| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.6 pm
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): I am speaking at this late stage of the debate because I believe that the matter should be considered in a perfectly calm and logical manner. We have achieved that aim for about half the debate, but it certainly was not evident in the approach adopted by that rather disappointed little lady, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who, as a Conservative, was entirely frustrated at not being promoted within the Government. Her suggestion that the BBC World Service would wither and die is the most nonsensical statement that has been made today and I believe that the remainder of her speech can be dismissed on the same basis.
I suggest that there is something very wrong in the House when, for the first time in my 35 years' experience, a Back Bencher circulates a speech prior to its delivery
and then reads it verbatim to hon. Members. If we have reached that stage, we may as well adopt the American system of placing speeches in the record and therefore lose all opportunity for debate in this place.
No hon. Member would argue that the BBC World Service does not fill an essential need that no one else in the world can supply. The BBC World Service does its job with efficiency and with a degree of informed opinion that is unknown in any other national broadcasting service. As has been mentioned time and again, most importantly the World Service is trusted--and it is trusted most where the news often takes the form of propaganda rather than the truth. It is in those places that the BBC World Service is most appreciated.
The BBC World Service is particularly important to the emerging nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States. As treasurer of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I speak with some authority when I say that the emerging democracies listen to the BBC World Service. When no one else could fill that role, they received instruction from the World Service about politics and about running democratic institutions and local government. Broadcasts in Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Uzbek and now Kazakh are a major step in that direction.
It is with considerable pride that we are able to claim that the number of potential listeners, or those who listen from time to time--the total is now 133 million--is likely to grow over the next three to five years.
Let us consider the private finance initiative and the proposition of privatisation. The suggestions of the possible dangers reflect a misunderstanding. If private capital is used purely for building and capital assets-- projects that would normally have to be financed by the taxpayer--and there is what would normally be a kind of sale and leaseback but in fact is a contract to build with a set leaseback over a period, many of the worries that have been expressed will disappear.
What of the idea that we shall be eating into Supply expenditure? What is the return on any capital that is borrowed? Interest on that capital must be obtained in some way, and it is usually linked to come from Supply expenditure.
I am not for privatisation for the sake of it. I support the process, however, where it can be seen to have a direct benefit in releasing the taxpayer from having to provide moneys. If that is the result, it is excellent. It has been suggested that private finance can produce about
£32 million for capital compared with the Government's allocation of £20 million. Part of the Government's money, not private money, would come back into the Supply sector. That must be beneficial. There is much business sense in the way in which that approach could be carried forward.
I have had discussions with the World Service. I have often broadcast on the service, way back from the 1960s. It was fearing a 10 or 15 per cent. cut in Supply expenditure, but that has not happened. It is important--
[Interruption.]--to understand that the minimum action has been taken. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it should not affect any aspect of the World Service's broadcasting. We must have that
assurance. Indeed, I thought that that assurance had been given a long time before the debate. The assurance was not dragged out as a result of the debate. The assurance--
[Interruption.]--goes a long way to overcoming any objection that can--[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. The House knows my views on repeated seated interjections.
Sir Peter Emery:
So that other Members can contribute to the debate--
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery:
No. I want to give other Members the opportunity to make their views known. The hon. Gentleman might be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I do not complain that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to allow me to intervene during his speech, or that he could not do so. I put one question to him in the hope that the Minister of State will answer it when he replies. I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who was kind enough to give way to me, shares some of my worries. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has worries, which are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). What will happen when private finance is inserted into the system? It seems that neither the BBC nor the Government will have any control over that finance.
Let us suppose that the private finance initiative is invaded by Rupert Murdoch or by controversial Arab funds. What then happens to the reputation of the World Service? It is no good saying that we can have an end-user certificate. There will be no control. There could be takeovers. After two or three transfers down the line, the World Service could fall into hands that would horrify those of us who sit on green Benches.
I see that the Foreign Secretary has escaped--he has left the Chamber--doubtless for good reasons. I put my question bluntly to the Minister of State. Will he use 30 seconds, a minute or whatever it takes to set out the Government's contingency plans, if the PFI fell into hands that neither side of the House would deem to be satisfactory, in responding to a basic trust that is at the very core of the World Service?
That is all that I have to say.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Not for the first time, I find myself in considerable sympathy with
I am grateful, of course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for his assurance, and for the personal care and attention that he has devoted to the BBC World Service. Not for half a second do I question his commitment, still less his integrity. I am troubled, however, about the injection of private finance, and potential reliance on it for the BBC. It is almost a contradiction in terms.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that some things should rightly and properly be funded from the public purse. I can think of nothing higher in that category than the promotion and protection of Britain's interests abroad.
It is a great pity that the Foreign Office had to suffer any cuts in the recent expenditure round. This may not be a fashionable view in all quarters of the House, but I believe that the Foreign Office serves the United Kingdom extremely well. Of all the diplomats whom I have met during my travels abroad, I can remember only about three or four who I felt did not measure up to the job. It is a pity that cuts are directed at the Foreign Office at any time. All our ambassadors should represent the best of our country, and be able to do so without looking over their shoulders every second for auditors.
In the British Council and the World Service, we have two of the most cost-effective general ambassadors that any nation could possibly have. The World Service is renowned for its quality. We have heard anecdotes from Members on both sides of the House, and perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to contribute mine.
Some years ago, I was asked, after a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Australia, whether I would go to the Solomon Islands, way out in the south Pacific. I thought that it sounded terribly romantic, and was most eager to go. It was a most moving experience. I found a country that, although very poor, was rich in the personalities of its people.
What moved me most was going to a couple of schools there and speaking to fifth and sixth formers. They were remarkably well informed and knew the names of more British Cabinet Ministers than most fifth and sixth formers in my constituency would know. When I asked why, the answer was interesting, as they did not get newspapers, which were generally a week or fortnight old when they arrived from Australia, and their own pidgin English papers concentrated almost entirely on local affairs. Nevertheless, they were well-informed young people. The answer was that they listened regularly to the BBC World Service. From that, they had derived a voracious appetite for knowledge and information, and good basic information about the world in which they lived, and particularly about this country. They had a great admiration and respect for this country. I could not help wondering as I listened to them whether we entirely deserved that, but that is another story.
If I needed an illustration of the worth of the World Service, I found it in the Solomon Islands. I found it, too, from talking to people from eastern Europe, when involved in a committee on human rights, which was allowed, for the first time, into the Soviet Union in its dying days by Mr. Gorbachev. We talked to people
there--Jews and Christians--whom we sought to help. To them, the BBC World Service, often listened to in conditions of extreme danger, had been a lifeline. One found the same in Romania, the former East Germany and in other countries. It really would be quite wrong if anything were done to jeopardise that magnificent service.
I was grateful for the assurance that none of the foreign language services will be threatened, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will, when he replies, be able to reinforce that assurance. I would be most grateful for my right hon. Friend's attention, which is difficult at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) seems to have engaged him in conversation.
6.16 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |