Ambassador to the United States

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 21 November last, the Prime Minister was challenged to rule out appointing Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States on the grounds that he had said Ukraine would have to give up all the land Russia had occupied and that it must give up any hope of ever joining NATO in return for some unspecified security guarantees? The Prime Minister said he would not be tempted to comment on the possibility of his being appointed ambassador, and as he said it he had a very noticeable little smirk on his face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is not smirking about this matter any more?

[David Davis]

I say to my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister gave what was clearly—what can I say?—a lawyer’s answer to that question, which as we all know is not a proper answer at all.

No. 10 was well aware that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. How the Prime Minister could possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who was on record consorting with alleged murderers and convicted paedophiles to a position of privilege and power is, to me, utterly unfathomable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.

We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.

There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?

Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world.

We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic.

I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I set out the position in relation to President Herzog’s visit just a minute ago. I am not familiar with the Israeli politician in question, but I can say that the UK considers international law to be binding on all states.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?

[Mr Falconer]

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary then and now have been clear that the Prime Minister will make a determination in advance of the UN General Assembly high-level week, in accordance with the language set out in the statement of July. The right hon. Member makes important points about what the previous Foreign Secretary said about Hamas. We must remember that Hamas are not in favour of two states; they are in favour of one state from the river to the sea, and that is not the position of the British Government, and nor is it should we take the decisions outlined in July.

BBC Monitoring Service

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Just over four decades ago, I first became aware of the BBC Monitoring service, or BBCM. The year was 1982, and a very different Labour party, led by veteran unilateralist Michael Foot, was committed to abandoning the British strategic nuclear deterrent unconditionally. I was involved in a campaign against that, together with the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and a brilliant colleague of ours, Councillor—as he then was—Tony Kerpel.

A fellow researcher handed me the transcript of a Radio Moscow interview with the national organiser of Britain’s leading disarmament campaign group, who was visiting the USSR, as one does. When asked why the official Soviet Peace Committee supported the Soviet Government—unlike her organisation, which opposed the UK Government—she revealingly replied:

“Well, obviously, because the Soviet Government is in favour of peace, and this makes a big difference.”

That was on Radio Moscow on 7 June 1982, for the historians among us.

The source of such telling material was a publication called Summary of World Broadcasts, which was produced by BBCM and packed with invaluable insights into the propaganda campaigns of our adversaries and those who consorted with them. Founded in 1939 to give speedy access to foreign media and propaganda output, the monitoring service was funded for its first 70 years by an annual Government grant. This was as it should be: the Government were paying for a service for which they were the main customer and consumer.

Certainly, there were periods of famine and feast. Reductions in the grant after the end of the second world war limited the frequency of the Summary of World Broadcasts, which resumed daily publication only in 1959, but the principle of the annual grant held firm and there was further Government investment in computerisation and new buildings at the Caversham Park headquarters of BBCM in the second half of the 1980s. For a time, the grant was split between the Foreign Office, the Defence Ministry, the Cabinet Office and the World Service budgets, but a 2005 report reinstated the single Government revenue stream. Cuts and redundancies nevertheless took place in 2006-07 under Tony Blair, with worse to follow under Cameron and Clegg in 2010.

That was the year when the coalition Government decreed that the BBC World Service, and the Monitoring service too, would be funded in future from the corporation’s licence fee income. Eventually, direct Government funding for the World Service had to be restored, amounting to about one third of its annual income. BBCM, however, remains disproportionately dependent on the licence fee, plus a certain amount of income from its commercial contracts. Given that the BBC claims to have seen a 30% reduction of its overall income in real terms since that fateful year of 2010, it is hardly surprising that both the World Service and BBCM have suffered financially.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Would the right hon. Member agree that in a world where autocracies are in the ascendency and false news spreads like the speed of light, Government funding for services that bring truth to the world has never been more important?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately?

Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making such an excellent speech. Caversham Park sits in my constituency, and it was a wonderful facility. I pay tribute to those who worked there over many years, breaking vital news stories and providing information to the Foreign Office, such as the initial news reports of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and many other similar events that were only able to be recorded because of the amazing talents of the linguists and journalists based at the facility, which has sadly now been mothballed and is due to be sold to a developer. Would the right hon. Member like to comment on the role of those staff?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the staff of BBC Monitoring, both present and past, will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has rightly expressed for them.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I conducted my PhD research at the BBC national archives centre, which was within Caversham Park, and every lunch time I would have lunch with the extraordinary linguists who occupied the building that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) has just described. The loss of BBC Monitoring—if that were indeed to come about—would be a considerable national loss. It represents an incredibly important part of not only our security past but our security future—for the reasons that have been mentioned previously, such as the rise of disinformation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to preserve these institutions, because so often we do not know what we have got until it is gone?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, indeed. If ever something encapsulated the concept of soft power, and indeed buttressed and underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve from more secret sources for information, this is an example of that.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I must say it is gratifying in an end-of-day Adjournment debate on a Thursday early evening to have so many people so keen to intervene, including the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

[Chris Vince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene and for his wonderful introduction to my intervention. He mentioned the importance of soft power, which we spoke a great deal about in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Does he agree that it is not only a case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone, but that, if we were to lose the BBC Monitoring service as well as the BBC World Service—not that we are suggesting that, of course—it would be very difficult to get it back, having realised the error we had made? On the BBC World Service, I will mention the conversation that he and I had in that debate about how, when the service was pulled out of particular countries, it was sometimes replaced with the propaganda that we are trying to avoid.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task.

I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print.

The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that:

“The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.

The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million.

The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”—

as he then was, for the first time—

“that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.”

That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Member is delivering an excellent speech. As the Defence Committee did in 2016, the Foreign Affairs Committee is now conducting an inquiry into disinformation, which covers many of the same areas that he discusses. Does he agree that the increasing spread of disinformation, increasingly in countries that are non-English-speaking but have a real geopolitical significance for the UK, makes the BBC Monitoring service even more important today than it was in 2016?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I agree entirely, and before I give way for the next intervention, I will read what I had just been about to say.

The report’s main conclusion was that the Government should reinstate their previous model of funding BBC Monitoring through a ringfenced grant in aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee. As a non-partisan, cross-party body, I doubt if today’s Defence Committee would take a radically different view. Indeed, we have just heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee representative that that view still has a great deal of validity.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, even if he chose my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) before me. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the report, which I have in front of me. I note that only three colleagues who were on the Committee in 2016 are still in this House. The fact that he makes these points now, as he did almost 10 years ago, speaks to the challenge we face, as well as to the threats to our ability to tackle the geopolitical challenges to which he has referred and how we will be found wanting in that effort if we do not get this right, and get it right soon.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is very gratifying to an old timer like me to see a fresh generation of serious-minded hon. and right hon. Members from all parties so united on this common theme in the national interest. I will have to race on a bit now so as not to cut into the Minister’s time too much.

So far I have focused in large part on the negatives, as the House has heard, but all is not a picture of doom and gloom. Despite the substantial redundancies of 2016-17 after the reduction in licence fee funding and the closure of Caversham Park, an 11-year customer service agreement was signed with the Government, covering the period 2017 to 2027 inclusive. A business development team also succeeded in widening the commercial customer base and lessening, to some extent, the dependence on the licence fee.

Those in charge at BBC Monitoring are in no doubt of the importance of their mission. They point out in a most helpful briefing document that they provided to me that in today’s environment of intensifying information warfare, weaponised narratives and global instability, the value of BBC Monitoring’s work is more crucial than ever. They note:

“The global media landscape has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the rapid expansion of social media, the democratisation of content creation, and the accelerating capabilities of generative AI. These shifts have dramatically increased the volume and velocity of disinformation… In response, BBC Monitoring has evolved its editorial strategy, moving beyond translation and summarisation to deliver expert, evidence-based analysis. The introduction of data specialists has enabled the production of interactive maps, graphics, and other tools that help users navigate complex information environments.”

BBCM has expanded its coverage of Chinese, Russian and Iranian media influence operations, of jihadism, of climate change, of water and energy security, and of migration—all issues that are central to our national interests and foreign policy. Its products underpin the work of BBC journalism, particularly when reporting on countries where direct access is restricted or prohibited.

There is, in short, no question about the irreplaceable value inherent in the BBC Monitoring service. By securing this debate and sharing the contents of this speech in advance with the Minister, as I have, I aim to give the Government an opportunity to endorse its vital work tonight and perhaps shine a little light on some relevant aspects of that.

First, on its budget, at the time of the December 2016 Defence Committee report, the annual costs of BBCM were known, as I said earlier, to be a modest £25 million. What is its budget today, and what percentages of its income derive from the licence fee and from each of its other main funding sources? If the Minister cannot be too specific this evening, I would be grateful if he might write to me in more detail.

Secondly, now that the US Open Source Enterprise organisation is—most regrettably—no longer co-located with BBC Monitoring in the United Kingdom, what is the nature of the residual relationship between the two organisations? Do they no longer together cover the globe, freely exchanging their respective products, as in the days of Caversham Park? Does BBCM even see the OSE product? Does it have to pay for it and, if so, how much income does BBC Monitoring receive for supplying its output to the United States?

Thirdly, I understand that BBCM has taken some strides in introducing artificial intelligence into its modus operandi. How far does it expect that process to go, and will human expertise and judgment remain integral to its monitoring work?

Fourthly, while the restoration of an annual Government grant would be by far the most secure funding model, in the absence of that, is there any danger of BBC Monitoring being cut loose from the World Service organisation and farmed out insecurely to BBC Sounds, as has previously been mooted?

Finally, with a new agreement having to be negotiated with the Government before the expiry of the existing one in two years’ time, will the Minister please undertake to set out specific details of the target quantities of actual monitoring outputs—not to be conflated with analysis—specified under the existing agreement, and the extent to which those targets have, or have not, been achieved? Only in that way shall we know if our vital open source intelligence operation truly has the resources it needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful for the work that my hon. Friend continues to do on her Select Committee to champion the cause of people across the world who are suffering. She will be pleased that climate remains a priority, notwithstanding the changes that we have had to make in our development spend. We recognise that climate often drives migration routes, so our very important upstream work has to continue.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given communist China’s predictable support for the killer in the Kremlin’s campaign of murder and mayhem in Ukraine, why are the Government rewarding China with a super-embassy in London?

[Mr Lammy]

There is no reward. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a quasi-judicial process that must be approached properly. Under the Geneva convention, all countries are entitled to an embassy.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like the Secretary of State, I have supported a two-state solution for very many years, but there is a slight contradiction when he says that immediate recognition would not be rewarding Hamas because Hamas would be disarmed and a new state would be demilitarised. Is he saying that the recognition will not go ahead unless and until Hamas is disarmed? If the recognition will go ahead before Hamas is disarmed, should it not be confined to those parts of Palestine that are currently represented by the Palestinian Authority?

[Mr Lammy]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the letter that President Abbas wrote to President Macron, where he was clear for the first time that there can be no role for Hamas. We will make the assessment on recognition in the coming weeks, but clearly the E1 settlement has moved the dial even further away from where we were a few weeks ago. Recognition is a process.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the vision that she paints, and I associate myself with the remarks she makes in relation to children, particularly about starvation and the situation that they face. Of course we are working closely with the UN system. I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the beginning of last week to get the latest on the aid situation, and we will continue to work with him.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary states that he believes in a two-state solution—as I have done since at least the 1973 Yom Kippur war—but that Hamas must not be a part of it. Does he agree that the best chance there ever was for the two-state solution was when Israel withdrew in 2005 from the Gaza strip? Hamas was elected in January 2006 and has been in power there ever since and is still managing to hang on. Does he accept that if ever the Government did recognise a Palestinian state, it would have to be the west bank without the Gaza strip, given the internecine slaughter between Hamas on the one hand and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the other that followed the last withdrawal?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Hamas cannot continue to govern in Gaza, and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber agrees with that. I do believe that there are prospects beyond that. Indeed, the IRA laid down its arms, and that is a template for how to demilitarise and how leaders in this circumstance can perhaps exit Gaza. However, the continued undermining of the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli Government, including the starvation of funds, is an attempt not to get to a two-state solution which all of us in this House want to see.

Sudan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks, with her role before she came to this place. I shall take that as an action from today’s dialogue.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to the House what, in practical terms, the Security Council could do, even if all its members were neutral on the question of backing one side over the other? If two sides are determined to fight one another and neither is dependent on outside military assistance to pursue the conflict, is there anything practical that the Security Council could do, even if it was united and in agreement on the need for an intervention?

[Catherine West]

The UN Security Council is not just about military intervention, in terms of the security; as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is also about the impact of the diplomatic solutions. As the penholder, the UK has the most important role to try to bring everybody together around the table, which is why we had the London Sudan conference. There were some who threw their hands up and said, “We haven’t achieved anything,” but I think the important thing was that we laid down a marker, and that we are now following up with other partners and being seen as leaders in the area. It is by using the UN Security Council leadership role that we will eventually get to a solution. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are a lot of fingers in the pie.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

With the greatest of respect to my predecessor, he will know that the Defence Secretary and the Attorney General do rather different roles. I do not think they are in disagreement, and in any case, collective responsibility would bind them both, and indeed me.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I help the Minister share a little information with the House by asking him whether the Government know of any purpose for refining uranium-235 to 60% purity other than to build a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Falconer]

I am happy to be clear that that level of enrichment has no obvious civilian purpose. We are told that it was for research and development, but I think many observers have drawn exactly the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman.

BBC World Service Funding

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for calling me to speak, and it is a pleasure to endorse so much of what has been said today in such a unified way across party boundaries.

The value of BBC broadcasting is to be measured by the risks that people are prepared to take in order to listen to it, ranging from people in occupied countries to people in totalitarian states. From occupied France in the second world war to oppressed Afghanistan today, the BBC World Service is many people’s principal lifeline to the truth. Indeed, its current reach in Afghanistan is believed to be almost a quarter of the entire population. As we have heard today, it reaches well over 400 million people worldwide, including 64 million people every week in the world’s 20 most fragile states. No political estimate can be put on this reach other than its colossal impact for good.

However, resources have not kept pace and we see the consequences in places such as Lebanon, where the Russian Sputnik radio channel now transmits on the radio frequency that was formerly used in that country by BBC Arabic, which had to be closed down after 85 years, early in 2023. By the end of that year, a Russian radio channel had taken over in Lebanon.

Indeed, Russia and China are estimated to be investing between £6 billion and £8 billion in media services across Africa, Asia and the middle east. As we have heard, deplorably, the US Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, as well as funding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting networks, has suffered huge cuts in funding and personnel. Normally, that overarching system of broadcasting by the USA would reach an estimated 427 million people. Are the gaps that will be created by these cuts going to be filled, once again, by countries hostile to western values? It goes without saying that Russia and China are both absolutely delighted with that development in the USA.

As we have also heard, two thirds of the World Service continues to be funded by the licence fee, yet it is primarily a service that benefits the interests of the Government and the nation as a whole, rather than the people who pay the licence fee being the consumers of the service. By definition, their listening in is a bonus; the World Service is meant to promote values and truth overseas.

Because of the three-minute limit for speeches, I will not be able to refer to BBC Monitoring, as I had hoped to, but it is another vital service. Both the World Service and BBC Monitoring used to be paid for by the Government. If the Government decide to pay for them in full again, they can at least put the money required towards the extra contribution of 1.5% of GDP on NATO spending, to reach a target of 5% of GDP, which they have now agreed to accept.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I recognise the appetite in the Chamber to hear more about the ICJ advisory opinion. It was a far-reaching and complex judgment, and we are taking our time with our response.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

What practical steps can the Government take to support women and girls in Afghanistan who, after a period of being encouraged to liberate themselves, are now cast back into domestic servitude?

[Mr Falconer]

This is an incredibly important question. As I think some in the House know, I negotiated with the Taliban when I was an official. It is a source of incredible personal frustration to me that the situation in Afghanistan for women has got worse and worse as the months have drawn on. The Taliban need to change course, not just on the rights of women, but for the viability of their economy and their country.