dateline london. hello and welcome to the programme that brings together international correspondents, some of the uk's leading commentators and those who file their stories for the folks back home under the headline dateline london. this week — lobbying in all its forms. lobbying against and for the royalfamily, lobbying to liberate a woman imprisoned in iran, and whether those who lobby on behalf of repressive governments around the world are sufficiently regulated in the uk. joining us for dateline this week. polly toynbee, a long—serving columnist for the guardian in the uk, and henry chu, deputy news editor for the la times, which means he's up when la sleeps, making sure that national news in the states is well reported. and then, when the uk is sleeping, he's probably also trying to file stories from back here, too. he never rests! with me in the studio, mark urban, diplomatic editor with the bbc�*s newsnight programme. welcome. let's start with the royal family. sunday was commonwealth day — the annual celebration of an institution created to maintain links which in the past were the result of exploration, colonisation and conquest. queen elizabeth, its head since august 1952, may see it as proof that empire has given way to equality. yet hours later, harry, her grandson and his wife meghan, were — in that much—trailed tv interview — describing the british monarchy as an institution where there were "concerns and conversations" about how dark their unborn baby's skin might be. harry said racism — in the country, the media and the palace — was a "large part" of why the couple have left the uk for good. polly, this is clearly damaging to the families involved and their relationships with one another. how damaging is it to the institution? it is no difference between the family and the institution because the only point of the institution is its ability to breed and reproduce and produce the next monarch. it really has no other function, and everything that happens in the family is political. they are public figures in a public family. this has been pretty bad. and the accusation of racism coming right now when the whole world is far more sensitised to it after the black lives matter movement, which has been very powerful here and made all sorts of organisations look at themselves again. it's an absolute tragedy that one of the chances for the monarchy to modernise itself was the arrival of harry and meghan together as, you know, a multiracial couple with a whole new breath of fresh air, if you like, into the royal family. i think this has done them terrible harm, that they have let them go and done nothing to hold onto them. we are, anyway, going to be in a crisis of the monarchy. the queen can't live... she will die sometime in the next decade, and the transition to the rather unpopular prince charles, i think will make a whole lot of people think again, and possibly the monarchy is quietly coming to its close and maybe she will be elizabeth the last. now there is an interesting challenging statement to offer. henry, the sussexes live in california, which effectively is in your beat on the la times. you are also a former variety magazine correspondent and you know quite a lot about the celebrity culture on the west coast. i wonder whether this interview has helped or hindered their prospects of achieving what they say they want to achieve, which is a new life for their immediate family away from the royals. well, i don't think they will ever be out of the limelight. this is still a prince of the realm here in britain, and she was an actress before they married and so was already used to being in the spotlight as well. they are always going to be hounded by the press to a certain degree and people will always be interested in what they do. they can have a more normal life, "normal," away from some of the british tabloids in terms of being constantly followed in their activities as royals. i think that's something they will find to be a breath of fresh air. meghan was already used to celebrity culture as you say because she is an actress by training and already went through the hollywood experience, and harry has also been in the limelight since he was a small child. so i don't think that has been a novelty to them. it was simply the treatment they felt they received as a couple and once they were fully out as royals performing royal duties. i think, as i said, with this interview particularly now behind them they are going to be generating headlines, i think, for weeks and perhaps years to come. polly, iwonder, though, if there is a difficulty here because in a sense their future prospects and earning potential depends on maintaining their celebrity and their opportunities to be talking points. yet that goes exactly against everything they said they desire, which is privacy, something close to a normal life, whatever a normal life is for a high—profile international celebrity couple, but something that doesn't involve this constant negativity which they associate with particularly the tabloid press in the uk, even going so far as meghan suggesting that there was an unhealthy mutual dependency between the royal family in the uk and the media. a kind of mutual contempt was a mutual need as well. i mean, in a sense they are trapped in this, aren't they? they are, and the royalfamily is and of course the royal family does hate the press but they rely on the press. they are there to be figureheads and if you're a figurehead you have got to be in public. i think ever since rupert murdoch arrived here the gloves were off in terms of how the tabloids treat the royals. up until then, there was a measure of respect and he just threw that away and said we willjust go for every lowdown bit of gossip we can find. that altered the name of the game. but the royals have to have a relationship with the press. some sort of trading does go on all the time, "you can have this picture, we will give you that, if you leave us alone here," but, you know, celebrity is what royalty is. i think for harry and meghan, the story might be different and they may find in five or ten years' time nobody is much interested in them any longer. if they are no longer plugged into the royals they become like the poor old duke and duchess of windsor, retired in paris, not quite enough money, very bitter and miserable and absolutely not in the public eye. they may not like that either. mark, that reference of the duke of windsor, who was briefly the king but insisted on marrying an american divorcee and had to give up the crown and went into effectively exile. i mean, that was all 70 years ago. one might assume that in some sense a country like the uk might have thought it had moved quite a long way forward in 70 years. the question of this begs, doesn't it, what is the british monarchy for? well, it provides - constitutional continuity. as we know, even - notwithstanding the events of the last two weeks, - it's still immensely popular when you do polling on it. i mean, ratings of anything between 60 and 80% - of the population say they support it. - so in a sense it has. that figurehead role, it has a constitutional role at certain times, change i of power, and it is a necessary thing in that sense. _ now, of course, republicans will say you can do - that with other things - and have an elected president or get around that in various ways but it is also a potent i national symbol, isn't it? i mean, i noticed some . of the polling that we have seen post—interview— was about sympathy for meghan and harry but i think- that was slightly confusing the issue because of course there will be some ardent. republicans who have no - sympathy for her and equally there will be people - who are quite sympathetic to the monarchy after all. of this so i think it is quite hard tojudge how much damage it has actually done _ to the institution and in - the commonwealth context, you know, everybody expects there to be a big moment, i a big intake of breath. when the current queen passes from the scene. but, you know, how does that play out and does i this interview and does| the continuing prospect of skirmishes between harry and meghan and the palace i further undermine the - possibility of prince charles taking over the commonwealth in a smooth and easy transition? . so there are some big. questions for the future. i think in the commonwealth context we just don't - know how much this has altered the parameters. i we just don't know and it is very interesting you mention the commonwealth because malcolm turnbull, a former australian prime minister, was saying this week that he had previously campaigned for a republic, "there are a lot of us who are elizabethans in australia but doesn't nearly make us monarchists", which picks up on the point you were making, polly, that just conceivably queen elizabeth ii might well be at least the last monarch who was head of state in other countries, if not in our own. thank you very much. now to a woman detained by the islamic republic of iran, perhaps because of something that happened when that country was still a monarchy and the shah sat on the peacock throne. last weekend, nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe, a british—iranian dual national, completed a five—year sentence for spying. 0ff came the ankle tag that ensured she didn't leave her parents�* home, in came the news that she must attend court again this sunday to face another charge. in a phone call, borisjohnson told president hassan rouhani that mrs zaghari—ratciffe�*s treatment was "completely unacceptable". she should be allowed to return to the uk, to her husband and their six—year—old daughter. bizarrely, this seems to have something to do with an arms deal dating back the best part of half a century. why? these were weapons ordered by the then shah of iran- before he was deposed i in the islamic revolution in that country. a lot of money was paid ever, hundreds of millions - and the weapons were never delivered because when - the shah fell the whole i picture began to change. iraq attacked iran, - became embroiled in a war with its neighbour. using some of those tanks in the course of the war. iran did have a lot _ of british—made weapons in that war, but anyway once | they were belligerents there was a un arms embargo so the uk couldn't deliver - the tanks even if it had wanted to and the whole thing has - stretched on and of course more recently there have _ been other forms of. sanctions against iran. so from an iranian perspective getting this money is - both a matter of honour. and practical importance. it is a lot of money. they want to be able to use it. now, fascinatingly, - when borisjohnson had that conversation with _ president rouhani on wednesday, of course the downing street readout emphasised - the immediate freeing - of nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe and other dual nationals being held, apparently,| it seems, as a form of hostage. and the iranian readout, - fascinatingly, towards the end of the version published - by the islamic republic news agency, mentioned that borisjohnson had givenj a commitment to settle this issue of the debt. over the weapons. when i then called downing street said well, did he? i they said we can only . refer you to our readout of the conversation, - so that is the suspicion. i think it would be fair to say in diplomatic circles, - that some form of, let's not. call it a pledge, but some form of language that is comforting to the iranians, helpful- to them, has been used . in an attempt to clear this and, of course sunday's court hearing may well be - the first indication we have . as to whether or not that has done the trick. the complicated issue here is of course relations between western countries including the uk and iran, very difficult relations. we had the nuclear deal, which limited controls and certainly the timetable under which iran could develop a nuclear weapon. donald trump walked out of that, joe biden has walked in, there is an expectation that that might improve relations but there is a problem here, isn't there? the sanctions that have been tightened and tightened under successive us presidents make it almost impossible at the moment to lawfully transfer that money even if, as mark was suggesting, the british government might want to. i think that's right. president biden says he wants to return to the nuclear accord but he is prevented from making any quick steps in terms of loosening the sanctions both by congress and just the political situation at the moment and iran for its part is also taking a fairly hard line publicly about the us having broken its commitment to the accord before and needing to come back to the table humbly first before they themselves will go back to bargaining. now, i think a lot of that is posturing. we will see, we will hear soon enough, i think, about behind—the—scenes manoeuvring between the two sides to try to get back to the table to work out some way that the us can indeed re—enter that accord and both sides can save face to a certain degree. this issue of paying that money, although it might be held up for logistical and practical reasons, certainly has that political and perhaps moral component that you referred to before in terms of whether this could look like some kind of ransom or, you know, paying for hostages being held. actually, the us has form on this because about five years ago the 0bama administration paid, i think it was about $1.7 billion to iran for exactly the same thing, for deals that were struck with the shah that were not carried to fruition. that was decided by a tribunal that the us owed this money to iran and when that money was transferred at the end of 2016, interestingly, about a quarter of it was held up until a plane with us prisoners left the ground from iran and then, lo and behold, that money suddenly appeared in iran's accounts, so this actually does go on, both sides can insist that there is no connection. indeed britain would have political cover saying that an international court has ordered it to pay this money back, but it is the optics and the perception of it that can be worrying in terms of whether it would encourage more hostagetaking or using prisoners as bargaining chips in this way. polly, what we shouldn't lose sight of, and it's easy, isn't it, discussing these government—level negotiations, is that at the heart of this is a man, woman and a child. a little girl who has barely seen her mother, and a mother who, according to redress, one of the charities, as it has been best able to assess it, obviously not having direct access to her, is mentally on the edge after what she has been through. and a husband who has tried to support his daughter, tried to support his wife, tried to run an international campaign so that the media and governments doesn't lose touch. this is a family torn apart for political reasons. it is an absolute tragedy. she is patently not a spy, and i don't think anybody ever seriously thought that she was. her husband has fought a very subtle and clever campaign to keep this in the news, trying not to alienate the british government on whom they will depend for this negotiation and, at the same time, making it clear the government could do more. it is a very good thing we no longer have donald trump in the white house and that president biden is clearly wanting to normalise, to some extent, relations with iran, get back round the table. this is money that we owe. president 0bama paid that money that he owed. so it's not quite like an ordinary hostage situation when it is kind of new money, you are buying someone, it is already on the table. we should pay that money back and she should be returned and let's hope that happens and let's hope there is a calming down of tensions, as one would hope for the best one could hope for with iran and the western countries. i just want to pick up on the point both henry and polly have made and you were referring to was well in a sense this common dilemma, really, of kind of hostage diplomacy because, let's say for the sake of argument, a way is found to release this money. aapparently it has been sitting there waiting to be paid for the best part of 20 years now and we know that the british have said we accept that we owe the money. you might wonder whether the shah was terribly bright to have handed the money over before he got anything to show for it but that is a historical argument. the practical question is, if that now happens and then by complete coincidence nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe passport is handed back to her and she is able to fly home and be reunited with his family, why won't that do exactly what the british government said it doesn't want to do, which is encouraging future hostagetakings, if you like to call it, by governments under whatever guise in order to get some kind of benefit. well, it won't end it is- a tried and tested method and even in circumstances - where the legal argument has been much less favourable to iran it has acted - in this way. british forces picked up i a couple of leaders of shia special groups in iraq in 2007 and a kuds force operative i from lebanon who was acting on behalf of- the iranian government. there were soon - counter— hostages taken. you will remember, initially, the sailors in the gulf- and then following that - after their release a british security consultant was taken in baghdad and held hostagel for years in an attempt to get the release of those very- three people who the - iranians wanted released. so we understood quite . clearly what the trade—off was in that case. it happens and, i'm afraid, | iran has form in this sense, even when this money. is restored and hopefully there is a more harmonious. relationship around the entry into the nuclear deal, - it is always possible that some unfortunate individual may| become a pawn in this kind of power play again. thank you. now here's a curious question to ask on a programme which showcases international journalists working in the uk — do we need laws to restrict foreign influence? christopher steele, a former british spy, thinks so. journalists, though, aren't his main concern. nor, indeed, are spies. russia's influence is exercised, mr steele says, through opaque businesses, china's through academia. henry, this issue has been raised in the context of the united states, hasn't it, in recent months, with people saying, look, there are some business leaders in the us, american citizens, americans by birth, who nonetheless, because of their business interests in china, are effectively acting as apologists, front men and women, for the beijing regime. how are americans resolving it and is there a lesson that the uk could learn from that? i think first to the point of chinese americans being singled out, i think that that actually has a component of racism in the sense that there are plenty of companies owned by white owners who are lobbying in the same way. you know, multinational corporations... i apologise if my question gave the wrong impression because i think you are right, it was being said about all kinds of americans. the point wasn't because they are ethnic chinese, but because they are american businesspeople of whatever ethnicity who have been accused of doing this. so i apologise, i misspoke. that kind of lobbying has gone on for decades and this is nothing new that hasjust come to the fore at the moment. ever since china began opening up at the very end of the 70s and western companies started to see dollar signs in their eyes and rushed in, you have had corporations and other business interests lobbying successive american institutions to open up further and then after the tiananmen square massacre there was plenty of lobbying from american businesses for the us not to subject china to a yearly vote on whether it would have what was called then most—favoured—nation trading status. the idea of businesses lobbying on behalf of businesses, lobbying on behalf of their own interests and which then seemed favourable to other countries is not a novel one. what the us has had on the books for some 80 something years is a registration act that does require lobbying firms and others who are in the direct employ of states or working at their behest to lobby the us government on that, and that has actually been enforced a bit more in the last 4—5 years, starting during, actually, the trump administration, which has resulted in more of these agents signing up or facing penalties if they don't. the one interesting thing about that, though, is certainly that plenty of influence happens not simply by paid lobbyists paid by governments but by other interests like businesses, and also plenty of the spending that is done for this lobbying is done by allies. it is not only by hostile or seemingly adversarial nations so it is a very difficult balancing act tojuggle, and the us has been trying to do that more so in the last few years. polly, australia does have legislation of this kind that requires registration of foreign agents and it is one of the reasons that it is paying quite a considerable price in terms of an economic retaliation by china. do you think britain would make the same decision? christopher steele obviously thinks it should do. that is absolutely vital and we are very relaxed about all of these things. the trouble is, we are now in a weaker position. we are desperate to have trade deals with anybody anywhere after this month's figures show we had a 40% drop in a trade with europe. they may settle down to being a bit less bad than that but we have become of other needy nation in terms of needing friends around the world, and i think that makes us much less scrupulous. we don't have nearly enough transparency. notjust in straightforward lobbying groups but, for instance, think tanks and i would actually say, i'm surprised, really, that the bbc would put people on from think tanks that don't disclose where the funding comes from. the institute for economic affairs, the taxpayers alliance, have never revealed their financing. we don't know if they're foreign or know who they are or whose interest they are and develops other groups like this, other lobbying groups of think tanks that had so—called think tanks as well as lots of industries and, of course, the property industry doesn't really reveal the extent to which britain is used as a laundromat by oligarchs and corrupt people all over the world to buy large chunks of london property, often in a very opaque way, and although it is supposed to have become much more transparent, it's still not altogether clear, and i think we could have much stronger transparency laws and actually that would strengthen the sense of our probity. we could have much stronger transparency laws and actually that would strengthen the strength of our propriety and our honesty, and there is some discussion that we might have new laws for more transparency and lobbying. we certainly need it. briefly, if i may, does it give you some kind of unease that countries that often do this, you know, it is often authoritarian regimes who have these kind of registers. in terms of russia. indeed, nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe he was jailed because she had membership of an organisation working against the iranian government. it can be a tool that is used for quite nefarious means. transparency is never a bad thing. if somebody does have a connection with an organisation, they should say so, they should be public about it, they should explain what the organisation does. the fact that the soviet union insists that the british consul is registered as a foreign influence, well, to some extent it is. the british council is there to promote soft power. it is not spying organisational political organisation but like the bbc it is a very important part of british influence abroad. we hope for the good, both bbc and the british council are splendid organisations, very involved in the arts and cultural dissemination, but transparency is everything and then you can discuss what is or isn't legitimate. mark, last thought on this, is it going to happen? it may happen. it is very difficult. if you look after the salisbury . poisoning, the government said it was going to crack down on oligarchs and russian i money and all of the sort l of stuff and they did move on roman abramovich's visa. they did try to explainl his unexplained wealth orders a little bit more, i but it is very hard to make cases and also of these i russians who have come to london with a lot - of wealth are anti—putin or their position may be quite unclear. - they are not necessarily. servants of a russian state agenda so i think that highlights some - of the difficulty. so transparently, yes, - but if it causes an itch that you can't really scratch - in terms of reddress because it isn't legally definable - in the right form it doesn't necessarily get you out of the problem and the perception of the laundromat. thank you to all of our correspondents. that's it for dateline london for this week — we're back next week at the same time. i'll be back in a fortnight. hello. last week, the uk took quite a battering from strong winds. there was some heavy rain at times, too, and we spent a lot of time talking about low pressure. for the week ahead, the biggest difference will be lighter winds. we're going to be focusing on high pressure, trying to build in. this high here, pushing up from the south—west. it's not an entirely straightforward story, though. we will see some weather fronts running into the north of our high. that will mean some showery rain perhaps across the south—east of england first thing on monday, and then some more clouds generally pushing in to the west as the day goes on. some rain across northern ireland, a little bit for western scotland, wales and the south—west on monday afternoon. the winds, much lighter than we've been used to. the sunshine in the east should just about cling on until the evening. temperatures about where we'd expect for the time of year, perhaps a degree or so above. through monday evening, overnight into tuesday, the warm weather front continues to push its way eastwards across the uk. this cold front pushes down from the north, but the air around it has actually come from the atlantic. so don't be too concerned about the temperatures falling behind this front as it slides south during tuesday. some cloud, some light rain across england and wales first thing, but a lot of sunshine come the afternoon and temperatures looking pretty healthy, perhaps up to 1a degrees. mayjust get a bit of cloud lingering across the south—east of england. could turn a little chilly overnight tuesday into wednesday, with clear skies under the high. but for wednesday, the high well established, a lot of sunshine on the way, perhaps a little bit more cloud at times coming into the far east of england. more cloud for scotland could give us the odd light shower here. but with plenty of sunshine, a fine day with temperatures up to maybe 12 or 13 degrees again. from midweek onwards, though, particularly wednesday night, quite a significant change to come. the highs still there, but this low runs down into scandinavia and it switches our wind direction to a northerly or northeasterly. and as it does so, we not only see the wind strengthening, but we see much colder airflooding in. we lose that mild air that came from the atlantic, and it's replaced by pretty cold arctic air for thursday and friday. so here's your week. we start off feeling pretty spring—like — a lot of fine weather and some sunshine. by the end of the week, though, it could start to feel quite chilly, potentially with rather raw northeasterly wind. welcome to bbc news — i'm lewis vaughanjones. our top stories... one of the bloodiest 2a hours since the military coup in myanmar — activists say at least 38 people have been killed in protests. thousands of australian women stage a rally through the capital — to protest against gender discrimination and violence. despite record numbers of coronavirus deaths — large crowds turn out in brazil to protest against local restrictions. retaliation and retribution between china and the west — as tensions rise over journalism and media coverage. and pop superstar taylor swift wins album of the year at music's grammy awards, for her "folklore" collection.