| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the dangers that might face the overseas service of the BBC if capital came in through a front company that might represent an overseas country, especially the dangers for the transmission services, which might lead to the blocking of the overseas service in parts of the world that are vital to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Walden: As my hon. Friend invites me to express an opinion on that subject, I shall. It has always been my opinion that, as a rule of thumb in matters of privatisation, one should be--and I am--in favour of privatising anything that moves, provided that it does not affect or enter into what I call the cultural sector. By that I mean education, broadcasting and similar spheres. That does not exclude the involvement of private capital.
I do not want to discuss the specific case that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned, because I do not know enough about it, but if that is true, it seems to me to mark the limit that one should keep an eye on, in involving private capital in what are essentially, as I say in shorthand, cultural fields, because it is possible to get oneself into some nasty political spots.
Mention has been made of China, which I suspect will be very important in that regard in future. It will be extremely important for us to be able to broadcast freely to the Chinese because, as we all know, there is likely to be turbulence in that country.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West):
Throughout the House, the BBC World Service is regarded a precious asset to the United Kingdom, providing an international advantage that many other nations envy, including many of our industrial competitors. However, we are not here tonight simply to indulge in a paean of praise to the World Service.
The people who work in the BBC World Service throughout the world, in Bush house or elsewhere, are not all saints. They try to do a job on behalf of broadcasting and on behalf of the country, but not significantly on behalf of the Government of the country. From time to time, the Government have been led into conflict with foreign Governments who do not share our traditions and ways, because those Governments cannot understand that the BBC World Service is not the Government's voice and that the Government cannot direct propaganda over the BBC World Service, although the BBC World Service is very much the voice of Britain.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on prevailing to ensure that we held the debate tonight because, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made plain, were it not for the fact that we are holding the debate now, we should not have obtained the concessions that we have obtained from the Foreign Secretary, although I shall return to them later to examine their worth.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke elegantly and eloquently on behalf of the BBC World Service. While he was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)--who has had to leave the Chamber for a short time--remarked to me that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all the things that he wanted to say. I replied that the hon. Gentleman had stolen all that I wished to say also.
The hon. Gentleman gave a cogent declaration of the technical position. We are not here today simply to praise the BBC World Service; we must also examine the hard cash reality of its position and the Government's decision to abandon the three-year agreement unilaterally and to impose a separate settlement upon the BBC World Service.
The National Audit Office report to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes it plain that there is scope for improvement and savings within the BBC World Service. That is the case with any large organisation. The
report also underlined the fact that the World Service provides excellent value for taxpayers' money and that it is continuing to make considerable progress in that direction.
The Government's action in the second year of the triennial agreement must cast doubt upon their good intentions in the matter. How can a three-year agreement be broken unilaterally at any stage? What will be the status of the 1997-98 agreement? I believe that that agreement will be negotiated under different management, so to speak. None the less, if a Government give their word that an agreement shall last for three, five or however many years, they must honour that commitment. An agreement cannot be unilaterally re-examined, and the Government have destroyed their credibility in the matter.
The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers have faced questioning about BBC World Service funding during Foreign Office questions on the past two occasions and I was fortunate to be called to speak both times. On the first occasion, the Foreign Secretary quoted personnel at the BBC World Service very selectively--as he did again earlier this evening--in order to justify his position. He quoted the managing director, Mr. Younger, as saying that the World Service was looking at the application of the private finance initiative. He continued:
The Foreign Secretary did not go on to quote Mr. Younger's next comment:
The Foreign Secretary also quoted the chairman of the BBC up to the point when he said:
The chairman went on to say:
That brings me to the PFI and what has been said about it. No one, including the Foreign Secretary, has confirmed whether the Government are prepared to underwrite the on-going negative revenue effects of a successful PFI. In BBC World Service terms, the more successful it is, the greater effect it will have on the operating budget. Are the Government prepared to underwrite it and, therefore, insulate the World Service from the effects of increased revenue payments? If they are not, they are simply seeking to buy a short-term benefit from reducing capital today at the expense of long-term liabilities on the operating budget tomorrow.
The perceived independence of the BBC is at the heart of its international reputation. The hon. Member for Leominster referred to the effects of the television transmitter and to the problems with the Star satellite in Asia. Hon. Members should consider that situation for a few moments. The satellite used to carry BBC World Service Television--it is not funded by the same agreement, but it provides an instrumental lesson--to the far east. It was bought by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch--if it was not News International, it was certainly one of its subsidiaries.
Mr. Murdoch wanted to beam programmes into China, but the Chinese Government objected most strongly to the line that they believed the BBC and Britain were taking with regard to Hong Kong. As a consequence, the Chinese Government blackmailed--I hesitate to use that word, but I believe that the House will understand the pressure that was applied--Murdoch television to replace BBC World Service Television on the satellite. They were ultimately successful, as I believe that it has now been replaced by CNN or something else.
That means that a large part of south-east Asia cannot receive BBC World Service Television. It demonstrates clearly that once the infrastructure is in private hands, it is susceptible to political interference and corruption. I think that that serves as a lesson for the BBC in the future.
I come now to the purpose and the effect of the BBC World Service. I do not think that we are being culturally myopic or adopting a little Englander or little Britain mentality if we say that the BBC World Service is the best in the world. One of my constituents, who is also a very good friend, is a Sri Lankan Tamil with relatives living in Sri Lanka. When Rajiv Gandhi decided to send the ill-fated Indian peacekeeping force to intervene in the civil war in Sri Lanka and it invaded the north of the island, my friend was obviously very concerned about his family's fate. He contacted his relatives in Colombo in order to ascertain whether everything was all right.
"Equally, we will be taking a fresh look at the scope for further efficiency".
"However, I am greatly concerned at the possible implications for our programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
"On the other hand, I am worried lest these proposed cuts will have a greater effect on our service than is immediately apparent".
"As we explore the Private Finance Initiative and other projects, we will keep the Foreign Office closely informed of our progress in minimising damage"--
he did not say "avoiding damage"--
"to the services we supply to over 133 million people".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |