Middle East and North Africa
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to accommodate a reasonable number of them within the very heavy time pressures we face, extreme brevity from Back and Front Benches alike is vital. The way can be led by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Richard Ottaway.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the IAEA will be publishing a critical report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Does he agree that we must ensure that the choice does not come down to a military strike against Iran on the one hand, or a nuclear Iran on the other? Even though the Russians do not want to get involved, will he mobilise the international community to bring back the toughest sanctions possible before we are caught between a rock and a hard place?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the urgency of the situation. I hope no one in the world wants to be confronted with the choice he refers to. That is why our dual-track approach is so important; we are prepared to negotiate with Iran through the E3 plus 3, but at the same time we can increase the peaceful and legitimate pressure. It is a peaceful pressure, but it is an increasingly strong economic pressure through the sanctions we are applying. That is designed very much to avert the terrible choice to which he refers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
Since President Yanukovych took office, he has declared that his prime foreign policy objective is to secure Ukraine’s closer integration with the EU through an association agreement. We need to keep reminding the Ukrainian Government that that integration involves not only economic reforms but reforms of the political and judicial systems to bring Ukraine into line with what we expect of a modern European democracy.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I share the sentiment of both the right hon. Gentleman’s question and the Minister’s answer: the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko is totally unacceptable. Does the Minister agree that Mr Yanukovych is trying to play the EU against Russia, but that he is succeeding with neither? Is not the message for him that he should comply with the rule of law or face international isolation?
Mr Lidington
As I said, if Ukraine wants to make progress with its declared objective of closer integration with the EU, it must realise that that involves a clear and permanent commitment to political reform to establish modern democratic institutions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We will continue to show a great deal of urgency. We are, of course, at the forefront of the EU’s counter-piracy operation. We provide its operational commander and headquarters. We have contributed £5 million to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which will allow pirates to serve custodial sentences in Somalia. Royal Navy ships have robust rules of engagement. We are examining what can be done to change the balance of risk to make it more risky to be a pirate off Somalia. I am anxious to do that and we are talking to our international partners about it. We are also giving a lot of attention to the political situation in Somalia and supporting the work of the transitional federal institutions.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the state of US-Pakistan relations; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom that there is a good and close relationship between the United States and Pakistan, particularly at the present time. I am in regular contact with senior representatives of the Governments of both countries about our mutual interests, including counter-terrorism, regional security and economic development.
Richard Ottaway
Bearing in mind that the Pakistan Parliament has called for the withdrawal of US drones, the anger in Pakistan Government circles over the killing of bin Laden, and the US announcement over the withdrawal of $800 million of military aid, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the relationship between the US and Pakistan is not good. Does he agree that those two countries will be the two key players in any Afghanistan settlement and that no country is better placed than the United Kingdom to broker or mediate a settlement between them?
Alistair Burt
I certainly agree with both the substantive points that my hon. Friend makes. It is clear that following the killing of Osama bin Laden there is an issue of confidence between the United States and Pakistan, particularly in defence and security matters. We are indeed encouraging both countries to get over the present difficulties, because their relationship is extremely important. In other respects, such as in the work being done to seek political reconciliation in Afghanistan and the work being done between the Governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States in the trilateral talks on Afghanistan, the relationship is much better. We hope that that will be a building block for restored confidence in security matters.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The British involvement in Afghanistan has been long and costly, and whether it has achieved its stated objectives is a moot point, but that does not imply that it was the wrong decision or that we should not be there.
In the aftermath of 9/11, it was essential to deny al-Qaeda a base to operate; the intervention was essential; and there was a United Nations-mandated coalition of the willing led by the United States, but as usual we were in close support. Following the general election, the coalition Government very much followed the Afghanistan policy of their predecessor, but two important changes did take place: first, the establishment of the National Security Council to co-ordinate Whitehall’s Afghan war effort; and, crucially, the publicly announced decision to set 2015 as the deadline for withdrawing British combat troops.
Both initiatives were welcome, although famously the National Security Council did not make the withdrawal decision. Nonetheless, the key policy objective in Afghanistan mirrors that of the Government’s predecessor: Afghanistan should not again become a place from where al-Qaeda and other extremists can attack the UK and British interests.
Achieving that objective is said to rely on four main goals: a more stable and secure Afghanistan; the conditions for withdrawal of UK combat troops by 2015; an Afghan-led political settlement that represents all Afghan people; and regional political and security co-operation that supports a stable Afghanistan. They were the right objectives then, and they are the right objectives today.
Some progress is being made on all those fronts. Increasingly, the Afghan army and security forces are taking over control of the districts, troops are beginning to withdraw and there is talk of a political-led settlement, all of which is of course welcome.
I just wonder whether we need to reassess the policy objectives. The Foreign Affairs Committee received evidence to suggest that the core foreign policy justification for the UK’s continued presence in Afghanistan—that it is in the interests of UK national security—may have been resolved some time ago. There is a big difference between the Taliban, who are locals who want their country back, and al-Qaeda, which is made up of hard-nosed international terrorists. Given the apparently limited strength of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, its desire to continue to use Afghanistan as a base is questionable. The tracking down and shooting of Osama bin Laden adds weight to that argument.
When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee, I asked if he was still receiving intelligence that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan remained a threat to UK national security. He confirmed that it did, and he said the same when I put a similar point to him this afternoon. I said that that poses a dilemma for Parliament. It seems that the justification for Britain’s most important policy initiative is based on an intelligence assessment that has not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The ghost of the Iraq war hangs over us. Under the circumstances, I suggest that the intelligence is shown to a committee of Privy Councillors or the Intelligence and Security Committee, which can report to the House on whether it agrees with the assessment.
In the meantime, the military campaign continues. The Taliban are being pushed back, and so they should be with the firepower ranged against them. However, I question whether they can be defeated militarily. The Foreign Affairs Committee has considerable doubts over whether the international security assistance force’s counter-insurgency campaign is succeeding. We question the fundamental assumption that success in Afghanistan can be achieved through a strategy of clear, hold and build. The Taliban are, at heart, Afghans who resent the presence of occupying forces. It is questionable whether the USA’s full military onslaught on the Taliban is necessary to deny al-Qaeda a place from which to operate. The key thrust of the Committee’s report is that we should encourage ISAF, and the United States in particular, to engage in a political reconciliation process. There is little support outside the United States for continuing the surge started by George Bush and continued by President Obama. The continued military pummelling of the Taliban is, in all certainty, counter-productive in achieving a political settlement.
The recent announcement by President Karzai that the United States is involved in reconciliation negotiations is a good start. However, talking to the Taliban is not easy. There is no address or phone number, and the hard-liners and the top brass of the Taliban have turned their backs on any reconciliation attempts. None the less, in my judgment there is a split in the Taliban between the hard-liners and the moderates. Those who are most opposed to a political settlement tend to be more on the fringes of the movement—the uneducated and the unemployed. Those who are more focused on the future prosperity of their country are prepared to talk. We should exploit the divisions in the Taliban and engage in the process of reconciliation as soon as possible. The US draw-down of troops will help in that, as will the additional numbers announced by the Prime Minister during his visit this week. We have to set the tone and show that there is light at the end of the tunnel for Afghans who want to bring up their children and enjoy the prosperity that we are used to in the western world.
Combined with that, we must continue to support the Afghan army, police and security services. Huge strides have been made to bring those forces up to a level of competence that will allow them to maintain law and order in their country. There will be a large army and a large police force. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that for every one troop that is withdrawn, two will go in from the Afghan police and security services. Those services have a long way to go to achieve the operational standards that we see elsewhere. The exit of NATO combat troops will not be smooth, and the handover will be fraught with problems, but the sheer size of the Afghan forces should be sufficient to hold the line against the inevitable counter-attack once the occupying forces have left.
The US draw-down is bigger than expected, and 33,000 troops will have been withdrawn by this time next year. The President of the United States says that the US has crippled al-Qaeda’s capabilities and been successful in its mission in Afghanistan, claiming that Kabul is much safer than it was before despite continued attacks such as the one on the Intercontinental hotel last week.
Interestingly, the President has been criticised on both sides in Congress, with his opponent in the last presidential election, John McCain, arguing that the current troop levels should be maintained for at least another year to accomplish their objectives. On the other hand, the Democrats have argued that the President has been too timid. The cynic in me says that that probably suggests he has got it about right.
However, the military do not agree with the President either. We may raise eyebrows here when senior military officers enter the political arena, and we may wish that they would do the fighting while we do the talking, but they have nothing on what has been going on in the United States. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quite openly said that he advocated a less aggressive draw-down schedule. General Petraeus, the former head of the armed forces in Afghanistan, who is about to become the director of the CIA, said that he, too, had recommended a more gradual withdrawal. Marine General James Mattis, commander of US central command, who was General Petraeus’s boss and immediate superior, agreed. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I respect the President for his courage in rejecting the arguments of his military and continuing with the draw-down.
The House should be in no doubt that this is going to be messy. Security incidents in Afghanistan continue, such as the tragic loss of Scott McLaren from the Royal Regiment of Scotland. However, the provinces and urban districts continue to be transferred to Afghan forces, which shows progress towards transition.
No one likes to engage in talks with an enemy that has been killing one’s own armed forces, and I share the view of Hillary Clinton, who has said that she finds the need to have contact with the Taliban “distasteful, but worthwhile”. It is not a pleasant business, but it is a necessary one. I have no doubt that any negotiations leading to a political settlement must be Afghan-led, despite the Taliban saying that they want to speak directly with the United States. So far, top US officials have sidestepped that, and I hope the Government will now encourage them to get more fully involved and get a forum up and running with the full involvement of Afghanistan, the United States and Pakistan.
Relations with Pakistan are difficult, but if we think we have problems, nothing compares with the US-Pakistan relationship, which is at rock bottom. I have to confess that I am quite shaken by the level of mistrust between Pakistan and the United States. The situation has been exacerbated by the shooting of Osama bin Laden. I personally have no doubt whatever that that was a necessary step for the United States to take, and I quite understand why such sensitive information could not be shared with anybody. As a result, I am quite puzzled by Pakistan’s aggressive reaction and apparent failure to understand why the US did not share the information with it.
Pakistan has difficult decisions to make. It has deployed troops in Waziristan and the north-west frontier, but my instinct is that its heart is still not in it. Another illustration is the US use of drones, which are fearsome weapons that are turning out to be remarkably effective—so much so that everybody wants them. So why is Pakistan ordering the United States to take its drone bases out of the country?
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Pakistan has suffered huge losses, and at a high level, from the activities of the Taliban and other terrorists? That partly demonstrates its level of commitment.
Richard Ottaway
Yes, which makes it more the mystery why it does not take stronger action against the Taliban. It is not how to get into the hole that counts but how to get out of it, and I believe that Pakistan is still worrying about how it got into the hole. I would encourage it to engage fully and totally in denying the Taliban a base in its own country.
On the other side of the equation, the US should recognise that Pakistan is a proud and sensitive country. We all admire the US for its can-do attitude and for getting things done, but there comes a moment every now and again when it must think about how others will feel about that, and work with the grain, despite its dominant position on the world stage.
The UK does have a role in all that. There are now 3 million Pakistanis living in the UK. Our embassy in Islamabad is making every effort, but diplomatic opportunities exist to win Pakistan’s confidence in our genuine desire to help them. Can we help with textile exports or commercially in another way? Can we help it to break down the barriers with India? Above all, we should encourage the US to adopt a policy on Pakistan that takes account of Pakistan’s security concerns, and we should help the US to play a constructive role in the reconciliation process.
I am under no illusion about the difficulties involved in respect of any of those countries. None the less, the Foreign Affairs Committee commends the UK Government for its advocacy of the regional approach to political reconciliation. Currently, the conditions for political settlement are virtually non-existent, but if ever there was a time to make the effort, it is now.
Africa and the Middle East
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
While, of course, we will want to analyse the campaign when it is over, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a post-mortem when the campaign is very much alive. Therefore we should not be diverted at the moment. I would not go as far as him, because he is in danger of exaggerating when he says that there has been no kind of co-ordination. NATO got things together and took over the campaign much more rapidly than was the case in previous campaigns. Eighteen nations are involved in the military action and 34 nations are involved in supporting those efforts—the NATO nations and six Arab nations. He is right to draw attention to the fact that some NATO nations have taken part in the military aspects of the campaign and others have not. They are sovereign nations and can make those decisions, but the political unity of NATO is clear, as demonstrated by the renewal, for 90 days from 27 June, of the mandate for NATO, which was agreed unanimously. While it might be desirable for even more of the NATO nations to make a military contribution—and that continues to be desirable—and we should analyse these things afterwards, we should not say that there is no co-ordination, when there is a great deal.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that the regime in Libya is being eroded, and I welcome the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, but what does he say to those who feel that the warrants are counter-productive, in that they make it more difficult for Colonel Gaddafi to make an exit, given that he knows that he will probably face arrest?
Mr Hague
If we accepted that argument, we would not have the ICC or have embarked on this in the first place. It can be argued that there is a downside to the warrants, in that a negotiated outcome to different conflicts at different times can be made more difficult by such a legal process. On the other hand, the existence of such a process, which we have seen come to fruition in many cases in the past decade, is a stark reminder to tyrants and generals who get out of control, and to people who belong to regimes that commit crimes against humanity, that the international process poses a serious risk that they will not be able to escape. The deterrent effect on regimes such as that in Libya therefore has to be set against the downside to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. If we believe in the ICC, as we do in the United Kingdom—we have subscribed to it and passed an Act of Parliament to bring about our participation in it—we must stand by its decisions and support the efforts to bring people to justice within its ambit.
Middle East and North Africa
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking catch my eye, but I just remind the House that Members who entered the Chamber after the Foreign Secretary began his statement should not expect to be called.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and congratulate him on his visit to Benghazi with the International Development Secretary, which was right and timely.
There is a gap between the humanitarian nature of resolution 1973 and the stated aim of removing Gaddafi. Russia’s shift of position means that a further UN resolution on Libya is conceivable. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that such a further resolution is necessary?
Mr Hague
The resolution on Libya is now nearly three months old, and circumstances have developed since then. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it has been hard to adapt the resolution because of a lack of agreement on the Security Council to do so. We will continue to search for agreement on, for instance, adapting the sanctions regime, which of course requires unanimity in the sanctions committee, which is a bigger hurdle than a resolution in the Security Council itself. Russia’s position at the G8 holds out some hope that such agreements may be forthcoming, but I cannot yet say to my hon. Friend that the Russian Federation’s change of position at the G8 has been followed by a wider change of position at the Security Council and elsewhere.
BBC World Service
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The Implications of Cuts to the BBC World Service, HC 849; endorses the Committee’s support for the World Service’s invaluable work in providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism to many countries; considers that the unfolding events in North Africa and the Middle East demonstrate the continuing importance of the soft power wielded through the World Service; believes that the value of the World Service far outweighs its relatively small cost; and invites the Government to review its decision to cut spending on the World Service by 16 per cent.
This is an historic moment for the House of Commons, because this is the first debate in the House by a departmental Select Committee on a substantive motion relating to a major issue of public concern since the introduction of the new arrangements for Back-Bench business. This is good for democracy and good for the reputation of Parliament.
Power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is the view of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the BBC World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. We recognise the economic constraints and the background to our report, but we believe that it is a mistake to implement the proposed heavy cuts to the World Service’s budget. This is a question of priorities. We live in a fast-moving world where the internet and the media have grown in reach, influence, power and authority faster than anyone could have dreamed. It might seem odd to quote no less a person than Osama bin Laden on the importance of soft power, but, talking about jihad, he said:
“The media war in this century is one of the strongest methods. It’s…90% of the total preparation for battles”.
He was talking about the power and influence of media communications—soft power.
Soft power is a rapidly growing way of achieving desired outcomes. In the cold war era, power was expressed in terms of nuclear missiles, industrial capacity, numbers of men under arms, and tanks lined up across the central plains of eastern Europe. Today, none of those factors confers power in quite the same way. The old structures are moving on. Cyber-attacks and the more subtle methods of the information age are the norm. Soft power—the power of Governments to influence behaviour through attraction rather than coercion—dominates. That point is not lost on the Foreign Office, high up on whose list of structural reform priorities—the reforms that it believes should have priority—is the
“use of ‘soft power’ to promote British values, advance development and prevent conflict”.
I can think of no better definition or illustration of the need for the World Service, and it is the opinion of our Committee that the cuts to its output are a false economy. If anything, it should be expanded to address the concerns of a changing world, just as the security services and the number of diplomats to key sensitive postings have been expanded.
The BBC World Service is a priceless institution. Its value dramatically exceeds its costs. It is a key national and global institution at the forefront of international broadcasting, operating to the highest standards. In evidence to the Select Committee, BECTU—the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—said:
“The World Service is the world’s most recognised news service.”
The National Union of Journalists described it as a “force for good”. A Chinese journalist told us that it was the most “trusted and respected” news service. The Financial Times described it as
“one of Britain’s principal sources of soft power”.
Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, described it as
“one of the most precious things the BBC does and a lifeline to many tens of millions of people around the world who don’t enjoy proper access to accurate, impartial, open media”.
A listener said that it
“punches far above its weight and brings a disproportionate amount of prestige and soft power to the United Kingdom”.
Another wrote to me saying that it would be
“better to cut the increase to the aid budget and bolster the World Service”.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
First, may I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for the leadership that he has shown during the preparation of the report? I believe that we have managed to produce an enormously influential report under his chairmanship. He was talking about the value of the World Service, but I know he recognises that that is changing. Others are investing in this area. For example, at this time of the Arab spring, we are seeing al-Jazeera becoming increasingly powerful in the influence that it brings to bear. Our influence is in great danger of being completely eclipsed.
Richard Ottaway
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and for the support that he gives me on the Committee. I also thank him for his contributions to the Committee, and the expertise that he brings from his previous career. He is absolutely right about the changing world that we live in. I think that the Foreign Office gets that point. I do not wish to be critical of it, and I think that it does understand this, but we are trying to emphasise that the World Service represents one of the best ways of communicating with this changing world. The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
The World Service enhances Britain’s credibility. I have heard a story that President Kikwete of Tanzania starts his day by rising at dawn and listening to the BBC World Service rather than the local Tanzanian media. Others record that Mikhail Gorbachev turned to the World Service for real information during the coup against him in 1991. It is no wonder that the Foreign Secretary said that
“the BBC World Service will remain of fundamental importance to this country’s presence in the world”.
The strategic defence review singled out the World Service, saying that it
“plays unique roles in promoting our values, culture and commitment to human rights and democracy”.
In the interest of balance, however, I should report to the House that one listener wrote to me to say that it was a complete waste of money for the World Service to be broadcasting cricket to northern Europe. I had to point out that that was on long wave, and not the World Service and, unfortunately for him, he would have to continue to listen to ball-by-ball commentary and detailed analysis of the LBW rule.
The Select Committee believes that the World Service is a jewel in the crown which promotes British values of truth and democracy across the globe. In our motion, we say that its value “far outweighs its relatively small cost”. As yet another Minister defects from Libya, the dramatic events in north Africa and the middle east show that soft power, properly deployed, is likely to bring even more benefit to the UK. In the fog of war and media spin, people everywhere trust the World Service to be fair, honest, courageous and decent. And so, by association, Britain is endowed with those same qualities. This is soft diplomacy, and it is valuable.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a key element in this is that the Government’s contribution to the World Service does not have to be a permanent one? The licence payer is going to take over the cost of the World Service in three years’ time. Were the Government to cut the World Service by the same amount as the rest of the Foreign Office, there would be a temporary imposition on the taxpayer, not a permanent one.
Richard Ottaway
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to that point in a moment. It is the disproportionate nature of the cuts that is of concern to so many people.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
On behalf of the Committee, may I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently putting the case set out in our report? A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) mentioned the question of governance. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) share the anxiety felt by many of us that the financial responsibility for the World Service will be transferred to the BBC budget, which is subject to a six-year moratorium with regard to any increase in the licence fee? Is there not a risk that the World Service will find itself competing with other parts of the BBC family—entertainment, for example—so that the admirable Mr Robin Lustig might find himself competing for funds with the equally admirable Mr Bruce Forsyth?
Richard Ottaway
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is a key recommendation of our report that the future governance relationship between the BBC World Service and the Foreign Office is not defined clearly enough in the concordat. Our concern is that we might be told, “You want an Arabic service and you want a Mandarin service, but we don’t have enough funds for both, so you need to decide which one”. To be fair to the Foreign Office, it has taken that point into account in its reply. I am pleased that it is still looking at the issue.
The central recommendation of the report was that the decision to reduce spending on the World Service by 16% should be reversed, but that if the funding has to be reduced, it should be done in such a way as to minimise the damage. A wide range of services will either be closed altogether or have a reduced output. I have no quarrel with some of the planned changes. For example, radio audiences in Vietnam have fallen to 1% and it has only about 110,000 listeners. In the meantime, Vietnam is seeing an internet boom with some 400,000 users now accessing the World Service online. The decision to focus on online services is obvious and sensible. None the less, we highlight plans to cut three services, which we think should be reviewed: the Mandarin, the Hindi and the Arabic services. It is doubtful whether their reduced output is in the nation’s interest.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his leadership role and his Select Committee on its excellent report. On the Hindi service, does he share my concern to the extent that the Government have made it clear, from last year’s Queen’s Speech to this week’s statement by the Foreign Secretary, that India is a priority? We are sending more diplomats to India in order to improve our relationship with that very important country, so will cutting the Hindi service not send out the wrong message to a country with which we really want to do business?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We must have shorter interventions, as we are rapidly running out of time.
Richard Ottaway
The right hon. Gentleman is right that India is of huge strategic importance to the United Kingdom. It is a rising power and a stated foreign policy priority. The World Service audience in India is some 11 million, which beats “EastEnders” any day. The estimated cost of reaching that audience is only £680,000 a year, which the producer of “EastEnders” would probably die for. I am not convinced, and I hope the House is not convinced, that losing that huge audience to save a bit over £0.5 million is worth it—and I am pleased that the Government agree in their reply to our report.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I accept that the Government say they are prepared to bring in some temporary measures whereby the World Service will provide limited hours in the Hindi service for a temporary period, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real solution is not temporary measures, but recognition that losing an audience of 10 million in India and a total loss of nearly 20 million to the World Service audience will reduce its share of the global audience so that it will no longer be the premier broadcaster internationally?
Richard Ottaway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work in the Select Committee in preparing the report. He makes exactly the point I am about to make. I hope that the Government will accept the motion—I have reason to believe that they may well do—and when they conduct the review, the hon. Gentleman’s point is exactly the one they should be looking at.
I shall move on from India to China. BBC China has been struggling with the jamming of shortwave radio signals by the Chinese authorities for more than a decade. As a result, its impact has been lost. Despite that, witnesses told us that they continued to hold the service in high regard. Sometimes it may be jammed in cities, but not in rural areas. After the Szechuan earthquake of 2008, the local community tuned in to BBC shortwave so that they could find out what was happening with the relief efforts. Chinese listeners tuned in to the Nobel peace prize ceremony, which the media was banned from reporting.
In response, the World Service is refocusing its online provision to China. However, let me express a word of caution about the move to online services. Internet services can be turned off at any time by totalitarian regimes. A good example was seen in Egypt during the Arab uprising when some 80 internet providers were cut off overnight. The Chinese Government have published a strategy paper asserting their rights to censor the internet inside their own borders.
It is the cuts to the Arabic services that have caused the greatest concern. No embarrassment should attach to the World Service or the Government over this decision, which was made last December before the Arab uprisings in January of this year. The value of BBC Arabic services is highlighted by photographs—colleagues may have seen them—of protesters on the streets of Syria carrying placards saying “Thank you, BBC”. Across north Africa, only two radio stations are listened to: al-Jazeera and the World Service. I mean no disrespect to al-Jazeera, but in my judgement, the far more independent and therefore respected service is the World Service.
This is a region that requires quality journalism and news coverage. The Foreign Office has responded to recent events in the Arab world by diverting considerable resources to the region. It has expressed its surprise over the reduction in World Service output—I hope that surprise will work its way into its review—and I welcome the fact that the Foreign Office is in discussion with the World Service to review the situation. What is needed, however, is a full reversal of the proposed cuts.
Let me deal with funding. Since its inauguration, the World Service has been funded by the Foreign Office. This will end in 2014 when responsibility will be transferred to the BBC. During the intervening four years, the budget is to be reduced from £241 million to £212 million a year. Taking into account inflation, that is a 16% real- terms cut. Last autumn’s spending review announced that the overall FCO budget would fall by 24%. However, a closer look shows that, once the World Service and the British Council are taken out of the equation, the actual cut in the Foreign Office budget is a shade under 10%.
In my judgement and in the opinion of the Select Committee, a 16% cut in the World Service budget, compared with 10% in the Foreign Office budget, is disproportionate. I sympathise with the director of the World Service who argued that the service had to some extent been singled out. In his defence, the Foreign Secretary told us that he did not regard the cuts to the World Service as being disproportionate. He argues that the World Service proportion of the FCO overall budget had been kept at its 2007-08 level through to 2013-14.
There seems to be some disagreement over the figures. The World Service tells us that, using the FCO’s baseline of 2007-08, when the World Service had 16% of the budget, it does not keep the same proportion, but declines to 15.6% in 2013-14. That 0.4% difference might not sound much, but it amounts to £6.6 million a year of the World Service budget, which would be enough to save a number of services.
In response, the Government say that they “do not recognise” the World Service calculations. So, in an effort to explain the difference and resolve the dispute between the World Service and the Foreign Office, I dug into the figures. I discovered that they were produced by the House of Commons Library. On digging a bit further, I found that the Library stands by the figures as they are based on the FCO’s own resource accounts and letters to the Committee from the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary. Quite how the FCO can say that it does not recognise the World Service figures is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps the Minister will explain the figures further in his reply.
Those are the problems. What are the solutions? I am advised that the additional funds required to retain the Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic services, about which the Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concern, amount to between £3 million and £4 million per annum, which is less than the discrepancy between the World Service figures and those of the Foreign Office. The Committee does not believe that there should be any cuts at all, but believes that if there are to be some cuts it would not be a stupid decision to focus on a small number of priority services, to allocate a relative pinprick in terms of public expenditure, and to reverse the decisions on Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic using the unallocated £6.6 million.
Many Members, and witnesses from outside the House, have suggested that the huge and growing DFID budget could be used to make up the shortfall in the World Service budget. That course is subject to two constraints. First, although it might have been permissible before the International Development Act 2002 came into effect, the Act states that any funding by DFID should be used for the reduction of poverty. Secondly, DFID funding must comply with OECD guidelines to become official development assistance. Therein lies the problem. There is a limit to exactly how much a broadcaster’s output can be described as official development assistance or as reducing poverty, and I understand that that limit has been reached.
Others have suggested that a way around the problem would be to slice a few million quid off the DFID budget and give the money to the Foreign Office for onward transmission to the World Service. That suggestion runs into the difficulty of meeting the United Nations target that 0.7% of GDP should be spent on international development. However, the House will welcome an announcement by the Secretary of State for International Development, who, following discussions between us, wrote to me on 13 May stating that he intended to make a grant to the World Service Trust and put his Department’s relationship with the trust on a more strategic basis. The trust is the charitable arm of the World Service, focusing on development. He believes that he can significantly expand its operations, increasing development outcomes and poverty reduction. That is an extremely helpful development. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department and thank him for his personal involvement, and I hope that the Foreign Office will be equally responsive.
Following the tabling and publishing of the motion last week the Government published a fairly emphatic rejection of our report, and it is with some surprise that I now learn that they intend to accept the motion, which calls on them to review the decision to cut the service by 16%. Several key Select Committee Chairmen, a former Foreign Secretary and other senior Members of Parliament support the motion because of the widespread concerns that I have raised.
In its report on the BBC, which was published today, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee strongly endorses the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, which means that two Select Committee reports have unanimously expressed concern. I must tell the Minister that it would be a mistake to undertake a review and then to take no further action. If that does happen, the FAC will return to the subject.
The World Service is important. It is a national asset and a jewel in the crown, and it has an unrivalled reputation throughout the world. It is no surprise that Kofi Annan described it as
“perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.
In those circumstances, I urge the House to support the motion.
Mr Lidington
It is certainly important to bear such things in mind, but many parts of the public sector in this country can point to how their best practice matches that in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the financial state in which this country finds itself as a consequence of the inheritance bequeathed to us by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member is so grave that we have no alternative but to ask every part of our public services, no matter how well and efficiently they perform, to drive those efficiencies further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and indeed the report, criticised the Government’s decision to reduce the budget of the World Service by 16% and argued that it was disproportionate. To set the matter in context, as the House knows the Government inherited a massive fiscal deficit when they came to power. We made it clear from the start that it would be the Government’s overriding priority to take swift and effective action to reduce that deficit. Every member of the Government has always made it clear that rebalancing the nation’s finances will not be without pain and that every taxpayer-funded organisations will have to play its part, as will the private sector. Frankly, if as a country we fail to deal with the overriding challenge of our deficit, all our hopes, whether for prosperity, improved public services or enhanced international influence for the United Kingdom, will come to naught.
The World Service was asked to reduce its budget by 16%. The Foreign Affairs Committee has argued that that is disproportionate. I say candidly, but politely, to my hon. Friend that I disagree with that verdict. At the beginning of the previous comprehensive spending round in 2007-08, the World Service budget was 13% of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget. By the end of 2014-15, its budget will be 14.4% of the FCO budget. The proportion of its budget at the end of this Government’s tenure will therefore be slightly higher than it was before. To respond to the particular case put to me by my hon. Friend, in 2007-08 the World Service received £222 million, and in 2013-14 it will again receive £222 million. However, the FCO budget will fall from £1.7 billion in 2007-08 to £1.55 billion in 2013-14. It is those figures that lie behind the percentages that I quoted.
Richard Ottaway
Is the Minister including the costs of conflict prevention in his figures?
Mr Lidington
I will take advice on that point and come back to my hon. Friend either later in the debate or in writing.
It is also fair to point out that the FCO has been more severely affected by the impact of foreign exchange losses than has the World Service. From 2007 to 2011, the loss of the mechanism that protected the FCO against foreign exchange risk accounted for a 17% loss to the FCO core budget, but only a 2% loss to the BBC World Service core budget. That discrepancy is explained by the fact that a much greater proportion of the FCO’s diplomatic effort is located overseas than is the case with the BBC World Service.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has made its case, and I hope that I have provided figures that back up the evidence my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave and that support our contention that although the settlement is indeed tough, it is fair when set alongside what has happened to the core FCO budget over the past few years.
The World Service undoubtedly provides a valuable service, but that is true of many other public bodies. The police, the military and the education system have all had to make savings, and so have the British Council and UK Trade & Investment. Some of those organisations have suffered cuts considerably larger than 16%. I am happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that all those institutions are vital assets of the UK. We do not take pleasure in what we have had to do, but the measures that we have taken are essential for the future well-being of our country. Much as I dislike having to support cuts to the budget of the BBC World Service, we cannot in good conscience say that we support cuts in general but resist all of them in particular.
Members will have heard the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 11 May, in which he set out plans for the future of the Foreign Office’s diplomatic network. We will find £100 million a year in savings from our administration budgets, yet at the same time we are both widening and deepening our diplomatic network. We are opening more posts and strengthening existing ones in emerging economies of key importance to this country. The savings that we are having to find to finance that expansion are not easy, but they are essential if we are to develop within tough financial constraints.
When I go to British embassies overseas, I am left in no doubt about the seriousness of the choices that Ministers have to make. I regularly have meetings with our staff at our posts throughout Europe and the former Soviet Union, and at practically every meeting I meet staff who are worried about their jobs, some of whom have worked loyally for the FCO for a large number of years. The FCO is not immune from difficult decisions, and there is no pain-free way to make the choices necessary to provide a strong voice for Britain in the world. I do not think the World Service can be exempt from the need to make difficult choices.
The World Service originally approached the Foreign Secretary for authority to close 13 of its 31 language services—even more closures than were authorised by the Government of whom the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) was a member. When I heard him denounce the policies of the current Government, I worried about the selective amnesia that had come over him about his Government’s record on the World Service.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to support those suggested closures, and after frank discussion with the World Service and the BBC Trust he reluctantly agreed to the closure of five services. That was after he had received clear assurances that the closures would not cause major damage to the World Service’s overall services and audience share. The World Service also assured us that it would make strenuous efforts to find efficiency savings and drive down non-editorial costs to protect its front line. It has said that it will find savings of up to a third in finance, human resources, business development, strategy, marketing and other administrative operations.
I hope that the World Service will match that commitment with detailed plans, and that it will match the greater transparency of financial arrangements that the Government have undertaken to provide. The BBC is not obliged to do that under the current arrangements, but it would add to public confidence in the organisation, including the World Service, if it endorsed greater transparency so that taxpayers and licence fee payers could see where their money was being spent.
There are other changes in how World Service output is delivered, such as the closure of radio transmissions in Mandarin or the cessation of the Hindi shortwave service. Ministers have no power to veto such decisions. Some access to the World Service in those languages will remain, whether online or through FM or television, but those choices fall squarely within the responsibility of the World Service—the Government were not consulted in detail on those changes and we had no locus to intervene. The BBC believes that those decisions were soundly based, and we have seen its justification for those changes.
As a number of hon. Members mentioned, given recent events in the middle east and north Africa, the FCO chose to reprioritise in order to bolster our effort there. It is entirely sensible for the World Service to do likewise. However, even before the Arab spring, the decision to curtail Arabic broadcasting was somewhat surprising.
On potential sources of additional money for the World Service, first, there is the prospect of commercial income. We agreed with the World Service that it would increase its sources of commercial income, with an initial target of £3 million. It is important for it to adopt an entrepreneurial approach to developing that source of income.
Secondly, on funding from the Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South quite fairly pointed out that there are two genuine hurdles to be surmounted, the first of which is meeting the OECD kitemark for measures that count as official development assistance. The OECD requires that any activity that qualifies as ODA must have the
“promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective”.
However, even if activity qualifies under OECD rules as ODA, it does not necessarily meet the second, stricter test, which is embodied in the International Development Act 2002. The Act gives the Secretary of State statutory authority to spend money when that allows for the relief of poverty—that is the prime measure. As my hon. Friend mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is looking at a new relationship with the World Service trust. In addition, the Government are approaching the OECD with a view to getting its agreement to classify a proportion of World Service spending as subject to ODA rules.
It is worth noting that the settlement included money to be used as the contribution of the World Service to the overall BBC pension deficit. The BBC says that its original estimate of that deficit has been revised down by about one third. We do not yet know the detailed figures for the World Service, but if, pro rata, it no longer needs a third of the money it has allocated for pensions—that would amount to about £4 million a year—it could choose to restore the five cut services and the Hindi service, or to restore the cuts to the Arabic, Hindi and Mandarin services that it previously announced.
Those choices are for the BBC. In a recent article in Ariel, the World Service controller of languages said that even if funding were reinstated, it would not necessarily restart services that it had stopped, but would instead look at new investment. Global shortwave audiences are falling dramatically—20 million listeners were lost from 2009-10 alone.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked about the place of the World Service in the proposed new arrangements with the BBC, which will take effect from 2014-15. As I have already said, these provide opportunities for things such as the combination of news rooms and studios, and for different arms of the BBC to share costs, which might help World Service funds to go further. But it is also true that the BBC, through its new chairman and director-general, has made it clear that it places a high value on the World Service and sees it continuing as a key element of BBC output. The new governance arrangements will be guaranteed by an amendment to the BBC agreement between the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the BBC. We are discussing with the BBC Trust a formal exchange of letters to confirm this. The BBC Trust is also considering an international trustee to represent the interests of the World Service.
Even after the cuts, the World Service will still receive funding from the British taxpayer of £733 million over the next three years. The settlement that we came to with the World Service was challenging, and we take seriously the points that have been made by the Select Committee and in the Chamber today and will reflect further on them. We will work with the World Service to find ways in which it can continue to fulfil its mission as an independent broadcasting voice that is at the same time a key element in the promotion of British culture and values.
Richard Ottaway
Time does not permit me to acknowledge in detail the speeches that have been made today. It has been a great debate, but the Minister must have felt a bit lonely. We have heard seven speeches today, six of which supported the thrust of the motion and the desperate need for a review of the service, and his own which was more defensive of the Government’s position. The Minister is a good friend of mine, in both the personal and political senses, but he has not quite got the point that everyone has made today.
We all recognise the economic pressures on the Government—indeed, everyone who spoke is a member of a party that supports the need to address the desperate financial situation the country is in. However, it is a question of priorities. When the facts change, so must the policies. The circumstances in Libya have meant that more resources have been diverted to that country. The international tensions of worldwide terrorism have meant that more money has been put into the security services. The extra need for diplomacy around the world was behind the statement last week about extra funding for diplomacy. What colleagues are saying today is that, with the changing world we live in and the desperate need for more soft power—
Richard Ottaway
I am afraid you would never forgive me if I gave way, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There is a desperate need to address the changing world and to take soft power more seriously. I appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed to a review. I hope that it will be a constructive review and that this is not brushed under the table saying, “That’s the House of Commons dealt with.” The House is serious about this and I hope the Foreign Office will be as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The Implications of Cuts to the BBC World Service, HC 849; endorses the Committee’s support for the World Service’s invaluable work in providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism to many countries; considers that the unfolding events in North Africa and the Middle East demonstrate the continuing importance of the soft power wielded through the World Service; believes that the value of the World Service far outweighs its relatively small cost; and invites the Government to review its decision to cut spending on the World Service by 16 per cent.
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said that General Richards had been referring to the command and control structure, not the infrastructure. It seems to be agreed that command and control is an acceptable target. However, General Richards said in The Sunday Telegraph that he
“wanted the rules of engagement changed so that direct attacks can be launched against the infrastructure propping up Gaddafi's regime.”
That suggests that he was calling for a change of policy, and I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary could say whether he has a legal opinion that would support that change of policy.
Mr Hague
That would, of course, have to be discussed with our colleagues, partners and other members of NATO, as all targeting is discussed in NATO. But certainly it is our opinion that it comes within the scope of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 that if particular items of infrastructure are particularly supporting the military effort and the regime’s effort to make war against civilians, those would also be legitimate targets.
The Gaddafi regime is now isolated and on the defensive. It has lost control of large swathes of Libya already. The regime’s military capability has been significantly degraded and £12 billion of its assets have been frozen in this country alone. NATO has conducted more than 6,600 sorties and more than 2,600 strike sorties since 31 March, destroying ammunition stores, armoured and other vehicles and surface-to-air missile launchers, while at sea 20 ships are now patrolling the central Mediterranean under NATO command to enforce the arms embargo.
Scores of senior figures have abandoned their positions in the regime, including Ministers, generals, ambassadors, bankers and senior officials. Many of these defectors are actively supporting the opposition national transitional council. We welcome the announcement today by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he has requested judges to issue arrest warrants for Colonel Gaddafi and two other members of the regime wanted for the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. This should leave the regime in no doubt that crimes will not go unpunished and that the reach of international justice will be long.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is a Foreign Affairs Committee member.
In my judgment, we made the right decision in March to establish a no-fly zone. At the time, there were concerns about a stalemate and about setting a precedent, but we had a UN resolution and a request from the Arab League to support us and to quell our doubts. The question was whether to intervene or not to intervene, and we chose the lesser of two evils to save Benghazi. As a result, there has been no slaughter in Benghazi, and to that extent it has been a success. We do have a stalemate, however. The question now is how to break the stalemate.
The UN resolution has been widely interpreted. We had the rather unexpected remarks over the weekend of General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who has called for a change in the rules of engagement to enable NATO to attack infrastructure to oust Gaddafi. There is a clear difference in our policy between our military and our political objectives. Our military objectives are humanitarian—in that, we are backed up by a United Nations resolution—whereas our political objective, which is not backed by the UN, is to remove Gaddafi. I think that General Richards has come pretty darn close to the latter course of action, touching on the political objectives. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, regime change was set out by Tony Blair in his Chicago speech. I do not support that speech—I do not believe in regime change, and I reject the notions that he set out—but there is a difference between wanting regime change and using military force to achieve it, and General Richards is close to that concept.
The question that I would put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is whether General Richards was authorised to make that speech. Is there a legal opinion that says that targeting infrastructure is legal? Can he say what General Richards meant by infrastructure? Was he talking about refineries and power stations? If so, then in my opinion that would not be legal. Going down that road would need an amendment to Security Council resolution 1973 and, of course, a further resolution of this House, which adopted it. Such a policy would also be divisive within NATO. Furthermore, it is not in Libya’s interest to wipe out its economy by attacking the refineries and power stations. When we come to help rebuild that country, we will need that infrastructure—that was one of the mistakes that we made in Iraq. We may be critical in the House of Commons about what is happening in Libya, but it is our reputation and the perception of the Arab world that counts.
So what is the exit strategy? Having achieved the military objective, how will the Government achieve their political objective? There is a big gap between the two concepts. There is nothing wrong with the no-fly zone, the economic sanctions and the hope that a lucky hit on a command and control centre will destroy Gaddafi, but we need to send clear messages to the regime around him. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of an amnesty. Why not suggest an amnesty for those around Gaddafi who abandon him and co-operate in bringing him down? It is not beyond the realms of credibility to start talks between the regime and the rebels. We do it where the IRA is concerned and we are proposing to do it in Afghanistan, so why not in Libya?
Let me touch briefly on the Government’s decision to cut the World Service and the Arabic service that it broadcasts. We need soft power to help us in this situation. Cutting the World Service at this point is a mistake.
What is happening in Syria is wholly unacceptable, but the army is solidly behind President Assad. He had a choice, between reform and oppression, and he chose repression, so why do we not have a no-fly zone there? The difference is that we have neither a request from the Arab League nor a UN resolution. I regret the Arab League’s inconsistency and silence on Syria. I have no doubt that it is silent because no one wants the next domino to fall—that is the Arab League’s reservation—but it is still regrettable that it remains silent.
The death of Osama bin Laden represents an opportunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Foreign Affairs Committee calls for talks in Afghanistan, and I believe that there is a momentum there that can be built on. However, we have to rebuild the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan is a key player. It is a nuclear power and will be involved in any settlement negotiations in Afghanistan. Pakistan is clearly shaken by the death of Osama bin Laden. When the Foreign Affairs Committee went there last October, I was quite shaken by the level of hostility expressed by people in the Pakistan Administration towards the United States. Patching up the relationship will not be smooth, but Britain has a unique role to play. It is the one country in the world that is trusted by both the United States and Pakistan, and it is not beyond the realms of credibility to try to broker talks. Indeed, may I venture to suggest that we could broker talks between the two here in London?
This is a busy time in foreign affairs. I conclude by paying tribute to the Foreign Office. It is having to address action on two fronts, with the usual consular challenges all around. It has a trade policy that it is desperately trying to promote, and it is also dealing with more than its fair share of natural disasters. We have the middle east situation to deal with and, of course, the latest developments in Israel and Palestine. The Foreign Office faces a challenging situation, but in all this it has the full support of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will of course engage in constructive criticism of the Foreign Office, but we want it and Britain to succeed. As a diplomatic organisation the Foreign Office is the envy of the world. Let us try to keep it that way.
Future Diplomatic Network
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Neither the Australians nor anyone here thought that the hon. Gentleman was the Foreign Secretary, even if he thought so.
Of course we will have to keep under review our diplomatic strength in the middle east, but our diplomats have done a great job. We often reinforce them, as we have done in recent months, and we will need to do so again in the coming months. However, we have sovereign posts in the key nations concerned, so it is not necessary to introduce new ones in the countries directly affected so far by the Arab spring. Ours is a real plan for engagement in the world, with the right level of resources and the right arrangements with the Treasury, and with a vision of where we need a diplomatic presence in the future. There was no evidence of any of those things under the previous Government.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
May I give a warm welcome to every aspect of this statement? To be opening new embassies now is highly symbolic and sends an important signal to the rest of the world. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in the focus on trade and consular activity, there will be equal emphasis on diplomatic skills, which many feel have shrunk in recent years, and which he seems to be addressing in the diplomatic excellence initiative? On a more practical note, what percentage of the extra overseas posts will be recruited locally?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend knows, some of what I announced reflected the work and opinions of him and his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and concerns expressed by the Committee under his chairmanship and that of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Those have been well-founded concerns, such as over the loss of the exchange protection and so on. My hon. Friend is right that alongside and accompanying our emphasis on trade goes the important diplomatic skills that I feel have been undervalued in recent years in the Foreign Office. It is important for diplomats to have in-depth knowledge of their countries, geographic and historical expertise built up over time and the diplomatic skills of influencing events in other nations, not just of internal management. Those things are all being attended to in the diplomatic excellence initiative launched by the Foreign Office. I shall illustrate the proportion of UK-based and locally engaged staff: I envisage, for instance, that about one third of the additional staff in China will be UK-based, and that about half in the emerging powers outside China and India—in countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Mexico and Indonesia—will be UK-based.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Ottaway Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
They are operating on the basis that I set out in the House of Commons. Last week, I think, when the House resumed, I made a statement on these matters and set out their purposes in a few sentences. Those are their purposes; they have not gone with an entire book of terms of reference. They have gone as a military liaison and advisory team to give their expertise on the organisation of logistics, headquarters and so on, as set out last week. There is nothing further to expand upon.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
In my right hon. Friend’s discussions with the Arab League, did he convey the message that although it rightly called for a no-fly zone over Libya, there is widespread disappointment over its silence on Bahrain and Syria?
Mr Hague
Certainly, I discussed the wider region. In particular, we had a detailed discussion about the situation in Syria. I absolutely condemn the Syrian regime’s actions over recent days, particular in relation to the city of Deraa and similar places that have been under attack by the Syrian army. I have urged the Arab League to take a strong line on this. Arab League Foreign Ministers are meeting on Thursday. After the contact group meeting in Rome, they will meet in Cairo, and they will discuss Syria then.