| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.23 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who encapsulated the mood of the House.
I owe a double debt to the BBC World Service. I worked there briefly, and it is part of my journalistic formation. But, more importantly, I remember being arrested some 14 years ago by the Polish communist secret police and being taken away to an obscure gaol in Warsaw, a very frightened young man taking support-- financial and other--to the underground trade union, Solidarity.
After a couple of days, my fellow inmates brought me the news that I was on the BBC. I was immensely relieved that my name had been made known--it was not just the vanity of a would-be politician at having his name in the headlines--and that it had been uttered by the BBC. For some reason, I did not think that anything odd could befall me. That is the extraordinary power that that institution has had for many years.
Although the giant totalitarianisms of communism and fascism are no longer with us, there are still many dictatorships around the world. There are still many brave men and women, people of all parties--this is not a party political debate--and persuasions who go momentarily to lend a hand and give some help, and the BBC World Service provides a lifeline, in English and, indeed, other languages.
Concern has been expressed at the decision, some 45 years after General De Gaulle made his famous appeal to the French from the studios of the BBC to rally against Nazism, that the BBC, acting in advance of the budgetary pressure and cuts that were about to be imposed, dropped its broadcasts to France. That, perhaps, is no great loss, but around the world the French language remains a powerful instrument of communication. I hope that the BBC will continue to broadcast in French to Africa, south-east Asia and elsewhere where French is spoken.
Referring now to my time as a journalist, I wish to reinforce the point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House--that the BBC is an extraordinarily mean and tight ship. One could mount a different debate complaining about the often harsh treatment of the many foreign language journalists who work at the BBC. They are placed on short-term contracts. Their futures are not secure. If they bring their families with them, they can make no long-term plans. That, perhaps, is a debate for another occasion.
The fundamental point about that extraordinary institution in the Strand is that it is the most remarkable repository of knowledge about the world. It would be a shame if any cuts reduced--for the whole of the country and, indeed, the Government and all of us who are interested in foreign affairs--that extraordinary source of knowledge.
Many hon. Members have raised concerns about privatisation. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) talked endlessly about business values, about running the BBC as a tight business. I found the description of the BBC as simply another profit centre regrettable.
Although, in essence, jamming no longer exists--we can go through it or overcome it technologically--there is a more modern form, where one seeks not to prevent but to buy or financially control the means of news distribution. We have seen the example in Asia of Mr. Murdoch succumbing--kow-towing--to pressure from the dictators of Peking to remove the BBC World Television Service from his satellite, and that is extremely worrying.
Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central):
It is difficult at this stage of the debate to find something new to say. It is remarkable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been as fulsome in their praise of the BBC World Service as they have. But perhaps it is not remarkable, because the organisation is held in great esteem by all hon. Members. We have all benefited from its services when travelling abroad.
Therefore, it is with some disappointment that we have to have a debate on cuts in the World Service, rather than on a more positive basis. However, we can use this debate, as we have done, to laud its many fine services, which are widely appreciated throughout the world.
In an intervention, I told the Secretary of State that I was concerned to have clarified the apparent increase in the PFI to £30 million, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has just referred. It is important that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), should clarify that when he replies. Many of us were concerned that there was a contradiction in terms in what was being done in respect of the BBC World Service over a very short period.
As I said, as recently as August 1995, the joint World Service and Foreign Office capital review body suggested that a further £5 million of capital spending should be made available to the World Service specifically for the new transmitter in Oman. Within weeks, the Budget comes along, the whole thing changes, cuts are announced, and only by utilising the PFI, which, as has been said several times, is not a cost-free initiative, can such capital expenditure now be achieved.
The Foreign Secretary was rather disingenuous when he referred to what the managing director, Mr. Sam Younger, had said about looking positively at the PFI, because, as far as I recall, he failed to say that Mr. Younger also said that he was
That is a much more telling comment than the previous one.
The Secretary of State also failed to give due emphasis when quoting the BBC's chairman, Marmaduke Hussey, as saying:
Most people who have contributed or listened to the debate will accept that programme reductions are inevitable as a result of the cuts that have been announced. It in no way serves the Government's argument to say that such cuts are a small proportion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's cuts as a whole, so the Government are being kinder to the World Service, which everyone loves because it is a cuddly organisation with which everyone is friendly and with which everyone likes to snuggle up in bed. That may well be the case, particularly for people in some of the more remote parts of the world to whom the World Service can be a lifeline in many ways. But as far as hon. Members are concerned, the World Service requires proper funding in order to enable it to continue the job that it has done so effectively.
Just how effective the organisation is was clear to me as a member of the Public Accounts Committee receiving the National Audit Office's report at the end of last year. The report essentially commented on the progress made since the Public Accounts Committee hearing which representatives of the World Service had attended in 1992. The report was clear in its praise for the cost-saving measures that had been carried out, for the advances made in technology, and so on.
On the one hand, the Government praise the organisation, but on the other hand say that, unless it uses the private finance initiative, they will not allow it to expand. Therefore, we need clarification, as does the World Service, of what the £30 million involves. I am particularly concerned about that. It will involve leaseback for the World Service, but what sort of costs will that entail? It is not clear to me just how that would sit with the commitments that the World Service may already have in terms of capital spending. I hope that we can have some clarification on that.
I hope that the Minister of State will also clarify some of the answers that he gave during Foreign Office questions six days ago. On that occasion, he said:
In a sense, that is self-evident. It will be clearer, but that is not exactly helpful at this stage. There will clearly be substantial start-up costs and other operating consequences for any PFI project. The World Service needs a commitment that its operating budget will be protected. We have not had that today.
The Minister also said that real terms funding had been increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. That was the result of the previous Prime Minister's commitment to invest in an audibility programme--which, incidentally, has been praised again in the NAO report--but that also impacts on the joint capital spending review which was carried out which seems to have been jettisoned within weeks of being published.
We know that that is the result of the Government's short-term interests and their need to cut public expenditure so as to enable them to cut taxes. We had one cut in November, and doubtless we shall have a further cut next November if the Government can stagger on that long. The World Service and many other areas of public expenditure are suffering for short-term gain, as perceived by the Government. That in itself is reprehensible.
Many people throughout the world benefit daily from the BBC World Service. It would be a tragedy if some of those people were denied its services, which may be their lifeline. They may mean the difference between health and sickness, survival and death. The World Service contributes to such essential projects as AIDS education, reproductive health, women's education, and even, as has been mentioned, the dangers of land mines and how to avoid their horrific effects if disturbed. Such issues are of daily importance to people in many far-flung parts of the world, and that is widely recognised.
Equally, we need answers from the Government not just on which languages will be cut but on what people in far-flung parts of the world will do if the World Service is no longer available to them. Should they tune into Voice of America, Radio France International or Radio Moscow? I do not know what stations may or may not be available, but where there is an alternative, the BBC World Service is still everyone's first choice, and the Government must give a commitment to ensure that the funding is there to make it possible for such services to remain for people to whom they mean much more than many in Britain appreciate.
"greatly concerned at the possible implications for our"--
the BBC World Service--
"programme services of the cuts planned over the next two years".
"We will certainly bend all our energies to exploring the suggested approaches. But we are concerned that if we are not successful, there will inevitably be a reduction in our range of programme services."
"The effect of the PFI . . . will be clearer once the World Service completes its discussions with the private sector."--[Official Report, 10 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 201.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |