Ambassador to the United States
John Whittingdale Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
There have been some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, and it is apparent that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. They are viewed as embodiments of the United Kingdom, and it is them who influence very largely how the UK is perceived.
As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States, going back to the late Sir Christopher Meyer, who I knew well and who did a terrific job, Lord Kim Darroch, and Dame Karen Pierce. Sometimes there have even been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when Peter Jay was appointed US ambassador—he was the son-in-law of the Prime Minister—but he did a reasonable job. Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador to Paris, and now to Rome, and has done a terrific job.
As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), pointed out, because Ed Llewellyn’s appointment was a political one, he was interrogated by the Select Committee. As she said, the Committee, on which I serve, has attempted numerous times to have Peter Mandelson appear. We were told, in the Foreign Office’s most recent letter to the Chair, that the Committee would have the opportunity to talk to him on a visit to Washington. I was at both meetings, so I can say that the first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived, and the second was a breakfast at which he hosted opinion-formers to discuss with us what was happening in the US Capitol. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandelson the questions that we would have asked had he appeared before the Committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that those meetings somehow compensated for his failure to appear.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I was with the right hon. Gentleman at those Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. We should also say that there was no opportunity for us to quiz Lord Mandelson in a public setting.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.
National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.
Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.
Sir John Whittingdale
I give way to another fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Edward Morello
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the Committee’s repeated requests to meet Lord Mandelson before his appointment. He also raises the various responses that we got from the Foreign Secretary. The important fact that there were questions about the suitability of the appointment means that there must also be questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. Did he ask to read the propriety and ethics and security vetting reports before making the appointment, and did he go ahead despite their content?
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman asks valid questions. We need to have the answers to them all. I know that he will join me in urging the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue pressing this case. It may well be that another body—perhaps the Liaison Committee, which has the opportunity to interrogate the Prime Minister—will also pursue these matters. As has been said several times, this will not go away. There is real anger across this House and across the country, and people will demand answers.
The Committee attempted today to try to put those questions by summoning two members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, but we were told that neither was available. I can tell the House that I have some experience in summoning people who do not wish to appear before Select Committees—there is a procedure—and I hope that, when we return after recess, the Committee will pursue these matters and will require Ministers to appear, and that if they refuse, we will see what other actions can be taken.
These are very serious matters. The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been forthcoming so far. We will go on pursuing this until they are.
Several hon. Members rose—
Middle East
John Whittingdale Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that that must rightly be a matter for lawyers, but I reassure her that we do fund and support organisations on the ground in gathering evidence. That is much easier in the west bank than it currently is in Gaza. At this Dispatch Box, I have said time and again that I think it is important that the Israelis let international journalists in to monitor the situation. I think that is hugely important. Where we can, we will continue to support journalists, organisations and federations to monitor and support that work, and we of course support a lot of NGOs on the ground.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Further to the answer the Foreign Secretary has just given, does he share my horror that, among the thousands of civilian deaths that have occurred in Gaza, it is estimated that at least 200 journalists have been killed, some of them deliberately targeted? Does he agree that those of us who are supporters of Israel’s right to defend itself need to tell the Israeli Government that this is unacceptable and cannot continue?
Mr Lammy
I associate myself entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is not only unacceptable; it also diminishes the Israeli Government in the eyes of young people across the globe who look at this with horror and cannot understand it, so I urge them to just step back and recognise the damage they are doing to their reputation collectively.
Middle East
John Whittingdale Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and I would ask the Israeli Government to reflect again on international humanitarian law. I have in front of me “A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook”, and I am hugely concerned, as I read through it, that it feels that there are breaches.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The deaths of those trying to access aid in Gaza are truly shocking. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the number of civilians killed is being disputed by Israel and there are suggestions of disinformation. Does he agree that one way in which we could establish what is actually happening is if international media organisations, like the BBC and Reuters, were allowed full access to Gaza?
BBC World Service Funding
John Whittingdale Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.
Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.
Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.
Peter Prinsley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.
It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.
The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.
At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.
Until 2010, World Service funding came entirely from the Government. Then, as a result of pressures on public spending, the then Chancellor George Osborne decided to reduce public expenditure, and so asked the BBC to take over the funding through the licence fee. That continued until 2015, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Government agreed that, although funding was still from the licence fee, the Foreign Office would provide a top-up. That is how it has remained: roughly two-thirds of funding comes from the licence fee, and roughly a third from Government.
But the World Service is now under a double squeeze. The licence fee has been frozen for a time. It is now going up again, but the BBC has had to find savings. The director general, if asked, will say, “My job is to provide value to the licence fee payer, and the truth is that most licence fee payers are unaware of, or certainly don’t listen to, the World Service.” It is a public good. It is for the good of the country. That is why he argues that the Government should take back overall responsibility for funding the World Service. That is an argument with which I have great sympathy.
I am deeply concerned that, because World Service funding from the Government counts as official development assistance and the ODA budget is under pressure, further cuts are to be made as part of the expenditure reductions currently taking place, even though there was a top-up last October. The latest letter from Jonathan Munro, director of the World Service, states,
“we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in spend on ODA”.
That suggests that there may be further reductions. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not only continue to fund the World Service at the present level but look to increase it, because the need for that has never been greater.
Middle East
John Whittingdale Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have been considerably degraded over this period. The Houthis have been held back but are still active in the Red sea. We will do all we can, working with partners, to protect our shipping routes. We have been crystal clear to the Iranian regime about the strait of Hormuz in particular.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian ambassador twice last week, and he claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme was legal and purely civil, and he said that they want to negotiate. Can the Foreign Secretary say, on the basis of the numerous meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister that he has reported, whether he gained any impression of Iran’s willingness either to dismantle its nuclear programme or to negotiate?
Mr Lammy
That is the central question. What I have found is inflexibility, as well as a failure to face the seriousness with which the international community are looking at this question and to accept both that we have moved on from the joint comprehensive plan of action, which the Iranians pulled out of back in 2019, and that the focus now is on zero enrichment. Maybe they can have a civil nuclear capability, but it would have to be heavily monitored and would need some sort of international regime in locus with it. They have to face that seriousness now at this point.
Iran-Israel Conflict
John Whittingdale Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I spoke to the director general at the beginning of last week, reassured him of our full support and thanked him for all his work that is ensuring a common understanding of what Iran is doing and why we have to act.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that just as Russia is run by an authoritarian regime that wants to destroy its democratic neighbour Ukraine and has carried out attacks on British soil, so Iran is run by an authoritarian regime that is out to destroy its democratic neighbour and has also carried out attacks on British soil? Is it not the case, therefore, that for the same reasons we stand with Ukraine, we need to stand with Israel now?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman puts it well. We should also mention what those in Iran are doing to destabilise neighbouring countries—Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq—with their proxies. We absolutely have to keep our guard up in relation to Iran.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
John Whittingdale Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
We continue to work with all organisations that seek to promote peace and stability in the region. My hon. Friend rightly mentions the OSCE, which is crucial. I know that the issue is of keen interest to members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in this place. We will continue to work with them, with the Council of Europe and with others, including our partners in the EU, the US and beyond. Civil society organisations are crucial to that work. Many examples of the work that we have done in the past to build trust between communities and on peacebuilding have been achieved through civil society organisations.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of reports that Russia Today and Sputnik are increasing their dissemination of disinformation in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the same time as the widely respected Bosnian service of Voice of America faces closure? Will he see what more we can do to counter Russian disinformation in the region, perhaps by increasing broadcasting by the BBC World Service?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the destabilising hybrid activities of Russia, not just in Bosnia but across the region. He knows the steps that have been taken in this country against RT and other Russian outlets; indeed, we have called them out across Europe and have worked with partners on that. He is absolutely right that free, fair, truthful and legitimate media are needed to ensure that citizens have the truth about what is happening, not the kind of lies that are peddled from the Kremlin. I cannot make specific promises, but he knows that we treat the BBC World Service very seriously. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), is here with me and will have heard his comments closely.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
John Whittingdale Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and four fellow members of the Committee.
I make it clear that I strongly support the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. I fear that that may not be enough and that we will have to spend more if we are to maintain our security against the threat that is now clear. I therefore accept that part of the funding of that needs to come from ODA, although I feel the pain of both the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That makes it even harder to swallow the £9 billion bill we face paying to maintain a base on the Chagos Islands.
I will focus specifically on soft power. I welcome the establishment within the FCDO of the Soft Power Council; it is very important that strengthening hard power should not be at the expense of Britain’s soft power. A number of Members have already talked about the BBC World Service, which is one of our great assets. It was very welcome that in the Budget, the Government increased their contribution by £32 million, but it was concerning that the BBC recently announced a reduction in its contribution of £6 million, with the loss of 130 jobs. While all 42 language services are being maintained, the World Service defence committee has already pointed out some of the damage that those reductions will do, with the loss of regional editors, science coverage and business programmes. I am particularly concerned about the letter that the Chair of our Committee received a few days ago from the director general, in which he said:
“In the last few days we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in Overseas Development Spending.”
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be no reduction in the Foreign Office’s funding of the BBC World Service. Indeed, I hope he will give serious consideration to the BBC’s request that in the longer term, the Government consider taking on the full funding of the World Service.
We on the Committee have also heard from the British Council, another aspect of soft power. It is absurd that the loan of £250 million given to the British Council has to be renewed each year, creating huge uncertainty. I hope that a solution can be found to put that funding on a long-term basis.
I finish by referring to an issue of huge concern to me and many others: media freedom. Both this Government and the previous Government have very good records on supporting media freedom around the world; we set up the global Media Freedom Coalition. However, as the Minister knows, media freedom is under huge threat. I urge the Government to continue to press the cases of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen imprisoned in Hong Kong, and of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen imprisoned in Egypt. The Minister also knows that in Ukraine, 97 journalists have been killed since 24 February 2022, 12 while on duty, and the most recent withdrawal of funding—that of USAID—will put at risk over half the media outlets that are bravely reporting what is happening in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can provide support to them, too.
Chagos Islands
John Whittingdale Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I have answered that question on a number of occasions. Mauritius is one of the few African countries not to join the belt and road initiative—its alliance is with India—and we have clear guarantees in the treaty setting out the protections against malign interests on the outer islands and, indeed, in the surrounding area. That is why the whole United States security apparatus agreed to this. We would not have agreed a deal that did not protect.
Let me give some examples. The UK has full control over Diego Garcia, including control over the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and from the base; there is a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, in which nothing can be built or put in place without UK consent; and, of course, there are the various different robust mechanisms and review processes to ensure that no activity in the outer islands or the surrounding area can impinge on the operations of the base. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we would not have agreed a deal that would allow any malign force, wherever it might be in the world, to use the space around the islands or to interfere with our operations. This is about putting the base on a secure footing into the future, for our national security and that of our allies.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister, and the Minister just now, have stressed the strategic importance of the military base at Diego Garcia. Can the Minister make it clear that there will be no restrictions in the lease as to what the base can be used for or what might be stored there, and that the UK will have the right to extend that lease when it expires?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely confirm that there will be no change in the operations of the base. That is the basis on which this agreement is founded, along with all the provisions and protections within it. As I explained in earlier answers, the lease is for 99 years, with the possibility of an extension at the end of it.
Syria
John Whittingdale Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise the displaced people, many of whom are beginning that journey back home. The important thing is that they go home to a country that continues to fuel the hope in their hearts and that can cope with the new increased population that will no doubt demand public services.
My hon. Friend raised the subject of the Kurdish minority group who are also in the country. As I have said, and as the United Nations envoy has said, it has to be an inclusive country with a place for everyone. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that in that north-eastern corridor we work with all partners, but keep a careful eye on anything that comes anywhere close to terrorism.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should not be surprised that one war criminal, President Putin, is now sheltering another, Assad? He will be aware that substantial assets owned by Assad or those linked to him are frozen in this country. Will he consider, in due course, whether we might use those for the benefit of the people of Syria?
Mr Lammy
Yes, absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We look at some of the horrors in the world—Syria, of course, but also Sudan, not far away, and Ukraine—and we see behind them the hand of Putin. That is why we must do all that we can to hold him to account for the tyranny that he is raining across the world.