, but an invading force. We have seen the pattern over and over again.

The former High Representative of the European Union, Baroness Ashton, has spoken about President Putin’s strategy of the wedge. He seizes part of the territory of a neighbouring country—Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, or parts of the Donbas in Ukraine. By holding the wedge, he seeks to limit the freedom of those countries to join international associations. He seeks to absorb the rest of the country in managing the conflict that he has created. He uses up resources, he creates a refugee problem and, if he cannot take over neighbouring countries entirely, he at least ensures that they are not free to develop as they wish because they are not whole and their freedom is compromised.

That “Greater Russia” mindset has been behind President Putin’s policy towards Ukraine for the past eight years. Right now, it is not fully clear whether he will be content just to hold the wedge or whether he will go further, but even what he has done so far is already limiting Ukraine’s options and choices for the future.

How should we respond? Some lessons have been learned. The solidarity shown by the United States, the United Kingdom and most European countries in recent weeks has been important and impressive. Calling out the troop build-up and the creation of flashpoint incidents and false flag pretexts has shone a welcome light on what is happening. The development of open source intelligence has exposed the ham-fisted propaganda emerging from Russia and its troll factories.

Allied unity is important, but so too is allied resolve. In the past, we have set red lines, but when they were breached we have drawn back. The result in Syria was the repeated use of chemical weapons and the ability for Russia to dictate the course of events for years afterwards. This time, if we talk about maximum sanctions for military action, we have to be prepared to carry them out. Who really believes that sanctioning just three people who have already been on the US list for years will deter President Putin from acting further? No wonder the Royal United Services Institute, the respected defence and foreign policy think-tank, described yesterday’s actions as like having

“turned up to a gunfight with a peashooter.”

The Government’s actions have to match their rhetoric. Yesterday, that simply was not the case. The Minister’s defence is that this is simply the first tranche and that there is more to come, but what is the case for waiting, given what we have seen? Is there anything in President Putin’s actions in recent days to suggest that he is in compromise mode? He is not. He is testing us every hour.

Not only do we need a sanctions regime that matches the seriousness of what has been done, but we need determined action to clean up what the Intelligence and Security Committee has called the London laundromat.

[Mr Baron]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I will press on, because we are short of time.

Our country and our capital city should not be a welcome home for illicit finance, the proceeds of looting and the proceeds of kleptocracy. There is a basic problem: if sanctions are to work, we have to know what people own. The Government have been sitting on a registration of overseas entities Bill for four years, and it has been six years since it was first talked about. How can sanctions be effective if we do not have legislation to show us what people own? Queen’s Speech after Queen’s Speech has passed without action. Only a few weeks ago, the Government’s own counter-fraud Minister resigned, saying that that legislation was once again to be set aside. Today, it looks as if it may be delayed further. It must be brought forward as soon as possible.

At the heart of money laundering is the use of shell companies to hide the true nature of ownership behind layer after layer of needless complexity. That lack of transparency is the fraudster’s friend. Reform of Companies House is long overdue, but, again, pledges to reform it have not been matched by action. If we are serious about policing kleptocracy and fraud, we have to change this situation and empower our register of companies to be a regulator, not just a library of information—and sometimes a library of dodgy information at that. The recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia have to be implemented. Our agencies have to be resourced to use the powers that they have, otherwise the legislation that we pass in this place is just bits of paper. We also have to be alive to the network of enablers who act as the praetorian guard for the oligarchs here in the UK.

As has already been said, it is not only money that is laundered here, but also reputations. The donation to a university, the purchase of a football club, the sponsoring of a gallery, donations to the Conservative party—all that is designed to burnish the reputations of those involved. In the whole history of this, one fact stands out: the interests of finance have trumped those of security. Then, when people call this out, there is the punitive legal action designed to shut people up and designed to stop the brave investigative journalists whom we should be thanking for the work they have done in exposing what is happening.

The Prime Minister’s defence yesterday was to accuse those of us who question many of these actions of Russophobia, and indeed the Minister repeated that today in her opening remarks. Does she, and does he, really think that the CVs of those involved in this are those of ordinary Russians? Russia is a country where the vast majority of the wealth is owned by about 500 people. We should not confuse those who live off Russia’s wealth with the sweat and toil of the Russian people who created the wealth in the first place. That is no defence for the funding of the Conservative party, and it is no defence for the actions of oligarchs. How does the Prime Minister think they made their wealth in the first place? They did it with the support and backing of the Russian regime. It is the wealth of the Russian people that is being laundered, not the proceeds of exceptional talent or enterprise or creativity or ingenuity.

We stand at a dangerous moment, one that requires not only unity between allies but resolve, for weakness here will be noticed by those elsewhere in the world who are looking for territorial gains. This is not just a matter of finance; it is a matter of national security, and that means the maximum package of actions. It means sticking to the red lines that we have set. That is what we urge the Government to do, and it is action that today’s Labour party will support.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

Most atrocities sadly occur in and around armed conflict and the Government have dedicated significant resources to the prevention of conflict. We do not believe we have to have a separate strategy for atrocity prevention because we are committed to a more integrated approach to Government work on conflict and instability that places greater emphasis on addressing the drivers of conflict, on atrocity prevention and on the strengthening of fragile countries’ resilience to external influence.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Further to my constructive Adjournment debate on the British Council with the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), and given the fact that the FCDO’s overall budget is to increase by 21% over the coming three-year spending review period, I seek clarity from those on the Front Bench as to whether the Government still intend to cut funding to the British Council, which will mean it will have to close a further 20 overseas offices on top of the 20 that it is already having to close.

[Vicky Ford]

Let me be clear: the British Council’s budget has not been cut. We agreed in the spending review settlement an amount of £189 million, which is a 27% increase in funding on the previous year. While we had to make difficult decisions on cuts in other areas, we actually increased the money that we are providing to the British Council. We have reviewed the physical Council presence in countries as part of a wider modernisation process. I visited the British Council in Senegal last week, and its work was outstanding.

British Council: Global Britain

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

First, may I thank the Speaker and indeed you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for choosing and allowing this debate to take place? I also thank the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), for fielding the debate on a Thursday afternoon. While I am in this mode, I should also like to thank the all-party group on the British Council for its support, guidance, diligence and expertise when it comes to trying to ensure that there is no disconnect between government and the British Council, and for playing its part. Above all, I wish to thank the staff and the teams at the British Council itself, and I know that my right hon. Friend will concur with that, because they have done a tremendous amount over the past few years in flying the flag for the cause of better understanding between this country and others. They have been flying the flag in such an astounding manner, given the challenges they have faced.

My right hon. Friend will know that the British Council has huge cross-party support in both Houses. Some Members in this place have worked for the British Council prior to being elected as an MP, and others have worked closely, as I have done on occasion, with the British Council in the past in trying to ensure that there are no misunderstandings and in furthering the good work of the British Council. There is huge affection for the organisation across Parliament.

The UK is often termed a “soft power superpower”—that phrase is reasonably well known. We rank very highly indeed and we usually top that table. That is down to our country’s extensive and impressive assets of attraction and influence, which include world-renowned arts and cultural bodies, world-class universities and research, and our sporting prowess, along with our respected national and international institutions. The British Council is one of those great institutions. Since the 1930s, it has been promoting British culture and the English language abroad, as well as facilitating cultural exchanges and, crucially, building trust between the UK and other countries. There are few Government Departments that do not directly benefit from its work.

The British Council also represents excellent value for money. In normal times, it receives only 15% of its income from the state, whereas many of its international counterparts receive much more. For example, its French, German and Japanese equivalents receive 48%, 62% and 65% respectively. That is in large part because the British Council has a commercial element, in the teaching of English abroad. It is tremendous value for money given the influence it exerts and the trust it builds between us and other nations.

As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, it was my pleasure to oversee the production and publication last July of our report on opportunities for global Britain. I thank all those who contributed to the report, including the officers of the all-party parliamentary group, who contributed to such effect. The report highlights the importance of showing not telling and of persuading rather than being more forceful, thereby ensuring that our values of openness and tolerance are there for all to see around the world, and the important fact that soft-power institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service are at their most effective, innovative and entrepreneurial when they have operational independence from the Government. I have no doubt that the Government get that, but it is important to reiterate that there must be an element of operational independence.

Our report also highlighted the Government’s short-sighted decision to curtail British Council activity in 20 countries because of its failure to close the £10 million shortfall between the amount of pandemic support given to the organisation and the costs of maintaining its international network. The 20 closures are already in train—the decision was largely taken last July—and represent the largest single set of closures in the British Council’s history. Our report particularly recommended that there should be no further closures among the British Council’s overseas network, and we received an assurance on that from the Minister in charge at the time.

The APPG is concerned that the British Council faces the closure of a further 20 country operations, which would result in 40 closures in total. This idea stems from discussion between the British Council and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on cutting the British Council’s funding allocation still further over the coming three-year spending review period, despite the FCDO’s budget increasing by 21% over the same three-year timeframe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good and hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I am a huge fan of the British Council and have seen it operating abroad. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we withdraw something like the British Council from a country, the image given is that Britain does not care about that country? The soft power that we gain from having the British Council firmly in place in a capital or major city is a huge influence on how a country looks at the United Kingdom.

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: when the Government are quite rightly talking about the importance of global Britain, it sends completely the wrong message to the world to close, in many countries, an organisation that represents the very best of British.

The irony of the situation is that the additional closures can easily be prevented, without any new money from the FCDO, by allowing the British Council to retain a share of the savings that it is currently making through cuts that are already in train. That is something to reflect on. As my right hon. Friend said, once the British Council ceases to have an office in a given country, it is unlikely that a presence will be easily re-established. It also leaves the way clear for others to fill the vacuum. The closure of 40 offices worldwide will not go unnoticed. Will the Government urgently review the situation and provide clarity?

Is it the Government’s intention, at a time when the FCDO’s expenditure is, courtesy of a very generous Budget, going up by more than 20% over the comprehensive spending review period, that the British Council’s funding should be cut? Is that the Government’s intention, or is there simply a disconnect? Is this cock-up, frankly, rather than conspiracy? Clarity is needed; uncertainty helps no one, not least the British Council, when it comes to planning. If that is the Government’s intention, I urge them to rethink their decision to require the additional 20 closures and ideally, if I am being somewhat presumptuous—and why not?—rethink their decision to close the 20 offices as announced in July. These mass closures will do enormous damage to our soft power, as my right hon. Friend has alluded to. They will be viewed as an unwelcome retreat from the international stage and will leave the door open to our competitors. This simply does not fit with the concept of global Britain.

I make no excuse for raising this issue now given what happened last time when the first set of 20 closures were announced. As soon as we got wind of it, being a proactive all-party group, we made every effort to communicate with Government through the normal channels. I had meaningful conversations with the then Foreign Secretary, a meaningful conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and two decent conversations with the Prime Minister. They all got it. They all accepted that the British Council was a valued organisation, helping to build trust. They got its worth; there was no need to persuade them. So what happened? There seemed to be a disconnect in Government. The clunky levers of the bureaucracy still manufactured a £10 million shortfall that was desperately required. It was desperately required because, over the past 18 months, the British Council has been unable to be proactive in commercialising its operation—its teaching of the English language—simply because the pandemic closed down its major markets in the far east, but still there was a £10 million shortfall, and still to this day, they are in the process of closing 20 country operations at a time when we are espousing the principles of global Britain. It simply does not make sense. There is a disconnect.

The reason for holding this Adjournment debate—I ask the forgiveness of the House because I am keeping it here late on a Thursday, at the end of the business day—is that if we do not make noises now, given what happened last time, we will get a repeat, and 40 closures—the 20 in train and the 20 now being rumoured—would be a disaster not just for the British Council, but for the country as well.

I could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I know that perhaps I should not. In summing up, I want to raise very briefly something that is connected to the British Council, and I know that the Minister also takes it to heart. I reiterate the all-party group’s urgent concern for those 200 Afghans who worked for the British Council and who are still in Afghanistan, fearing for their lives and unable to leave. I had a heartrending email from a former British Council employee—I will not read it again because I have already paraphrased it in Defence questions—who literally said that they were in fear of their lives. They were in hiding from the Taliban. They had run out of money, but for some reason the bureaucracy was getting in the way. It seems that slow-moving bureaucracy in Britain is preventing them from receiving the documents they urgently require. We owe these people a debt of gratitude.

As I said, I raised this issue at the last Defence questions. The Secretary of State agreed with the need for urgency, but suggested that this was more of a responsibility for the FCDO. He did, however, suggest a meeting for MPs involving all relevant Departments. In addition to the questions that I have already posed my right hon. Friend, I ask him to ensure that the FCDO, once it is invited, participates in this meeting fully. If it is not invited, it should ask questions why it is not. My understanding is that the Ministry of Defence is co-ordinating this. We, as Members of Parliament, need better sight of the system in order to play our part in ensuring that there is clarity, less bureaucracy and more action when it comes to helping these people. I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions from my right hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I will address the situation with regard to funding and our footprint shortly.

Together with the University of Edinburgh, the council is developing an online course, open to all, on sustainable living. This touches on key issues that connect us, from climate change to gender equality, health and inclusion, encouraging informed personal responses.

With regard to the funding situation, sadly, like so many organisations, as my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, the British Council has been acutely affected by the impact of covid-19. More than 90% of its teaching and exam centres were shut at the height of the pandemic. It has done a genuinely exceptional job of rapidly expanding its digital services, including online teaching platforms, in response to this crisis. We continue to work closely with the council as it builds back from the pandemic. We share its ambition to innovate and to increase its digital capacity even further. I was very pleased recently to meet the British Council’s new CEO, Scott McDonald, who brings a genuine wealth of commercial experience from his previous roles. In partnership with the council’s chairman, Stevie Spring, I have no doubt that Scott will bring the strong leadership needed to drive forward the council’s transformation and put it on a sustainable future-facing footing.

Sadly, as with so many organisations, the pandemic also had a devastating impact on the British Council’s commercial activities and therefore its finances. The Government remain committed to the council’s future success, and I am confident that it will emerge stronger than ever. The funding we secured through the 2021-22 spending review demonstrates that commitment. Since the start of the pandemic we have allocated more than £600 million to ensure that the British Council can continue to deliver on our priorities during this uniquely challenging time. Earlier this year, the council, as has been said, announced that it will stop spending grant in aid funding in 11 countries. In a further nine, it will deliver grant in aid programmes remotely from other countries. These decisions were taken in partnership with the council, focusing on where it can achieve the biggest impact.

[Mr Baron]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about those at the British Council, who will be heartened to hear what he says. I know it will not be strange to them, but it is nice to hear it from the Dispatch Box all the same. I concur with his comments about the new chief executive Scott McDonald and Stevie Spring, too. They will bring a lot to the British Council at this important time. I hear what he says about the figures, and one does not dispute the moneys put into the British Council as its commercial activities collapsed, but the Government were still £10 million short of what was required to keep those 20 country operations fully operational, and that was the crime there. When one spoke with Ministers, there was no problem at all—they got it—but it still translated into a £10 million cut. The fear is that something similar will happen now going forward.

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend raises the prospect of additional closures, and I understand his concern about that. The simple truth is that we continue to operate, notwithstanding the spending review allocation, in a challenging financial context. We continue to work closely with the British Council on the implications of the 2022 to 2025 spending review. I assure him that the funding settlement has not yet been finalised, and any decisions that we make will be in close consultation with the British Council. We will continue to work with the British Council on its future strategy to ensure that it continues to deliver not only excellence but maximum value and maximum impact.

[Mr Baron]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s generosity in giving way again, but we have a little bit of time, without wishing to detain the House for too long. I accept what he has just said, because I know he is a decent fellow, but my worry is that this message, despite his exalted position in the FCDO, does not translate, frankly, because it did not translate last time. May I tease him a little to see whether he can go further? Would he wish to see further closures in the British Council, as we have seen in the past?

[James Cleverly]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see the political chess moves, the political judo and the political jujitsu that my hon. and gallant Friend is performing. I know he would want me to provide assurances in strict financial terms. Sadly I am not able to do that at the Dispatch Box at this moment, but the assurance that I can give him is that the hugely positive impact that the British Council has on the lives of people around the world, as well as the hugely positive impact it has on the UK’s standing around the world, are not lost on anyone. I enjoyed a very good conversation with the new CEO. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with the new CEO and the rest of the leadership team at the British Council to ensure we protect the excellence that this organisation delivers. I would wish, were budgets infinite, to have a British Council presence everywhere—I know that is a cheeky response to a bit of a cheeky question—but sadly we do not live in an environment of infinite resource.

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point about Afghanistan and our commitment to helping those Afghans who helped us, including through their employment or work with the British Council. The FCDO remains in close and regular contact with the British Council’s management about the cases of eligible staff and contractors and their dependants in Afghanistan. Applications from British Council contractors for resettlement will of course have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We will work across Government to find a way of expediting any decisions made, so that we can provide assistance as quickly as possible.

[Mr Baron]

I thank my right hon. Friend for being generous in giving way. Of course I do not doubt his words, but what seems to be happening is a disconnect between Departments. This week in the House the Defence Secretary, who is a good man, said he thought it was more a responsibility for the FCDO. This situation needs gripping, because the sense is that bureaucracy is getting in the way. There are 200 level 1 and level 2 applicants for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, and the paperwork is simply not being produced.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. The repatriation work through Afghanistan has proved to be one of the most difficult and technically complicated, and in many instances very sensitive operations we have had to work. It is inevitable that we have to work across and exchange information between Departments.

Ensuring that individuals who worked for organisations that came under the remit of the FCDO, but whose resettlement cases might be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, will of course mean that we will continue to need to work cross-departmentally, as we have done. I pay genuine tribute to my colleagues in the Home Office, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and, of course, the Ministry of Defence, who I know are passionate about this and work tirelessly, often with incomplete information. We will continue working with them on that.

To conclude, as we all work tirelessly to promote global Britain, our partnership with the British Council remains vital. We will continue to support it as it brings people together across nations, through arts, culture, education and, perhaps most importantly, the English language. In this way, by showcasing our values and delivering opportunities, we will build connections, understanding and trust.

Question put and agreed to.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this aspect of today’s debate on the British Council, and, indeed, all those who supported our application?

Parliament will know that, since 1934, the British Council has promoted British culture and education and the English language abroad, and in doing so it has fostered good relations and trust between the British people and people from other countries. It was the first and remains the world’s pre-eminent cultural relations organisation. For example, prior to covid, it directly connected with nearly 800 million people. It is a key reason why the UK is considered a soft power superpower, and on behalf of the British Council all-party group and of Parliament as a whole, I thank all employees, both past and present, for their excellent work. It is both recognised in this place and very much appreciated.

Governments of all persuasions have got it. The Prime Minister has told me personally that he gets it. The Defence Secretary, earlier this year, said that there was not enough British Council in the world, but actions speak louder than words. Our campaign, which has included a letter to the Prime Minister signed by well over 100 colleagues, which still has not been answered, relates to the fact that, despite generous Government support to see the British Council through the pandemic, it is still £10 million short of what it requires to keep or maintain its international network of offices, and this will result in the largest single set of closures in the British Council’s proud 90-year history.

This Government’s support is needed, because in any normal year the British Council is almost self-funding, courtesy of its commercial activities, including, typically, teaching English in China. Last year, these commercial activities dried up. The cash reserves were used and no commercial loan was available, because of the nature of the British Council’s relationship with the Government. Yet the FCDO maintains that it has increased its support to the British Council by around 27% on last year. Last year was an unusual year. A more accurate and fairer comparison is with the last normal year, 2019-20. The 27% increase claimed by the Government actually represents a cut in FCDO support when compared with that last normal year. In addition, a chunk of this year’s support is earmarked solely for restructuring, typically redundancies, and cannot be used for programming or keeping offices open. As the Government will not close this £10 million shortfall, office closures and programme reductions are to follow.

Let us be clear that these closures are not operational matters left to the British Council. As the Foreign Secretary’s letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee confirmed, these closures have been required by the FCDO and have been the subject of close ministerial involvement.

Indeed, the FCDO has listed the 20 offices to be closed, as defined by the removal of a country director and staff. They come in three categories: there will be a complete cessation of in-country activities in Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, the United States and Uruguay; there will be a remote presence over the internet or via local third parties, but no British Council staff, in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile and New Zealand; and, finally, there will be hub and spoke operations, directed from London, essentially covering the Balkans but also including Malta and Switzerland. In all 20 countries, a physical, recognisable and distinctive British Council presence will cease.

I briefly draw particular attention to our withdrawal from Afghanistan. As an ex-soldier, I supported the initial well-resourced mission to rid the country of al-Qaeda in 2001, but thereafter I opposed morphing the mission into one of nation building. I believe the British Council’s withdrawal compounds that error. Over the past 20 years, Britain has invested heavily in Afghanistan, in every sense. We made a promise to the Afghan people that we would not abandon them and, almost in one fell swoop, we are withdrawing our military support as well as our British Council offering. This will live long in the memory.

Let us also be clear that, although the FCDO is right that we should be alive to innovations such as remote working and digitalisation, the British Council would not be going down this road on this scale but for the current financial situation. The fact that other countries are increasing their global footprint indicates that they believe there remains great value in having a presence on the ground. China, for example, is planning to open a further 1,000 Confucius Institutes over the coming years. There is no better substitute for a physical presence on the ground, to understand the country in question, and such a presence might have averted some of our foreign intervention errors.

I believe this retreat from the world will be noted by other countries, and it is not compatible with the vision of a global Britain or with the ambitions in the integrated review. I ask the Government to think long and hard about this error, particularly when it comes to the comprehensive spending review.

Yesterday I received an answer to a written parliamentary question confirming there will be no further closures. I ask the Minister, when he speaks at the Dispatch Box, to confirm that remains the case.

Finally, I thank the many colleagues who have supported our campaign to get the Government to think again, including the hundred who signed our letter. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind in future considerations with regard to the British Council.

British Council

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on British Council closures.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

The British Council is a crucial part of the UK’s presence overseas and a key soft power asset. It works in more than 100 countries to promote UK education, arts and culture, and the English language. The Government remain committed to the British Council. As the integrated review made clear, we value the influence of the British Council. We agreed a 2021-22 spending review settlement totalling £189 million, which is a 26% increase in funding from 2020-21. The British Council has not been cut. Although we have had to make difficult decisions to cut in other areas, we have increased the money we are providing to the British Council. Not only have we increased funding; we have provided a rescue package during the covid-19 pandemic. This includes a loan facility of up to £145 million, with a further £100 million loan being finalised to support restructuring. We have also provided a letter of comfort to ensure that the council can meet its financial obligations.

We found this funding for the council in the context of an extremely challenging financial environment. As a result of the pandemic, the UK is facing the worst economic contraction in over 300 years and a budget deficit of close to £400 billion. This package is necessarily accompanied by changes to the council’s governance essential to modernise the council. These include measures to update the British Council’s charitable objects, to focus the council on its core pillars, to streamline its governance structures and to agree new key performance indicators and targets to monitor council performance in key areas. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and British Council officials have worked together to ensure that the council will align even more closely with the Government’s strategic priorities and can focus on doing what it does best.

Having worked closely with the British Council, we are reviewing physical council presence in-country as part of this modernisation process. These changes will be minimal, but it is a strategic mistake to judge the impact of the council in a digital age solely by the physical office in-country. Rather, it should be judged by its operational presence, by the digital services we are investing in and which have expanded rapidly as a result of covid, and by its ability to operate through regional hubs and third parties. The covid crisis has changed the way we all have to operate. We have also implemented a new evaluation mechanism, so that when Ministers travel, they can assess the value for money and the impact provided by the British Council on soft power. This is a strong rescue and reform package. The council will also shortly have a new chief executive officer, so it will have strong leadership and a governance structure to make it viable and to reinforce its role as a force for good.

[Mr Baron]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I also thank colleagues from all parties who are supporting our campaign and who signed the letter to the Prime Minister, and I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question. Speaking as chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I know that our own dealings with the Government and the letter published between the FCDO and the Foreign Affairs Committee confirm that office closures are about to take place overseas. This is about to be announced by the Government. The number varies from five to 20, but even five would represent the largest set of closures in the British Council’s history, and all for the sake of a £10 million shortfall in funding.

The Minister is right when he says that funding has been supplied to the British Council. We all know that the British Council does an excellent job, and I will not waste colleagues’ time by extolling its virtues. It is a key reason that the UK is considered a soft power superpower. Its high-quality, dedicated staff do an excellent job in promoting British culture, education and the English language overseas, facilitating cultural exchanges and building trust between other countries and the UK. In any normal year, it derives only 15% of its funding from the Government because of its commercial activities, but those commercial activities have been savaged by the pandemic. The Government have stepped forward, but their funding is still £10 million short of what the British Council needs to maintain its international network —its footprint of offices overseas—and its programming. The Government have gone so far, but they are falling at the final fence.

The Minister may say that the British Council needs to move into the technological age—he talks of a digital age—but there can be no substitute for a presence on the ground. The litmus test when it comes to the site closures is not only the Government’s talk of hub and spoke arrangements in certain regions; it is whether the country directors themselves are in situ, and country directors are going to be made redundant.

Let us remember that these closures are happening only because of the £10 million in cuts. They are not of the British Council’s choosing, so talk by Ministers that such decisions are for the British Council rings somewhat hollow. There has been strong ministerial involvement in these decisions, as confirmed by the letter to me from the Prime Minister, and it is Ministers who have instigated these cuts.

Very briefly, the closures are wrong because they are not in keeping with the concept of global Britain—the Defence Secretary has said that there is not enough British Council in the world—but they are also wrong strategically. It is a bad decision—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to go to the Minister. I warned the hon. Gentleman that he had two minutes, and he has now taken three minutes-plus.

ODA Budget

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We have almost run out of time, but I will try to get in the six people who are left. Can we please have really short questions and really short answers? I think the Minister has answered every conceivable question.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent work undertaken by arm’s length bodies such as the British Council in fostering better understanding and relations with other countries. We are indeed a soft power superpower. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that these ODA reductions do not lead to decisions that will damage those bodies’ long-term effectiveness?

[James Cleverly]

We are conscious of the potential long-term impacts of what we believe to be a one-off and hopefully short-term situation with regard to the economic impact of coronavirus. We will look carefully at the best use of taxpayers’ money to ensure that important delivery mechanisms can continue into the future.