| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Political Union
8. Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union. [859]
Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet our counterparts in the European Union at the Foreign Affairs Council. The next meeting will be held in Brussels on 4 and 5 December.
Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the closer the co-operation within the European Union, the greater the influence that Britain can exert in international affairs?
Mr. Davis: The Government's perspective on the European Union is that we intend to improve it by increasing prosperity and competitiveness, enhancing internal and external security, making enlargement possible and rebuilding popular support. We get support from all our allies in connection with all those factors.
Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister accept that reform of the common agricultural policy, on which we now spend about £3 billion--£60 for every man, woman and child in the country--can be achieved only through co-operation with political allies in Europe and by asking them to drop the veto in that area, so that Europe can move forward on that front, especially in allowing the entry of the east European nations, which will not be able to enter Europe if the CAP is maintained in its present form?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is surprisingly ill informed. The great majority of common agricultural policies are already decided by qualified majority voting. He is simply trying to cover up his party's willingness to give up the veto on Britain's behalf.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough simply to talk about co-operation, or about allies?
Does not political union really mean a legal framework within the rule of law, which--through majority voting, and in line with the arrangements promoted by 12, if not 14, of the other member states--would impose a state of affairs in which the British people would no longer be able to conduct their sovereign Parliament or make their own choices in general elections? Does he agree that we cannot contemplate that prospect, that we shall not do so at the intergovernmental conference and that we shall not give in to the pressures from Germany and elsewhere? Do we not need a White Paper to set out the British Government's position well in advance, so that the other countries know exactly where we stand, and we can explain our position to the British people?
Mr. Davis: There is no doubt whatever about the British Government's position on qualified majority voting. I have made it clear, as has my right hon. and learned Friend, many times both at the Dispatch Box and to several Select Committees. It is clearly the case, and will remain the case, that decisions at the IGC are made by consensus, not by majority voting. So long as that applies--it will apply so long as we have any say in the matter--we shall stick to our guns on that subject.
Mr. Spearing: With regard to the future of the political union that already exists, has the Minister noticed the section in the reflections group's first report about the place of national Parliaments? In particular, has he noticed paragraph 107, which mentions notice to national Parliaments of documents presented to the Council of Ministers--including those in the home and justice pillar, which of course do not come under our present scrutiny procedure? Does he agree that the suggested period of four weeks would have avoided the recent difficulties over the Home Affairs Council, and the document that the Commission presented there?
Mr. Davis: I cannot comment immediately on the Home Affairs Council but, as I think the hon. Gentleman already knows, in the reflections group I have argued in favour of the Scrutiny Committee's comments on the declaration 13 position that he described.
Mr. Dykes: As greater political union presumably means sovereign countries working closer and closer together in agreed integrated structures, including some majority voting, on which we robustly insisted for the single market, why is that so dangerous? Could the Government not occasionally say that it is a good idea?
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right in one respect; we supported qualified majority voting for areas in which we thought it would be useful in removing protectionism and protectionist tendencies within the European Union. That has promoted one of our country's greatest successes in Europe--the development of the single market.
Public Interest Immunity Certificates
9. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Foreign Office Ministers since 1990. [860]
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he and his Department will not be following
the example set by his colleagues in the original Ordtech directors' trial, in which the right hon. Members for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) signed public interest immunity certificates to prevent information from landing in the hands of the directors' defence counsel, simply because, in the weeks leading up to the 1992 general election, that information would have proved at very best that the Government were turning a blind eye to the re-arming of Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete rubbish. As he well knows, public interest immunity certificates have existed for many years. Ministers do not have the last word on whether the documents covered by such certificates should be made available in a criminal trial. It is for the judge to decide, having taken into account the balance of public interest. That is the right and proper approach.
BBC World Service
10. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take following the publication of the National Audit Office report on the BBC World Service. [861]
13. Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC World Service. [865]
Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the National Audit Office recommendations, which will lead to improved efficiency. The Government have a strong record of support for the World Service. Funding is up by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1980. The reductions announced yesterday apply to its capital allocation, and there is virtually no change in the amount of resources provided to cover its operating costs.
Mr. Dowd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the NAO praised the World Service for its improvements in management and performance since 1992? Such improvements are made more difficult by what he omitted to mention in his answer--the operating cash level has been frozen. Therefore, there will be real terms reductions in World Service funding, coupled with the 20 per cent. reduction in capital allocation which was announced yesterday. Does he not realise that a great British asset, which enjoys support throughout the House, is being undermined by demented Treasury accountants? When will his Department more robustly defend this valuable British institution?
Mr. Rifkind: I have paid no lip service to the BBC World Service. It is a superb service that quite rightly draws support from both sides of the House. I would never do anything to damage the ability of the BBC World Service to remain the premier service of its kind anywhere in the world. The reductions announced yesterday were almost exclusively with regard to capital allocation and were part of a wider Government policy to encourage the financing of capital expenditure through the private finance initiative.
The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the managing director of the BBC World Service said:
"We are already looking positively as to how the Private Finance Initiative can be applied to our capital plans and I am hopeful that we can make significant progress". The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind and cheer up.
29 Nov 1995 : Column 1188
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that, since 1980, funding for the BBC World Service in real terms--not just in cash terms--is up by 50 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman criticises what the Government announced yesterday, he might bear it in mind that the chairman of the BBC said:
- "We accept that it cannot be seen in isolation from the totality of the Budget." The BBC knows perfectly well that when private finance is being used for capital allocation throughout the public sector, it is not unreasonable that it also seeks to cover its capital requirements to a considerable extent in that way. The BBC World Service is prepared to look at the matter positively. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman do so?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are not expecting the BBC World Service to cover all of its capital requirements through the private finance initiative. It will have some £62 million available over the next three years on the basis of the allocations that were announced yesterday. In relation to the proportion for which we are looking to private finance, I can only emphasise that the managing director of the BBC World Service said that he was hopeful that it could make significant progress. It is therefore entirely reasonable for the Government to take the matter forward on that basis.
Mr. Batiste: What does my right hon. and learned Friend consider the impact will be of the BBC's freedom to operate internationally on a commercial basis in television and multimedia? Is not this a massive market opening up for the BBC, and is not the BBC well placed to take full advantage of it?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I draw particular attention to the BBC Worldwide TV News, which is already available in 43 million homes and in 111 countries. The truth of the matter is that the BBC World Service already attracts more listeners than the world services of all other countries combined. It is the Government's policy to ensure that that remarkable achievement is maintained.
Mr. Shore: Precisely. The BBC World Service is a great international service and an enormous asset to this country, and what we are talking about is precisely the capital investment which will give it the further audibility and visibility that will enable it to continue to be heard and watched by millions of people overseas. We have no greater asset internationally than the World Service. Does the Foreign Secretary also understand that he is cutting the third year of a triennium of investment? One cannot
muck about with a three-year programme at the end of year two and expect people to be able to attract alternative finance in the remaining 12 months. Will the Minister go back and think again about refraining from damaging a great national asset?
Mr. Rifkind: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's clear and genuine commitment to the BBC World Service. If he is as committed as we are to improving the audibility of the World Service, which I believe he is, he might have paid tribute to the fact that we have a £166 million investment programme to improve the audibility of the BBC World Service. The sum announced yesterday to be achieved through the private finance initiative for next year is £5 million. If the BBC itself is hopeful that that can be done, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will regret the vehemence with which he put his question.
Mr. Lester: I am second to none in my support for the Budget in the sense that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor wants to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe. Does my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary accept that many of us realise that the diplomatic corps, which the Budget has assisted and reduced, the World Service and the British Council are very much part of Britain's influence in the world, from which our trade flows? Does he accept that some Conservative Members are worried about any damage whatever to that element of the British effort in the wider world?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have protected the operating costs of both the BBC World Service and the British Council from the economies that are being made elsewhere in the public sector. I entirely endorse the objective that my hon. Friend has stated. If we did not take the same view, we would have subjected the operating costs of the BBC and the British Council to cuts. We have not done so. That is an indication of our good faith.
Sir David Steel: While the Foreign Secretary rightly extols the virtues of the BBC's Worldwide TV News, has he noted the point made in the Lothian lecture this week by Mr. Jon Snow, that withdrawal of that service from access to China and its replacement by Mr. Murdoch's channel was not a good example of British interests being solved by private finance?
Mr. Rifkind: That is not the private finance initiative to which I referred earlier, as the right hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows. The BBC World Service receives an allocation of about £170 million. It determines its priorities within that and its ability to transmit to individual countries. We wish it well in the work that it does. I have not the slightest reason to believe that any announcements made recently will inhibit the BBC in maintaining its extraordinary achievements of the past 20 years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |