Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Debate between David Lammy and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

A famous American journalist said that democracies are too pacific in peace and too belligerent in war. Mr Putin has watched us be too pacific. Now war has come, he may be surprised by just how blooming belligerent we can be.

[Mr Lammy]

I suspect this is going to be a long fight, and the short-termism that has sometimes been a problem in the west and in democracies has to end. Corrupt Russian money is finally being targeted. The west has stood together, and so have other nations, in condemning this aggression. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made it clear that we have to do that.

Putin’s campaign is driving the very things that he claims to oppose. We must use and sustain this unity to maximise the pressure on the Russian regime to end this bloody campaign, and we must be prepared to sustain our focus, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) illustrated with his experience and expertise, because the struggle to confront the values that Putinism represents will be long. We should have begun organising for a secure peace years ago, but it is no use to the Ukrainian people for us to be defeatist now.

We must be clear that we cannot take some of the actions that the Ukrainian Government are requesting, such as a no-fly zone, which would bring NATO and Russia into direct conflict. There are many such actions that we should avoid, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) illustrated, but there are many actions we can take now.

First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) set out in his opening speech, we must continue with our NATO allies to supply lethal defensive weaponry to the Ukrainian armed forces, which need our support in their courageous defence of their sovereign nation state.

Secondly, we need to make our sanctions strong and robust. The measures the Government have taken are welcome, but there is still more we can do. We should target other sectors such as insurance. The EU has sanctioned the Russian insurer Sogaz. Why have we not done that yet?

We should move quicker and broader against Russian banks. The designations to freeze the assets of individuals are moving, but they are moving far too slowly. A week into this war, we have sanctioned only 11 people, most of whom have no assets or minimal ties to the UK. There are people who have already been sanctioned by the United States and the EU, in some instances for several years, whose assets remain liquid in the UK. The Government have said we must move in lockstep with our allies. We agree but, on this matter, we appear to be falling behind. This delay only magnifies the risk of asset flight.

We know that the effect of our sanctions is directly linked to how tightly the tentacles of dirty money are wrapped around our economy and our democracy. We cannot freeze people’s assets if we do not know where those assets are. Sanctions work only if we know who owns what. We urgently need transparency in the system, from property ownership to company ownership.

Although the Government finally seem to be moving after years of indefensible inaction, they are now offering oligarchs 18 months to reorganise their assets—one and a half years for criminals to move their money. That is unacceptable, so I hope the Minister will commit to working with us to change this timetable.

Thirdly, we need diplomatic action to build the widest possible opposition to this war. If a sovereign state can be carved up on the whim of one man, all nations are threatened. Putin believes he is locked in a struggle with the west, and he will have expected our opposition. We must ensure that he feels pressure from other countries around the world, many of which have commercial or other ties to Russia. Some have stepped up eloquently to denounce his new imperialism, but others must find their voice, including allies of our country and fellow democracies.

Our diplomacy must be focused not just on other nations but on the Russian people. These sanctions, necessary as they are, will inevitably have difficult consequences for ordinary Russians, who did not choose this illegal war pursued by Vladimir Putin in their name. We must always be clear that it is the Russian Government, not the Russian people, whose actions we condemn. It is Putin who is responsible for the economic consequences of this war for the Russian people.

We seek only friendship and peace with the Russian public, and the last few days have seen brave acts of protest and criticism. It takes true courage to protest in a police state, and I pay tribute to those in Russia standing up against this invasion. Putin thinks his authoritarianism is his strength, but it is, in fact, his weakness. It is our task to help amplify the voices against war in both Russia and Belarus, standing behind those with the courage to stand up to Putin, from influencers on social media to Orthodox Church leaders on the ground. We must make sure objective news sources can still reach Russia, so that the Russian people can hear the true story of what is unfolding in Ukraine. Will the Minister ensure that the BBC World Service has the capacity to reach as many people as possible in Russia and Ukraine in their native languages?

Fifthly, we should ensure that there is accountability in this conflict. Russia must abide by the laws of armed conflict. But we have all seen horrific violence that appears to target civilians and uses munitions outlawed by international conventions. The scenes from Kharkiv were devastating. Russia must know the world is watching. We must gather the evidence so that anyone responsible for a war crime is held to account, however long it takes. I hope that the Minister will assist the international chief prosecutor in that regard. Members ranging from the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) have talked about the importance of humanitarian support, and I hope those words are heeded.

I was in Kyiv just a few weeks ago. The Ukrainians I met were dignified and resolute, in the face of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops standing at their gates. Life in the city’s cafes, shops, bars and restaurants buzzed as normal, just as it does in London and across our nation today. The Ukraine I visited was not perfect, but it knew where it was going. The pride the Ukrainians showed in their nation was a reminder that national feeling does not have to be narrow; it can be a powerful force that drives a public towards a democratic and liberal future. It has been heartbreaking to watch what has happened, with this unprovoked attack on not only the Ukrainian people, but the values we share. It has been an assault on democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Ukrainians’ heroic defence in the face of this invasion should inspire the whole House. Together, we must face down Putin’s grotesque attack on our way of life, organising for a secure peace—a secure Britain, in a secure Europe. Our values are worth defending.

Broadcasting

Debate between David Lammy and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It is clearly not possible for a young person, or even a slightly older person, who is not situated in London or does not have parents who can put them up and see them through, to take up those opportunities. It will exclude swathes of people, and the standard has to be higher.

In the previous debate, there was much reflection on other broadcasters, and some people asked me, “Why are you picking on the BBC?” Let me be clear: I will always consider myself a tremendous friend of the BBC. In my own television viewing and radio listening habits, I constantly switch on the BBC and I am really pleased with so much of its output. But because it is the national broadcaster, it has a higher standard. I pay tribute to my good friend Baroness King, who is leaving the UK to go to the United States but who has done a great job as head of diversity at Channel 4. She has led the way, and Channel 4 is being bold on targets, taking a 360° approach and setting clear guidelines for its independent producers. It is leading the debate consistently, bringing people such as Idris Elba into this place to lead the public conversation. My challenge to the BBC is to say, “We expect you to occupy the same territory and to go further.” It should not be about this House leading the BBC in that direction: the BBC should, to some extent, lead us in the future. We expect a higher standard, and the public purpose should ensure that reflecting and representing the diversity of the UK is embedded into the BBC.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In any large organisation, including this place, people are always being identified by their peers, with people saying, “That fellow or that lady is going to go to the top.” It seems a bit rich to say that the BBC should not do that when all organisations have that sort of culture. I do not think it means to have it.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right, but more often than not, when we rely on those statements and they come to pass, we miss out on seeing and looking at people who do not fit the mould, most often—I say this with great respect—of the white, upper-middle-class men who have occupied that role in the past. It might have been said about the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the mid-1970s that “So-and-so is going to take that role,” and Margaret Thatcher did not fit the bill. Of course we get people occasionally breaking through, but I am saying that, really, our national broadcaster has to do a lot more. When we look at the top leadership team over consecutive years and decades, progress in this regard really has been quite slow.

The crucial point is that we need to see progress in terms of the BBC’s latest diversity strategy, which was announced in April and runs to 2020. Off-screen employment is just as important as on-screen employment, as the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) suggested in her excellent contribution, so a pledge to have a workforce at least as diverse as any other industry is welcome. The make-up of senior management and leadership positions is arguably more important than who is being hired as apprentices or runners, so targets of 50% women, 15% ethnic minorities, 8% people with a disability and 15% LGBT individuals in leadership roles is an ambitious goal, but it represents a huge step forward.

It is important that diversity requirements are embedded into contracts with suppliers and independent production companies commissioned to produce content. Yesterday, the BBC unveiled new commissioning guidelines that make it compulsory for independent production companies to “consider” diversity and state that there will be “a conversation” about diversity plans ahead of all commissioning decisions. One has to ask, what does that actually mean in practice? The new guidelines use the word “consider” 12 times, but do not set out any specific minimum requirements except to have a diversity and inclusion policy in place. In fact, the guidelines only use the word “must” once: people “must” tell the BBC if they cannot work with these guidelines.

The BBC has committed to opening up its budgets to independent production companies by removing all existing in-house guarantees except for news and news-related current affairs. By the end of the current charter period, 100% of drama, comedy, entertainment and factual hours will up for grabs, and in 2019 competition will also be introduced into children’s, sport and non-news current affairs programmes. In this new “era of the indies” this will become increasingly important. If the BBC is serious about reaching the ambitious targets it has set for itself, it needs to be clear about what is expected of independent production companies. I have to say that guidelines requiring only “consideration” or “a conversation” about diversity appears weak.

In contrast, Channel 4’s commissioning diversity guidelines state that at least one of the lead characters must be from an ethnic minority background, or have a disability, or be LGBT, that at least 15% of the production team must be from an ethnic minority or have a disability and that at least one of the senior directors, editors or producers must be from an ethnic minority or have a disability. That is much bolder. I was watching Channel 4’s “National Treasure” last week—a wonderful four-part drama touching on the terrible issue of sexual abuse in our society. Julie Walters was wonderful, as were her grandchildren. It struck me as I watched the programme with my wife, having put our own mixed-race children to bed, that the two lead white characters were well-known actors, but their grandchildren were mixed race. I thought, “Great! They have done it.” They had reflected gently what was needed—this episode was not central to the storyline—and there it was: a reflection of my family and my children that is rarely seen on television. That is how it can be done, which is why I am surprised that considering or thinking about a conversation is all we have had in the BBC context.

There has obviously been a debate raging for some time; it has been led by Sir Lenny Henry, to whom I pay tribute. We have seen a 400% increase in the number of programmes produced in the English regions and outside the M25 since 2003, which must be a good thing. We celebrate that fact that television is being made in parts of our country where it was not previously made. It brings us back to the business of embedding and hard-wiring diversity as a consequence of the decision. We do not want to lose out because of the attempt to make TV in Wales, Scotland and beyond. I recently met the BBC director of content, Charlotte Moore, and I gained a real sense of her commitment to the issue, which was one I really wanted to raise.

Let me raise again a point that others have made about the now very important position of Ofcom for the BBC. Ofcom’s chief executive, Sharon White, recently warned that the BBC is falling short on stories that reflect all the nations of the UK and their communities. Last year, Ofcom’s review of public service broadcasting found that over half of BAME viewers felt that they were under-represented in public service broadcasting. Ofcom is well aware of the issues, and it is now up to the new regulator to hold the BBC to account if it falls short on its promises. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us in his later remarks on how the Government plan to ensure that the provisions of the charter and agreement are acted on. It seems clear to me that the BBC must be required to publish full data on all elements of its diversity and equal opportunities policy and that Ofcom must analyse and evaluate the data to come to a judgment on progress made each year.

Another important point is whether the BBC’s targets, which are, after all, only an aspiration, should be combined with a minimum standard or benchmark. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will call on Ofcom to set the minimum standards for BBC diversity, in terms of both on-screen portrayal and off-screen employment.

We have made real progress on making this issue central in the charter, and I congratulate the Government on achieving that. Now is an important moment for our country, emphasised greatly by the social division that exists in Britain at this point in our history. We do not want to see ethnic minorities turning to first-language stations abroad. We need that national conversation, which must be complex and rich. Difficult though it sometimes is to achieve, a lot of people are paid quite a lot of money to get this right. Now is a time when we must get it right, so that I am not here in five years’ time having the same debate about ring-fencing, targeting and the BBC taking diversity seriously.

BBC: Diversity

Debate between David Lammy and Bob Stewart

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is good at radical ideas—he is known for them—and that is certainly one. I am not going to stake my name today on what the change should be, but clearly we have come to a point—perhaps that is why the issue is on the Floor of the House for the first time—where we want step change. Change cannot be incremental any longer. I say that because if we treasure our public service broadcaster and the universality that it represents, I am afraid that in a multi-platform world, where people can turn to other services, that broadcaster is going to be in deep trouble if it does not step up pretty quickly.

In 2015, 9.2% of the BBC’s senior leadership were black, Asian and minority ethnic. Looking beneath the surface, in TV the percentage drops to 7.1%; in news, the figure for senior leaders who are BAME drops to 5.8%. The lack of diversity at management and senior levels creates a dangerous vicious circle. If those decision makers are not from diverse backgrounds, content and programming will lack fresh narratives and insight, and will not speak to the breadth of this country. When we have all the same people at the top, hiring people in their own image, the circle simply stays closed.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I really commend the right hon. Gentleman on his speech, which has highlighted the issue to me and educated me. I hope very much that, because of the brilliance of his speech and the force with which it is being given, the BBC board will insist on change.

[Mr Lammy]

Well, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I am only halfway through—just hold fire.

Let us look at targets. The BBC has set itself a target of increasing representation in its workforce to 14.2% and increasing onscreen portrayal to 15%. As I have outlined, the track record does not fill me with absolute confidence that those targets will be met. The targets also fall short of those set by other broadcasters. Take Sky, for example. It has said that all new TV shows in Sky Entertainment will have people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds in at least 20% of significant onscreen roles. All original Sky Entertainment productions will have someone from a BAME background in at least one senior role, either producer, series producer, executive producer, director or head of production—my God, that is tall. It has also said that 20% of writers on all team-written shows across all Sky Entertainment productions will be from a BAME background. Looking at the statistics from January and February 2016, Sky has also made progress in current affairs and news: on “Sky News” 15% of interviewers were BAME; on “Murnaghan”, the figure was 17%; on “Sunrise” it was 22%; and it was 17% on “Ian King Live”.

Let us look at Channel 4’s targets in its “360° Diversity Charter”. One is that by 2020 20% of all Channel 4 staff will be BAME, a 33% increase from the 15% figure in 2015. Another is that of the top 120 people in the Channel 4 organisation—executive teams, heads of department and senior commissioning executives—15% will be from a BAME background, a big increase on the current figure of 8%.

Instead of being behind the curve, the BBC should be setting the gold standard. This issue does not affect only in-house teams. Broadcasters commission a lot of their work from independent production companies. The relationship between the BBC and those third-party suppliers is growing in importance, because the BBC is moving towards a new, more fluid production model, whereby BBC Studios will operate in the market and produce programmes for other broadcasters, and the BBC will allow independents to compete for more of the corporation’s commissioning spend.

If we look at the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which apply to all content made by a third party working for the BBC, we will see 19 separate subsections and eight appendices, but not one is specifically related to diversity and representation. Nudity, violence, the watershed, the right of reply, privacy, religion, editorial integrity and conflicts of interest are all covered specifically and in great detail, but there is not a single section on diversity. In a 228-page document, there is not even a mention of the 14.2% target that the BBC is setting for itself internally. In section 4, on impartiality, production companies sign up to providing a breadth and diversity of opinion, but they do not sign up to any diversity in terms of equality and representation.

The BBC’s latest equality and diversity report, published in 2015, made this promise:

“We will be clear with our suppliers about our diversity requirements so that they are able to deliver on them.”

To find out just how clear the BBC is with its suppliers about diversity, I submitted a freedom of information request asking to see the agreements that BBC makes with its supplier for one show, “Question Time”. I was told that the information would not be supplied to me because it is

“held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature”.

Although the BBC is promising to be clear with its suppliers about diversity requirements, it is altogether less clear with its audience and those who pay the licence fee about what exactly those diversity requirements are. I therefore ask the Minister to look at the freedom of information rules that are enabling the BBC to be less than wholly transparent on these issues. I am sure that he, and all Members here today, would agree that a publicly funded body must adhere to the highest standards of openness. Over 50% of the FOI requests put to that organisation are denied. That cannot be right.

Public Disorder

Debate between David Lammy and Bob Stewart

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The events of last week started with the death of Mark Duggan, one of my constituents, during a police operation. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there were reports of an exchange of fire between Mr Duggan and the police. We now know that two shots were fired and that they both came from police weapons. A grieving family and my constituents deserve to know the truth about what happened that night. The IPCC investigation must be thorough; it must be open; and it must be seen to be independent.

Other serious questions need answering. Why did the Duggan family first hear about the death of their son not from a police officer, but when the news was broadcast on national television? Why, when they arrived at Tottenham police station to ask questions and to stage a peaceful protest, were they made to wait for five hours before a senior police officer was made available to them? Why, when that peaceful protest was hijacked by violent elements, were a few skirmishes allowed to become a full-scale riot, with far-reaching consequences? Mistakes have been made by the Metropolitan police, and this must be subject to a full public inquiry.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way; forgive me.

On Sunday morning, I stood amid the burning embers of Tottenham High road. There is no connection between the death of a young man and the torching of the homes of Stuart Radose and 25 other families in the Carpetright building. There is no connection between the treatment of the Duggan family and Niche, the landlord of the Spirit of Tottenham, being held at knifepoint while his pub was ransacked. I could go on. This violence was criminal, and we condemn it utterly.

Tottenham has brave and very resilient people—I have no doubt that we will get through this together—but as the TV cameras begin to move out, I urge the Government and the House not to forget the people of Tottenham. In the House and beyond, we must also begin a much more difficult discussion: we must address why boys and girls aged as young as 11 engage in the kind of violent and destructive behaviour witnessed this week, and as we do so, I urge hon. Members on both sides to avoid reaching for easy slogans and solutions.

These riots cannot be explained away simply by poverty or cuts to public services. The fact that the vast majority of young men from poor areas did not take part in the violence is proof of that. Many young men showed restraint and respect for others, because they have grown up with social boundaries and a moral code. They have been taught how to delay gratification and to empathise with others rather than terrorise them. Those values were shaped by parents, teachers and our neighbours.