| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.27 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): It is always a pleasure--I hope that I am being duly chivalrous--to follow the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), even if I am tempted to be somewhat more caustic bearing in mind the fact that she made my new year considerably more active than it might otherwise have been.
I hope in this speech at least to say something that my hon. Friends do not know that I am going to say before I say it. I will be succinct because many hon. Members want to speak. First, I shall briefly talk about my personal connections with the BBC World Service. I am sure that the memories of many hon. Members will be similar.
My connection goes back to a Cambridge university expedition in 1961 across mountains and deserts which involved camping and all the rest of it. What happened to me then can be summed up by the only quotation that I want to use, because it says it all. It is from a letter that came to me from Sarah Reynolds in Suffolk as a result of the publicity surrounding the financial problems of the World Service. She wrote also to her own Member of Parliament.
Sarah Reynolds was on the edge of the Sahara desert in temperatures of 45 deg C. She wrote:
That is what she was told.
I shall telescope my comments by adding that, many years ago, I married an Iranian woman. By means of stories and a history which are too long to relate, the 1979 Iranian revolution occurred--when Ayatollah Khomeini was sitting under a tree in Paris, as some hon. Members may remember--and there was a considerable outcry against the BBC World Service, which also affected the British Government, from the Shah of Iran's Government.
I found myself on the other side of the fence, in the sense that I was asked by the then Iranian embassy to act in effect as an unofficial monitor of the BBC World Service. I spent some days over there scrutinising the scripts, including what had been left in and left out, according to the editor's pencil. I have no doubt that, although a Government who were a prominent ally of this country fell in that revolution--the final consequences of it have not yet been seen--the BBC World Service, much to the detriment of my wife's family, told the truth. Long may it continue to do so.
Since 1985, I have had the pleasure of helping to lead various World Service campaigns in the House, but it has not been roses, roses all the way--it is not today. Bearing in mind the enormous service that the BBC has rendered to the country, it has always had difficulty in making its case. We have seen elements of that difficulty in this debate. As this has been mentioned, I remind the House that, although we are grateful for the Government's audibility programme, which began in 1982, there was a considerable campaign, lasting several years, during the
mid-1980s to get BBC World Service Television off the ground. The then Prime Minister resisted the launch of that project, during which time CNN took off. I firmly believe that, had World Service Television got off the ground when we wanted it to, CNN would not be in its present position of almost world paramountcy.
We had to mount another campaign at the beginning of this Parliament, in the 1992-93 Session, in relation to the triennium that is still running in the current financial year. I am grateful for all the support that the all-party early-day motion received--400 signatures. I think that the House, by choosing to express its appreciation of the BBC World Service through so many signatures, and bearing in mind those who do not or cannot sign early-day motions, passed its verdict. That was the third largest number of signatures to an early-day motion, coming after something like maternity and the second world war. That was the sort of class that we were in.
The objective of my speech and the debate is to underline the importance of the work of the World Service. I shall limit myself to mentioning specific points on that subject and discussing the need to protect the World Service's operating budget, our major concern, for the next triennium, 1997 to 2000.
I should, however, first briefly mention the specific work of the service. Many of the words of praise for the World Service should also, in some measure, be addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is beginning to get a slight complex--I have sympathy with it--about the massive outcry on behalf of the World Service. We should also not forget the important representative work that is done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or our old friend, the British Council. I could expand on that, but this debate is on the BBC World Service, for which the House has already shown its support.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that we could maintain the World Service's budget if we really wanted to do so, and that the money involved is not very great. There must be a Treasury fault line somewhere. In government, one understands that, when one is engaged on a tough public expenditure round, cuts must be seen to be fair and distributed across the board. Any system that is not sufficiently flexible to protect something like the BBC World Service cannot, by definition, be a very good one.
We have discussed the plans for the future of the World Service, and it has been praised. I want to discuss its budget. First of all--as has been merely mentioned, not underlined--the World Service is already making efficiency savings, and has been for some considerable time. It has recently been the beneficiary of a very favourable National Audit Office report, and I should like to think that such checking and cross-checking had an effect on a tight public expenditure round. Only last summer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service conducted a capital review, which was made public in August 1995.
The review identified, perhaps before the Treasury came into the picture, a considerable need to increase capital expenditure during the next triennium. Perhaps it is intended that that expenditure will be derived through different means--the private finance initiative. I am very
close to the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on that. The PFI generally seems, in the almost frenzied atmosphere that surrounds Budgets these days, to be assuming an almost holy role: the PFI is brought in on this, and it is wheeled in on that. We are dealing with something that is not necessarily the easiest area for the PFI. The private sector is not always the best risk taker.
The great reliance on Masirah island and the plan for a middle east relay station in Oman account for the vast proportion of £32 million. The relay station is a classic example of where the PFI could be used, because it is located in the middle of a turbulent region. It will be interesting to see whether the private sector will come forward as required to fund that development.
Many of the sites and much of the plant with which we are concerned require improvement and modernisation. They are in need of infrastructural improvement, rather than being natural candidates for the PFI.
Last, but not least, foreign Governments like to be dealing Government-to-Government, and they see the BBC as a part of the Government, although they all know that it is not. More important, however, those Governments have trust and confidence in the BBC's independence. That must not be undermined for any reason.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this issue. Is there anything to stop Mr. Murdoch or controversial Arab-based funds, for example, becoming part of the PFI? What would that do to the reputation of the World Service?
Mr. Temple-Morris:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that question, because the Government of the day will have to keep a careful eye on that during the unfolding events. BBC World Service Television in the far east has also had its life made much more difficult because of a certain satellite which was bought up by Mr. Murdoch. So the lesson is there to be learnt.
I should like to end with my central anxiety. It was encompassed largely by an intervention I made earlier which was similar to one or two other interventions. The BBC World Service is already absorbing cuts during the current triennium. It has accepted the reduction in its capital budget--it is not arguing about that; it will absorb that. This is the first time, in the current financial year, that the budget for a triennium has been disturbed during its passage. Although we all say how marvellous the BBC World Service is, we must realise that it must remain competitive and preserve its position. It is way ahead of the field and it must stay there. It is undoubtedly in the national interest to improve and expand the service.
On the issue of money, there are some differences in the figures, but there is a planned cut in Her Majesty's Government's capital and current contributions to the World Service budget. If the private finance initiative, on which reliance is placed--good luck to it--is successful and becomes more successful, that will have an obvious effect on the operating budget of the BBC World Service. We cannot consider one without the other.
As became clear during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a key question to be asked in relation to the motion and the amendment. That question is whether, in the light of what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the PFI, there is likely to be a reduction in the range of foreign language
broadcasts. That is what the issues boil down to. It is difficult to vote against either the motion or the amendment. A further question for me is whether one can possibly support the Opposition motion or abstain from voting on it.
"I heard voices outside and the sound of static. Upon investigation I found a group of people crowded around a tiny transistor radio. They were listening to the BBC World Service (Africa service in French).
When the News was over, I asked them why they did not tune in to Radio Niger--it would be so much easier to listen to. 'Because we would hear what the government wants us to hear,' I was told.
'We can trust the news we hear from the BBC to be the truth.'
'Would it not be easier to listen to Radio France International?' I asked. 'We prefer to listen to the BBC World Service.'"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |