British Council

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

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

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree not only that the British Council is a great institution with a great history, but that it makes a valuable contribution to our country’s soft power capability? In fact, Joseph Nye cites the founding of the British Council in the 1930s as the originator of the concept of soft power. Does he agree that funding cuts by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office mean that there is a greater commercial burden on the British Council that risks eroding its credibility and integrity as it tries to become more commercial to make up for those cuts? Does he also agree that those cuts—I include the BBC World Service—are false economies, because money spent on our soft power capability can save on conflict and greater cost further down the line?

[David Warburton]

My hon. Friend reads my mind—obviously he has been looking ahead to what I am about to say. I entirely agree with all those points. Although soft power is a nebulous concept that is perhaps a little overused, I will touch on it shortly. It is crucial that the British Council’s budget is protected in the best possible way and that it does not become a commercial organisation.

I recently had the privilege of chairing an event in Parliament as part of the British Council’s Young Arab Voices programme. I am confident in saying that all the parliamentarians present were enormously impressed by those young people’s articulacy and breadth of knowledge. That programme instils and distils the idea that conflict resolution and decision making should and can be achieved through argument and reason rather than by force. Therefore, by creating alternative pathways for young people, by offering a platform and a voice for young Muslims and Arab leaders, for example, and by changing lives and life chances through sport and a variety of cultural activities, the British Council provides a special, and arguably unique, way to address our security and stability.

I mentioned mutual interchange of ideas, which is not only vital, but something that the British Council is ideally placed and equipped to take on in the UK’s interests. Perhaps soft power, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), might be considered a bit of a tired novelty, but it is particularly relevant to the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted by the result of the Soft Power 30 in which Joseph Nye ranked the UK as wielding more of that intangible but critical quality than any other nation on Earth. That is a tribute to the splendid vibrancy of British culture and to those who, like the British Council, work to share the benefits of that culture as widely as possible.

Hon. Members will recall how Nikola Tesla spoke of the ways in which science can annihilate distance. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, that idea possibly terrifies some, but it inspires others to forge links with people and communities whose concerns in the past may have been rather distant from their own.

In reality, few agencies or organisations are better placed or have the reputation or cultural memory to take on the task of forging such links in the interests of British culture and our long-term security. For example, a society that precludes half its population—women and girls—from accessing education or the wider economy is only half an economy. Therefore, with many western and British values perhaps facing something of an ideological challenge, the British Council’s work in providing education for 90,000 refugees in Lebanon, its progressive focus on the role of women and girls in transforming the societies of north Africa and its role in training Iraqi teachers, reaching more than 100,000 children, show how it can change the nebulous currency of soft power into solid, tangible results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do. ODA has been given as a demonstration of the effectiveness of the council’s work in least developed countries. The major challenge the council faces is the reduction in the FCO grant, which has been eroded constantly over the years. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the fundamental problem is that that increases the council’s reliance on commercially generated funding. We all acknowledge and welcome the council’s ability to raise that type of funding, but the reduction in grant funding reduces its flexibility to operate wherever it needs to in this rapidly changing world. I absolutely agree that the reduction in the grant is having a negative impact on the council’s ability to deliver across the board.

[Mr Baron]

In addition, is not there another concern about the decrease in FCO funding? It will not simply be a case of having to make up the lost income—and with regard to commercial activities, that can be many times the factor of the income required, as a turnover of £100 million may just about produce a profit of £10 million, and the reduction from the FCO grant would be £50 million over five years. As the British Council becomes more commercial to make up the lost revenue, its integrity and credibility could also be threatened. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that a risk as well?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do. Also, as I will go on to argue later, the council’s English language teaching and exam work is important, makes a big impact and is very lucrative, but it tends to be for the elites in the societies where the council is operating. It is the high end of English language learning and people pay top dollar for it. If we are saying that it is important that we engage with the disaffected, disfranchised youths who are potentially going to become a security risk for us, it is arguable that that section of society will not be able to pay for those English language courses. Looking at the council’s strategic objectives and values, it is important that its reach is wide and that it goes into sections of society that its English language teaching and exams administration simply cannot reach.

The grant represents just 16% of the British Council’s funding. The rest is earned, as we have been discussing, and those earnings are projected to increase. Despite that good news, all is not financially rosy at the council. The FCO grant was reduced to £154 million in 2014-15, down from £201 million in 2009-10, so despite the extra £10 million in ODA, cuts to projects are having to be made. The choice for the council is stark: either a managed decline in its scale and reach, or growing its self-generated income to continue its work. The council has been forced to choose the latter, but should it have to and do we want it to?

Of course, it is truly commendable that the council’s English teaching and exam management can generate enough income from those who can afford to pay to fund projects aimed at those who cannot. Work done administering exams, managing international contracts and fostering corporate partnerships is important, but the more money that is raised from commercial sources, the more the British Council’s core purpose becomes divorced from its soft power potential. My concern is also that language teaching and exams are expensive, and so tend to benefit elites. Grant-funded activity is far more likely to have a wider reach.

We must recognise that, if the British Council is to remain an important wing of British diplomacy, public funding must remain an important element of its financial base. That is crucial for accountability and flexibility, and to supporting the council’s activities in fragile, unstable states, where it is harder for the council to raise the private funds to enable it to build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with future leaders. It is an important fact that one in five world leaders studied in the UK; we are talking about a brand that we can, and do, export, but without public funding, it stops being linked to Britain as a country and becomes just another product.

ODA money is specifically for British Council work in areas that are of key interest from a security and stability perspective. Those areas are current flashpoints, and the money is crucially needed. In Tunisia, for example, a fledgling democracy is trying to embody all the original hopes of the Arab spring, but more of the foreign jihadists in Iraq and Syria originate there than in any other country. The British Council runs debating clubs across Tunisia—a programme that it wants to grow tenfold and that successfully engages young people at risk of radicalisation. For Tunisia, whose economy relies so much on tourism, the good publicity afforded by successful British Council projects feeds into confidence that the country can move on and rebuild after recent horrors.

ODA funding also goes towards co-operation work with countries such as China and India, where engaging with societies that are growing increasingly prosperous is an investment in our future.

The debate is about how best to build trust between Britain and the rest of the world, and nobody does that better than the British Council. More ODA money would maintain its public funding and consolidate its position as a respected arm of British diplomacy. The Government’s spending review is coming up, and my colleagues and I urge the Minister to communicate that request in the strongest terms to the Chancellor.

During his Grant Park acceptance speech in 2008, Barack Obama famously stated that the true strength of a nation is demonstrated

“not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals”.

I urge the Minister to take note and to ensure that the outstanding nature of the work done by the British Council is adequately reflected in the comprehensive spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was not going to speak in the debate, but given that there is a little time available, I shall contribute briefly—I am grateful for the opportunity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this important debate, which is timely, given the advent of the spending review at the end of the month.

I think that all those who have spoken in the debate accept that the British Council is a valuable institution. It does great and sterling work in encouraging co-operation and improving communication, and it makes a great contribution to Britain’s soft power capability. I mentioned earlier that Joseph Nye cited the British Council as the original forerunner of the concept of soft power when it was formed in 1934. The concept has moved on, obviously, and we now talk about smart power as well as soft power, but it is important to bring the discussion back to soft power. Although the term is somewhat abused, the concept is perhaps more relevant today, in this uncertain world, than it has been for a long time. Joseph Nye defined it as

“the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment”.

We are not alone in recognising the importance of soft power. Many other countries, including some—without wishing to name names—whose credibility is far less than ours in this context, if only because they are not democracies, are realising that soft power is an increasingly important part of an effective, full-spectrum response to the threats that they face. We would do well to learn from that in the UK. We have been through a decade, if not 12 years, when we have seen examples of hard power not providing the solutions that the Government hoped for, including our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan post-2006, when we allowed the mission to morph into one of nation building, and Libya. Another is our positioning on Syria, where initially the objective was to support the rebels, although we have now realised that that is where the greater threat lies, so we have rightly turned on them—or elements of them, such as ISIL, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda.

We should realise by now that hard power solutions are not always what we hope they will be. That should remind us of the importance of soft power in this increasingly complex and uncertain world, yet we are cutting funding to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is in turn cutting funding for its various activities, including its support of the British Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may disagree with me about one or two aspects of our hard power interventions, but I think that he and I can agree—he may not be able to do so publicly—that we should not cut funding to the FCO in these times. If anything, we should increase its funding, at a time of increasing uncertainty, because we need our eyes and ears on the ground. We need our expertise in foreign policy issues generally to be properly funded as that can save additional costs and prevent mistakes further down the line.

I rail against further cuts to the British Council. We have heard about funding being cut from £201 million to, I think, £154 million. Okay, there has been a £10 million increase since, but that is still a substantial cut of something like £40 million to a budget of £200 million in the past five years. The British Council has been left in a difficult situation because it must either scale back its activities, which cannot be good for many people around the world, or the UK, when it comes to soft power capability, or become more commercial. A sum of £40 million may not sound a lot in today’s world where figures of billions are bandied around, but to generate that £40 million, assuming a profit margin of 10%, the British Council will really have to gear up its commercial activity.

Although there are early indications that the British Council is coping, there is a risk that as it tries to become more commercial and enterprising—I accept that there is always room for improvement in such areas—its activity will begin to feed back against it, in the sense that its commercial activities will begin to erode its credibility and integrity. A great part of its strength is its quasi-independent approach, but if it is becoming more commercial, the danger is that that will be eroded in many respects. Will the Minister address that fundamental point? This concern is shared by not only me and other hon. Members, but many people within the British Council, as well as outsiders and experts.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect on the reputation of the British Council and the United Kingdom is an important aspect of the discussion of financing? Is there a risk of a negative reputational effect if the British Council starts to be perceived as a money-making machine in the economies where it works, rather than an organisation concerned with building mutually beneficial partnerships?

[Mr Baron]

I tend to agree, but there is a balance. In defence of what happened previously, I would say that when the funding was £200 million, there were always commercial activities in the British Council, especially through the teaching of English overseas, for which its reputation is second to none. I agree, but I am trying to get across the point that as the British Council must increasingly gear up, in a commercial sense, to make good sizeable funding cuts—something like 20% in the past five years—there is a risk of losing sight of the balance. I ask the Minister of State to consider that and give us his response, because I, like the other Members in the Chamber, worry about the integrity and credibility of the British Council. That needs to be addressed, and it is a concern that has been expressed by those at the top table of the British Council itself.

I am conscious of time, but I will quickly move to another aspect of the funding that worries me. This might be partly the fault of the five-year political cycle, but we lose sight of the longer term when it comes to these sorts of funding issues. I suggest to the Minister that although these short-term cuts might meet a financial envelope set over a relatively small timeframe, there is a real danger that by making them now, we are creating false economies. The very nature of the British Council’s work means that we are talking about intangible benefits: the improvement of communication; fostering good relations with future world leaders when it comes to the UK; and increasing communication and education links. The benefit of all those intangibles cannot, in all honesty, be quantified, but we know they exist and can become more valuable in times of crisis. These short-term cuts could create false economies over the longer term.

Most generations that have preceded us believed that they lived in a safe and stable environment, certainly compared with their predecessors, but if history teaches us one thing, it is that this is an increasingly uncertain world, with variables that need to be catered for and anticipated as far as possible. The value of soft power in helping us to meet and address those uncertainties will increase as time passes, yet what is this country doing? It is cutting funding to its soft power capabilities, and not only the British Council. Although one accepts that funding for the BBC World Service has been transferred to the licence fee, there is still pressure on it, so that is another aspect of our soft power that is having to tighten its belt.

I argue that the FCO itself should be better funded and should not have to face the current cuts. We need a properly sighted foreign policy apparatus with the expertise to face increasing challenges, yet what are we doing? We are making further cuts to that as well. As long as I am a Member of this place, I will continue—unpopular though it may be for certain Front Benchers—to make the case for increased funding for the FCO, in the hope that one day someone will listen. To be better sighted and to have the in-house expertise to ensure that we do not make the sorts of mistake we have made over the past 10 or 12 years in our foreign policy interventions, for example, is a saving that is well worth making. Such an approach would lead to considerable savings further down the line that would far exceed the short-term savings we are achieving by having to cut the FCO budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

Well, I had to check the title because at one point I thought it was “Shakespeare Lives”—life plural—which could have meant something completely different, but I have no doubt that we all look forward to that great celebration. It is arguably the most significant soft power opportunity for the UK since the Olympics. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and others talked about the British Council and cultural diplomacy. I will return to that in a minute. The British Council is working with the GREAT campaign, British theatres, museums, artists and many others to put on an unprecedented programme of global activity that will include brand-new productions of Shakespeare’s plays, film adaptations, art exhibitions, public readings and educational resources for schools and English language learners of all ages.

The British Council must undertake all this activity in a rapidly changing world. This Government are determined to play a leading role in global affairs and we will continue to influence the international agenda. Our status as an international leader in soft power—something close to my hon. Friend’s heart—is incredibly important. Therefore, the British Council will play a fundamental role in ensuring the UK’s place at the top table.

Incidentally, I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) who talked about the importance of science diplomacy.

[Mr Baron]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Swire]

If my hon. Friend did not, I apologise; I thought that he had mentioned science. I would just like to point to the work in the Foreign Office of Professor Robin Grimes and his team on scientific diplomacy. We have a new fund called the Newton fund, which is providing £75 million a year for five years; that is £375 million in total. We have 15 partner countries, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, and so far £190 million of business wins and £250 million of leveraged funding have been delivered. Further work is being done to combat global issues such as dementia and antimicrobial resistance. Scientific diplomacy—forging links with others around the world—is another key part of soft power.

As hon. Members may know, the British Council went through a triennial review, published last year, which found the following:

“With its longstanding worldwide presence the British Council makes a significant contribution to the UK international profile…Its role is more relevant than ever: the potential return to the UK globally is enormous in terms of ‘soft power’, reputation and prosperity.”

The review also found that activity was not always well aligned with other bodies representing British interests overseas, and concluded that transparency, accountability and clarity of purpose should be improved.

I am pleased to say that the British Council has responded well to the review’s conclusions, taking action to ensure that those issues are addressed. The council is currently moving to a new operating model, so that its finances and commercial operations will be more transparent and accountable to the Government, Parliament and the British taxpayer. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already chairing a new committee that aligns the Government’s priorities with the British Council’s activities overseas and, as I mentioned, the British Council has rearticulated its purpose in a way that aligns itself more directly with our international objectives to make Britain safer, to build prosperity and to increase British influence overseas.

Later this month, the Government will publish the initial results of their spending review and strategic defence and security review, which to a large extent will determine how we will meet the challenges of the future and adapt to this changing world. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is now not in his place, and others commented on this. I confirm that we are working with the Treasury to help ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council continue to be funded in a manner that reflects our global ambition.

I will not be tempted to travel into the trap carefully laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay when he spoke so convincingly about the importance of having a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that punches above its weight. He will not hear me dissent from that as an aspiration, although I will not go into the funding implications of it. I will say that, during the past five to six years, within an extraordinarily tight spending envelope, the Foreign Office has been able to increase our international footprint around the world. I myself have opened up a number of new posts, not least an embassy in Asunción in Paraguay, an embassy in El Salvador, most recently a consulate in Belo Horizonte in Brazil, offices in China and so on. I think the Foreign Office is spread wide and punching well above its weight already, but he and others will look with close interest at our fate after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and rightly so.

[Mr Baron]

I assure my right hon. Friend that no trap was intended, but I will leave him to muse on that. I suggest to him that footprint is one thing, but expertise and knowledge can be quite another. Where the FCO has been caught wanting—for example, during Russia’s annexation of Crimea it had no in-house expertise covering that area so it had to pull in other experts, and it had to pull in middle east experts during the Arab spring—it has been about expertise.

I want to bring my right hon. Friend back to the British Council. When it comes to funding, does he accept that many more cost savings could be made further down the line by avoiding conflict, by being better sighted and by influencing through soft power than will be achieved by the cuts that are being made to the budget? Does he agree, therefore, that we should adopt a much longer-term view of funding for our soft power capabilities, including the FCO and the British Council? Many would argue that the short-term savings are simply false economies, given the greater cost savings that could follow further down the line.

[Mr Swire]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s views about the importance of soft power, or preventive power, and I argue that the United Kingdom is doing well in that respect. I do not share his nervousness about the increased commercial activities of the British Council. In fact, I would argue that the threat from the commercial activities of the British Council has been real. Our concern is that in some ways, particularly in the provision of English language teaching and exams, it can freeze out the private sector. That is why I am pleased that the British Council has introduced a new independent complaints process run by Verita, which will help it better to hear and understand stakeholder concerns, including the concerns of the English language teaching and education sector, and take steps to address them.

Furthering British interests overall, the British Council has agreed with UK Trade & Investment a new business opportunity development process to help British companies to enter difficult markets. I was particularly pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about his experiences with Christie’s, for whom he worked previously, and the assistance provided by the British Council in Shanghai. That seems to me precisely the sort of work that the British Council should do.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments about British cultural diplomacy. I had the honour of working alongside Neil MacGregor for many years in a previous incarnation, and I saw him again the other night at the “Days of the Dead” event at the British Museum. I am delighted that, when he stands down from his role at the British Museum, he will take up an advisory role in Berlin and in India. That is eminently sensible, because although he would hate to be called one of our great icons, he is in danger of becoming one of the most valuable of the British objects that influence the world. He would hate me to say that, so I hope that he does not read the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to promote the salvaging of overseas cultural centres and places. This is not new. I refer him to the 2005 Conservative cultural manifesto, of which I was the author, in which we planned to create a fund, if we won the election, to do exactly the sort of thing that he has been doing. When one looks around the world and sees what has being going on in places such as Palmyra, it is clear that the need for such work has never been greater. There is a greater role for British cultural diplomacy.

Britain remains a leader on the world stage, with the networks that are necessary to promote our interests—despite all the pressures on those networks—to protect our people and values, to tackle complex and ever-changing threats, and, to use the words of the British Council’s 1940 report, to maintain our ability to

“create overseas a basis of friendly knowledge and understanding of the people of this country”.

There can, surely, be no safer or more prosperous world for the British people than one that sees Britain as a friend and understands our values. On that subject, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who suggested that he would be taking part in the Wembley event for Prime Minister Modi, along with some 60,000 or 70,000 others—including, probably, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is the Minister for the next debate. We look forward to that visit.

It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said about a new generation of young Indians who come to the table without so much knowledge, or perhaps even baggage, about our colonial history, but who are interested in what modern Britain has to offer, our values and our culture—particularly our music, our fashion and our literature. That is hugely exciting, and it is why we have increased our diplomatic presence in India. The work of the British Council somewhere like that is a key priority, because I do not think we should just assume that a modern generation of Indians feels anything like the same link to this country as did their fathers and their grandfathers. It is abundantly clear that we have to work at it.

To conclude, I cannot put it better than the report of last year’s exacting triennial review process, which stated that the British Council was a

“valuable national asset and should be retained as the main official UK body for cultural diplomacy”.

The debate has benefited from the knowledge brought by the likes of the hon. Member for Aberavon, who worked for the British Council. It is something of a family business for him, and, as a Conservative, I am keen on family businesses. He may be as well, depending on which wing of the contemporary Labour party he sits. Other hon. Members who have touched on the work of the British Council see its long-term importance in the promotion of British soft power.

The Government are hugely proud of what the British Council does, and we want to continue to work with it under Sir Ciarán and whoever succeeds the chairman. I believe that Sir Ciarán is an ideal new chief executive to take the council forward. It is important to work with the council as it creates lasting friendships overseas and builds an appreciation of the United Kingdom—what it is, what it stands for and what it can offer—and as it helps to challenge some of the warped and hideous ideologies that are creeping up in this extraordinarily dangerous world. Ultimately, we must help the council to promote the values that we all hold dear.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

21. What progress is being made to ensure that this Parliament, by itself if necessary, can say no to any unwanted EU directives, tax or regulations?

[Mr Hammond]

Part of our reform strategy is to look for a greater role for national Parliaments working together to block unwanted legislation so that we, the people of Europe, cannot have imposed on us by the Commission something that the majority of us do not want. But my hon. Friend knows that it is completely unrealistic to seek an individual national veto in all areas. A European Union of 28 member states with individual national vetoes simply would not work.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has not disappointed me. I shall take that as an endorsement of the diplomatic triumph that we have achieved in Vienna.

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

For those of us who have long advocated a greater focus on diplomacy in our dealings with Iran, this agreement is to be very much welcomed, and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his team on the part they have played in achieving it. Let us hope that it becomes ever more self-fulfilling in that it will strengthen the hands of the many moderates within Iran. To promote dialogue, what measures will the British Government take to encourage or help British business to realise the potential of the Iranian market, given that planeloads of our competitors have been landing in Tehran for some time?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. Clearly, the key thing we need to do is to get our embassy reopened. I have spoken to the Chancellor over the past few days, as we approached the conclusion of this deal, to ensure that the Treasury is engaged in the opportunities that will arise—some quite substantial and early. I think that Iran will want to use some of its unfrozen assets to address some large infrastructure deficits, including in the oil and gas production industry, where the UK is well placed to play a role. The visa regime will be another important part of normalising our relationship with Iran.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement on Greece last week, but he made very clear both his sympathy and the long-standing friendship between this country and the people of Greece. When this Government were elected in May, the Prime Minister made an offer to the Greek Government of technical support for things such as improving the efficacy of their taxation system. That offer remains open.

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

Which circumstances would lead the Government to advocate a no vote to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not blame my hon. Friend for his question, but I would not think he really expects me to speculate about the outcome of negotiations—certainly not at this stage. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is aiming to secure reforms in Europe that are good for the prosperity and democracy of Europe as a whole and that help the United Kingdom feel comfortable with its place in Europe—and that if he cannot get those reforms, he rules nothing out.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

Again, I accept my hon. Friend’s comments. To a large extent, one of my concerns is monitoring, and the access that monitors will be allowed, so that that type of review can be conducted. There are real concerns as to whether that monitoring will be of an acceptable nature.

We also need to address the issue of the nuclear sites. If my understanding of the proposed deal is correct, two sites—Natanz and Fordow—will be retained. I must ask the Government and the Minister a question about that. If such a concession has been made, what concessions have been offered in return by the Iranians to facilitate the agreement?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on not only securing this debate, but approaching it in a very balanced way. He was good enough to accept that, in the past, mistakes were made by both sides, and we in the west would now gladly take up some of the concessions that we once refused, because things have been moved on.

I say to the Minister that although it is terribly important that we have the proper safeguards in place in any agreement, particularly to protect our friends in the region—I accept that point 100%, and we must focus on it like a laser—we must not lose sight of the benefits that would arise from our reaching some sort of agreement with Iran. There could be many such benefits across the region, which is becoming increasingly unstable, and we cannot ignore the fact that Iran is a major regional power that we created with our misguided invasion of Iraq.

[Guto Bebb]

I agree with many of my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree that the benefits arising from a good deal are worth fighting for. However, I suspect that many Members have concerns about the nature of the proposed deal and about the certainty that any such deal offers Iran’s neighbours, who also have real concerns, as he acknowledged. I accept the point about mistakes made in the past, and the importance of having a proper deal in place. However, the key point is that the deal must be acceptable to all and must give other countries in that part of the world confidence in the long term.

There is also a concern about the proposed length of the deal; we are looking at a deal that will possibly be limited to 10 years. Again, in the context of considering the development of nuclear capacity, we must ask ourselves whether 10 years is reasonable or sufficient. Given that the deal does nothing, as far as I can see, to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, there is a real question as to whether 10 years is insufficient.

If the aim is to secure the right deal, can we justify the type of concessions that we have been reading about? Hon. Members touched on verification in their interventions, but we need certainty from the Foreign Office and the Government that there is confidence that the degree of verification allowed under any agreement will be acceptable. Once again, the track record of the Iranian regime does not allow us to be confident in that regard. I understand from those who comment and speculate on what happens in Iran that only last month the International Atomic Energy Agency was refused access, and Ayatollah Khamenei said:

“No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.”

The question whether we will have a proper verification process in any agreement gives rise to real concern. If we have an agreement with a proper verification process, it must be maintained and foolproof, but once again Iran’s track record does not give us much confidence.

The other question that we need to address is whether an agreement that is as compromising as the proposed agreement appears to be actually contributes to an escalation of the arms race in the region, rather than a reduction of tensions. The agreement appears to state clearly that putting Iran in a position in which it is within six months of a breakout for the next 10 years is acceptable. My concern, which I think is shared by hon. Members, is that other countries in the region would end up in an arms race—not to produce a nuclear weapon, but to be within six months of a breakout. It is worth mentioning that Prince Turki al-Faisal from Saudi Arabia stated clearly that

“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too”.

That comment should be taken seriously by the Government when they assess the merits or otherwise of the deal.

Any proposed deal has to satisfy the needs of the P5+1, a very unstable region and our allies in the region. However, the real test is whether it satisfies the original intention, which was to ensure that Iran did not develop a nuclear capacity. Dr Bruno Tertrais stated that we must not

“ignore the lessons of history: nuclear-capable countries never stay at the threshold for very long.”

Looking at the bare bones of the proposed agreement, it would appear that the P5+1 are now willing to accept Iran’s being at the threshold of a nuclear breakout and that that threshold will be maintained for the next 10 years. Dr Tertrais’s words are important in that context. Countries with the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon will almost invariably end up developing it.

European Union Referendum Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

We agree that the European Union needs to change. Like many people, we want to see reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way the EU works and how it relates to national Parliaments. We also want to see the completion of the single market in services to boost jobs and economic growth here in the United Kingdom. We need to co-operate to achieve those things, but the EU needs to recognise that there is a growing demand across societies in Europe for greater devolution of power at the same time. We need to co-operate and devolve, and the EU’s task in the years ahead is to reconcile those two forces.

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

Given that the EU has fundamentally changed since the early 1970s when we joined it, it is right that the Bill has been introduced. Whatever the result of the referendum, we can now all agree with that. Will the right hon. Gentleman address the issue of fundamental change in our relationship? Given that the majority of European capitals are moving closer and closer to political union, does he accept that the negotiations aiming to accommodate countries that do not wish to go down that road are terribly important? What guarantees will the Labour party be looking for when it comes to those negotiations?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman would recognise that there are differences of view within the EU about its future direction. Membership of the euro is an example of that. The last Labour Government took the decision that we would not join the euro. We are still against joining the euro, and I cannot foresee any circumstances in which it would be in the British economic interest to do so; but other European countries take a different view. The challenge for Europe is to accommodate those, while keeping together 28 countries for which co-operation is vital in the modern world.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We have not been asked by the United States for such a location. If we received such a request, we would consider it on its merits in the way that successive British Governments always have done.

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

Given that evidence was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had no in-house Crimea experts at the time of the Russian annexation, does the Minister agree that greater investment is required in our analytical capabilities?

[Mr Lidington]

We have an extremely talented team of analysts working in the eastern European and central Asian directorate within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In the light of events over the past 18 months, we have taken steps to strengthen the capacity of that side of the FCO. It is fair to say that most Governments throughout the world had hoped on the basis of the past 25 years’ experience that Russia was moving towards integration in a rules-based international order. It is clear from the actions that Russia has taken in the past year that that cannot be guaranteed and we need to respond accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Perhaps for the first time, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that the alternative to an agreement that will restrict Iran’s development of civil nuclear enrichment capabilities for a period of perhaps 20 years is no deal and a free-for-all. We have got to get this agreement right and we have got to carry the Gulf states and Israel with us, and the meeting at Camp David that the US President hosted with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries was part of a process to reassure allies in the Gulf of our commitment to their security.

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

A year ago, the then Foreign Secretary announced the good news that the British embassy in Tehran would reopen, following its closure in 2011. Given that it is still closed, could we have an update on progress?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. I think I have told the House before that there are two issues that we are trying to deal with in order to reopen the embassy. One is around the visa regime and how we deal with Iranian overstayers in the UK, and the other is around the importation of communications equipment that we need to import, uninspected by the Iranians, in order to be able to safely operate our embassy. Until we have resolved those two issues, we really cannot make progress.

Britain in the World

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will address each of those challenges in turn, but before I do so I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way; he is being very generous. Given the extent of the refugee crisis that has been unfolding in Lebanon and Jordan since Parliament last met, does he accept that we need to continue as a country, together with others, to properly support those countries when dealing with refugees, because under-resourced and ill-run refugee camps can become a breeding ground for extremists?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I entirely agree with him. The Department for International Development has a very large programme. In fact, it is our largest ever single programme of support in a humanitarian crisis. We are the second largest donor to the Syria-Jordan-Lebanon area, and we will continue to support refugees and displaced persons, and the Governments in the region, as they struggle with the consequences of what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I love you too, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on her excellent maiden speech, and other hon. Members on the excellent speeches we have heard in the House today. It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate. Many subjects have been covered, but to meet the three-and-a-half minute deadline I have been set, I wish to raise an issue that so far has not been covered—the loss of expertise within our foreign policy-making process because of successive budget cuts under different Governments.

That issue is perhaps best illustrated by our recent military interventions. There can be no doubt that we went to war in Iraq on a false premise, and that in Afghanistan post-2006 we allowed ourselves to lose sight of the bigger picture and let the mission morph from one initially of combating al-Qaeda, which we did successfully, to one of nation building, which caused problems and which we under-resourced. Then there was Libya, which has turned into absolute chaos and civil war.

Such interventions have ushered in a host of unintended consequences with which we are still contending, but I suggest that they have also distracted us from the greater threat to Britain’s security both at home and abroad—potentially hostile nation states that are not just rearming, but reasserting force. Russia and China particularly come to mind. As an ex-soldier, I am not saying that military interventions are never warranted. There have been successful and appropriate interventions—the first Gulf war, Afghanistan in 2001, Sierra Leone and the Falklands—but our most recent interventions seem to suggest we are incorrectly assessing when and how best to use the military instrument. To counter this, we need greater investment in our policy-making process. It is important that our policy makers have the resources.

[Mr Baker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even when our armed forces perform superbly, as in Libya, the politics can still fail afterwards?

[Mr Baron]

I agree. This is not the fault of soldiers on the front line; it is, in many respects, the fault of the military, diplomatic and political leadership.

We need to fund better our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the policy-making process generally. Continual budget cuts have resulted in a hollowing out of staff with specialist regional knowledge, specialist expertise and language capability. That has eroded our ability to understand what is happening on the ground, and it must be put right. Our unconvincing response to recent Russian aggression and the Arab spring is not unconnected to the fact that we had no Crimea experts in the FCO at the time and we had too few Arabists in place, to such an extent that we had to recall retired diplomats into service. It is therefore no surprise that Parliament has raised the bar before consenting to intervention.

However, I suggest to the House that being better informed is of little use if policy options are restricted. Britain is not spending enough on defence and is cutting back on key defence capabilities. I suggest that strong armed forces are an essential component of foreign policy and often underpin a successful diplomatic strategy. In addition to spending more on defence, I believe we should increase our spending on our soft power capabilities. In this information age, winning the story will be just as important as winning the battle. Our soft power assets, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, tend to be excellent value, out of all proportion to their positive effect; yet, they are under-resourced.

In conclusion, cutting the FCO and soft-power budgets is a false economy. Diplomacy and soft power can pay for themselves many times over, especially when we are trying to increase our understanding of what is happening on the ground and to avoid conflict. Without strong and capable armed forces, diplomacy and soft power can achieve only so much in the face of potentially hostile and powerful countries, and a step change in defence spending is required, as is the political will to sustain it. However, we also need to better understand the forces at work on the international stage: more than ever, we need a well-resourced foreign policy apparatus so that we can face the challenges in this increasingly uncertain world.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with Nawaz Sharif when he was here recently, and will raise it again when he travels to India. We are encouraged to note that some talks appear to be taking place between India and Pakistan, because we know how much concern there is throughout the country.

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

Given our admission that we were unsighted over Russia and Crimea, and given that we were short of Arabists following the Arab spring, is there not a case for spending more on our foreign policy capabilities? Would that not only ensure that we were better sighted, but reduce costs in the longer term because we would be able to avoid making further mistakes?

[Mr Lidington]

The Foreign Office makes a huge effort, in difficult fiscal times, to focus our resources on key elements of policy analysis and capability, including those involving the middle east and Russia, which, as my hon. Friend suggests, are particularly important. About 170 of our officers are now registered as having ability in Arabic, and a similar number are registered as having ability in Russian.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

As the Foreign Secretary has just said to me, that subject is on the agenda for the next foreign affairs meeting in Brussels. It is important to recognise where things stand with Britain’s contribution. We are working incredibly hard with our special envoy, Jonathan Powell, and with the United Nations envoy, Bernardino León, to bring the political parties together. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however. If we do not get a resolution and find a political path to follow, that space will be taken up by insurgent groups such as Ansar al-Sharia and ISIL.

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

Do not the vicious civil war in Libya, the high number of casualties and the fact that the Parliament has had to take refuge on a Greek car ferry prove that there is a deficit of analysis at the centre of our foreign policy-making process?

[Mr Ellwood]

I can only repeat what I said—that we are working extremely hard to bring the political parties together. There is a danger that if these parties do not recognise the importance of taking advantage of the UN’s direction of travel, we will indeed suffer problems connected with ISIL taking advantage of the space, just as we saw in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

We are deeply concerned by the difficulties facing many Christians and, indeed, other religious minorities in the middle east, and we deplore all discrimination and constraints on religious freedom. We will certainly raise those issues. I raised the issue in question when I met the President during my visit last autumn, and I will raise it again when I visit the region in the next month.

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

T7. Given this country’s historical strength in soft power and its potential to further our foreign policy objectives, has the time not come to reconsider funding cuts to soft power institutions such as the BBC World Service and the British Council, as well as others?

[Mr Swire]

The House will know that, as of this financial year, the BBC World Service is funded by the BBC Trust. The British Council is extremely well funded and undergoing a trilateral review at the moment. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that this country probably does soft power better than any other country. The GREAT campaign, which is funded by Government, has already delivered a direct return to the economy of more than £1 billion. The combination of the British Council, the GREAT campaign, the BBC World Service and others showcases the UK at its best.