| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Mar 2006 : Column 245WH—continued
7 Mar 2006 : Column 246WH
BBC World Service (Thai Service)
1.30 pm
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this short debate on the BBC World Service Thai service. I am equally delighted that the Minister for the Middle East is replying to the debate. There are two types of Ministers: those who attend an Adjournment debate and read a well prepared script and those rare Ministers who are prepared to engage in the arguments.
I will make a small, simple request of the Minister towards the end of my remarks, which I hope he will pass on to Lord Triesman, the Minister responsible, who sits in another place.
I want to put this debate about the BBC World Service Thai service in context. As we debate the Thai service, for the fourth evening in a row in Bangkok, there are massive demonstrations. Some 50,000 people were on the streets around the Prime Minister's office on Sunday and 10,000 were there yesterday. The Prime Minister has called a general election for April, which the major Opposition parties are threatening to boycott. That is the context. Democracy in Thailand is in some doubt and great debates are going on in that country.
For the past 60 years, the BBC World Service Thai service, almost uninterrupted, has been adding to that debate and, in the traditional role of the BBC, has been helping to keep the domestic broadcasters and media honest. However, in January the Thai service was cut, so there is no reporting on the BBC Thai service about possibly the most momentous political events in Thailand since 1992.
Just down the road in Lancaster house, as we are speaking, delegates from all over the world, including from national Governments and the World Bank, are attending Asia 2015, a conference hosted by the Department for International Development. This morning, the delegates were discussing voice and choice. It is such a pity that people in Thailand no longer have the choice to listen to the voice of the BBC Thai service. Clearly, DFID and, I am sure, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would agree that Asia 2015 is important for the region and is something that the BBC should be involved in.
Where did the idea to cut the BBC World Service Thai service after 60 years come from? I like to think of myself as a fairly assiduous watcher of statements about the BBC in the House—I chair the all-party group on the BBC—but I thought that I perhaps missed something that was announced in the past year. I looked back to the Green Paper published last year, which said:
"The World Service, in consultation with the FCO, needs to consider a radical and creative reprioritisation of its vernacular output to take account of these shifts in global political and economic priorities."
"The aspiration towards democracy, respect for human rights, freedom of speech and association, which had been the BBC's rationale for developing Eastern European vernacular services, has now shifted eastwards and southwards, and in particular to the Middle East, the Far East and parts of Africa and the sub-continent."
Anyone reading that a year or so ago could reasonably have expected that, given that the priorities were moving eastwards, the BBC Thai service would be safe. There
7 Mar 2006 : Column 247WH
was some mention in that document of the BBC World Service wanting to develop an Arabic language TV service, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, the cuts in the BBC World Service Thai service and others will help to finance that Arabic language TV service.
It is worth saying that in the Green Paper it was recognised that
that is, the challenges of establishing an Arabic language TV service—
"however, any new grant-in-aid funded operation will find it hard to compete for audiences against local competitors, and other established global broadcast operators",
presumably, al-Jazeera, and so on. It is recorded in the Green Paper that the BBC asked the FCO to fund the Arabic language TV service, but received a negative answer.
The next thing we heard in the House of Commons or the House of Lords—the next record of any mention of the cut—was in a letter from Nigel Chapman of the World Service to the Committee Clerk of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, dated 24 October 2005, a useful document that was the BBC World Service's contribution to the Committee's debates about the FCO's annual report. That letter mentions, in passing, the cuts to the vernacular services and says that those are to finance the Arabic TV service. Nigel Chapman finishes by saying:
"The paper was endorsed by the BBC Board of Governors on 20th October. Consultations have also been held with the FCO about the proposed changes. The Foreign Secretary has given written approval, as he is obliged to do under the Broadcasting Agreement, for the proposed investment in Arabic TV and the proposed service reductions."
When the letter was written, the decision was already signed and sealed by the BBC board of governors and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is why I feel justified in putting that decision under some scrutiny, particularly given the change in political traditions that have occurred in Thailand during the intervening period.
I should mention that I do not doubt that the Government have invested heavily in the BBC World Service over the last financial period. In 2005–06, the financial year that is coming to an end, £239 million was invested in the BBC World Service. In real terms, that compares with about £215 million in 1995–95, after which period there was a sudden drop for a couple of years. There has been a significant increase since then—although not an enormous one—which I hope could be sustained in the next spending review.
It is worth drawing the Chamber's attention to the report by the Lords Select Committee on Review of the BBC Charter, which made two recommendations about the Arabic language channel. It said:
"However, a 12-hour limit on the Arabic language channel's broadcasting time will mean the BBC competing for audiences with one hand tied behind its back. We recommend that the Government should immediately provide the BBC World Service with the required £6 million to establish a 24-hour Arabic channel."
It continued:
7 Mar 2006 : Column 248WH
"We recommend that as part of the comprehensive review of the BBC's international services the BBC World Service should continue to consider the need to provide television services beyond the Arabic language service. Further expansion may prove to be important but should not be dependent on cuts to existing radio services"—
as we have seen in this instance. It is worth remembering that, at the moment, the budget for the Arabic language TV service is about £19 million, for 12 hours a day. Channel 4 news has about £20 million to do 1.5 hours a day. Clearly, resources would be at a premium for the BBC Arabic TV service.
I return to the main focus of today's debate: the BBC Thai service. The BBC considered three criteria in cutting the services, and the Thai service was one of nine or 10 that it cut. First, what is press freedom like in the countries concerned? Secondly, what about the geopolitical situation—what British or world interests are at stake? Thirdly, does anyone listen? What are the audience figures?
On press freedom, I looked at the annual worldwide press freedom index for 2005, produced by Reporters Without Borders, the most commonly accepted standard of whether a country has a free media. The United Kingdom is at number 24, for example. In 2002, Thailand was at 65 and in 2003 it dropped to 82 out of all the countries in the world. I looked at the figures for 2005 and there was no mention of Thailand on the first page. I turned to the second page and went past Serbia and Montenegro at 65, Burkina Faso at 78, and Burundi, at equal 90th with Venezuela—much beloved of the Prime Minister—right down to Thailand at 107, a little bit above Tajikistan, Rwanda and Bahrain. Why is that so? It is because community radio stations are being closed down, the Prime Minister is intimidating and suing journalists and there is a great deal of self-censorship.
Over many years, the BBC's presence in Thailand and in the Thai language has encouraged domestic journalists there to be brave. It was the BBC Thai service that first drew attention to the insurgency in the south of the country and enabled people in Bangkok and elsewhere to appreciate the significance of what was happening in their country. Incidentally, the BBC Thai service informed the wider BBC World Service and BBC journalists involved in domestic British output when events such as the tsunami happened.
What about the geopolitical situation? By referring to the London conference on Asia, I have demonstrated how important that region is. Thailand has a population of 60 million, the insurgency in the south has wide implications, Burma and Malaysia are nearby and the interplay between the various nations in that part of the world is extremely important to British interests and those of the wider world.
I turn to the crux of the matter—the audience figures, about which there is some dispute. The director of the World Service admits that, even on its figures, the audience has doubled from 0.8 per cent. to 1.6 per cent. of the entire market. However, I am told by ex-employees of the BBC Thai service that those figures are based on surveys by the Voice of America; I am informed by people who know about such things that the BBC has not commissioned an audience survey in Thailand for the past 12 years.
7 Mar 2006 : Column 249WH
I turn to the markets in the individual parts of Thailand; Bangkok's is an example. In 2004, the BBC World Service website boasted that
"The latest survey shows an increase in the World Service weekly audience in Bangkok. Total weekly reach is up from 2.4 per cent. in 2002 to 6 per cent. in 2004. The audience is mainly driven by Thai—weekly audiences in Thai have increased from 2 per cent. to 5.5 per cent. since 2002."
In other parts of Thailand, such as the university city of Khon Kaen in the north-east, the BBC Thai service had a weekly reach in Thai of 8.7 per cent. If the BBC were to cut services in London that had a lower than 8 per cent. or 6 per cent. reach, a number of BBC services—certainly BBC London—would not last beyond next week.
The BBC Thai service was listened to, as was shown not only by the BBC's boasts about its exposure, before it decided to cut the service, but by the situation in Thailand. A couple of weeks ago, an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation went to Thailand and was briefed by the ambassador on how damaging the cut was proving to Britain's reputation in Thailand. The Bangkok Post detailed the campaign that has led to demonstrations outside the British embassy, petitions and a website. Yongyud Wongpiromsarn, who organised one of the demonstrations, said:
"The BBC radio programme was not just a news programme. It's more like an on-air magazine suitable for every member of the family. Without the BBC Thai, the only thing my son would know about Great Britain was Manchester United and Arsenal".
Pitaya Srikotapetch, who is blind, came to the British embassy protest with a friend. He said:
"BBC Thai had helped widen our world view and knowledge on domestic and international affairs as it offered different insights that we could not find in local radio programmes".
He told his friends how good the BBC Thai programme was, and they were soon hooked. His friend, Pongthep Krachangtip, said:
"I don't want to lose the BBC Thai programme and I really hope it will be kept alive. I have done my best to fight the planned suspension of the service but, as you know, I am just an ordinary guy. I wonder what more I can do to help the service".
Many more people are against the cut: professors from the universities, the Thai Senate Committees on Social Development and Human Security and on Foreign Affairs and an ex-Prime Minister. There is an extraordinary statement from the international academic community, signed by academics from around the world. It states:
"We believe that this decision gravely underestimates the importance of the service for Thai audiences, the BBC and British interests . . . Audiences in Thailand have long held the BBC Thai service in high regard."
As a final demonstration of the power of the BBC Thai service, I cite two letters from The Times. Philip Stott of the Anglo-Thai society wrote
"It is . . . disastrous for the UK, when the British Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok has grown to be second only to that of the US and the countries of the Pacific Rim are rising in economic and political influence."
A Ms Methasate, who grew up in Bangkok, wrote:
"Politics aside, Britain will also lose one of its most treasured and well-loved cultural ambassadors. Gone will be English by Radio, one of the reasons why tens of thousands of Thai students come to this country, and Book Talk, a programme dedicated to promoting British writers and publications, not to mention the highly praised news bulletins that only the BBC can provide."
What can be done? In summation, I say two things on that. The BBC World Service and Nigel Chapman had the grace to tell me that, of all the vernacular services, the decision to cut the Thai service was the most difficult and the one they had to think hardest about. It was the most marginal decision, and it involved about £700,000 to £800,000 in total. If they had to think hardest about that service before deciding to cut it last summer, how much harder would they have to think if the decision were being made now, when there is potential revolution on the streets of Bangkok, and, as I have said, the future course of democracy there is at stake? I certainly back the requests from the BBC World Service for further resources in the future. However, it should listen to its critical friends in this House, who do not challenge its entire strategy, but ask it to think again on this one issue.
I say to the Minister, and through him to Lord Triesman, that this debate has been on the Order Paper for about the past week, and I have had one or two phone calls from Foreign Office officials asking what I was going to say. I told them that I was happy as an elected MP to discuss that with the noble Lord responsible, but not with an official—that would have spoiled the fun of these occasions.
Anyway, I waited and waited. Yesterday I came into my office and my intern said, "The Minister's office has rung." I was delighted; I thought that parliamentary democracy had been in action. In fact, it was the office of the Minister for Schools, who wants to speak to me on another pressing matter. I then thought that, if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot be bothered to ring back, why should I?
I am sure that it was an oversight. Tonight, I am attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association reception, which Lord Triesman is hosting at Downing street, and I intend to have a little word with him. However, all I ask is that Nigel Chapman and the noble Lord come to have a cup of tea with me next week so that I can make the case directly to them that this decision should be reviewed. I hope that at the very least I can leave this debate knowing that the Foreign Office is willing to come with the BBC World Service and hear the case for a review of the decision.
1.48 pm
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells) : As ever, Mr. Hood, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It occurs to me that 20 years ago neither of us would have guessed that we would have been in this situation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and congratulate him on bringing this important debate to the House. We all know that the BBC World Service has a special place in this country's affections. I throw a little spanner in the works by saying that I hope that it is not going to change its theme tune, which has sustained me through many a bleak morning in sandy places.
The World Service has a global audience of about 150 million people and it enjoys trust ratings that politicians can only envy. Its reputation and success have been
7 Mar 2006 : Column 251WH
earned over 70 years and are a credit to the journalists and staff who work there and, of course, to this country and this Government. We all benefit from my hon. Friend's passionate interest in the BBC and the services it provides. I consider the BBC to be the world's premier broadcaster; I doubt whether any other provides such range and excellence.
The World Service's aim, which has been stated on many occasions, is to be the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting. However, competition is stronger than it has ever been, and new technology is driving the pace of change. To meet the new challenges, the World Service has evolved into a multi-media broadcaster. It is no longer simply a short wave radio broadcaster. Its output includes radio, online services and, from 2007, television. To maintain its success, it must continue to evolve by taking into account new technologies, changing audience demands, where it is most needed and where it can have the greatest impact.
I shall come a little later to the point raised by my hon. Friend about audiences. I remember from my days as a Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that I never found two people who could agree on how big or small audiences were, or on the best method for measuring them, but I certainly take his point.
Against that background, the World Service conducted a review of its vernacular language services that resulted in a strategic reprioritisation, as it was called, which was announced in October 2005. The main changes were the closure of 11 radio services, new investment in online services and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the planned launch of an Arabic TV service. Those changes were proposed by the World Service itself—they were not imposed by the Government. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office welcomed them in a written statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 25 October 2005.
I stress that the reprioritisation was not a cost-driven exercise. Every penny saved from the closure of services has been reinvested in the World Service. It will receive £245 million of public funding this year. That is a huge amount of money. As my hon. Friend hinted, I am not the Minister who usually deals with these issues. When somebody put that figure on my desk, my hand began to shake. I wondered what my bit of the FCO could do with £245 million. However, it is certain that nothing could be better than spending it on the World Service, which in so many ways is a great representative of this country, its culture and its belief in democracy and freedom.
As my hon. Friend said, before closing services, the World Service undertakes repeated analysis of their reach and impact, and the availability of alternative sources of independent news and information. The Thai service is one of those that was closed. The others were mostly in central and eastern Europe. The Thai service closed in January, and as I understand it, the decision was not taken lightly.
7 Mar 2006 : Column 252WH
In the 62 years since the World Service Thai service was established, Thailand and its relationship with the UK have changed beyond recognition. Thirty or 40 years ago, as my hon. Friend said, Thailand was a very different place. It was caught up in the cold war and suffered from domestic instability and successive military coups. But Thailand and south-east Asia have changed markedly. Once a zone of instability, much of it—not all of it, but much of it—has become a zone of dynamism.
As current events illustrate, and despite all the concerns and threats mentioned by my hon. Friend, which we must take seriously, Thailand remains one of the liveliest democracies in the region. I understand that there is an ongoing debate about the role of the media in Thai society, but the country has a vibrant and diverse press. Thanks to the revolution of satellite and internet communications, Thais also have access to a broad range of domestic and international media outlets. The BBC played its part in informing Thais and shaping their views over several crucial decades in the country's political and social development, and it can be proud of that contribution.
A key factor in the decision to close the Thai service was its small audience. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the disputes about the exact size of the listenership in Thailand, but it is clear that it was relatively small. Thais no longer relied on the World Service for their news and information. The BBC figures were based on repeated measurements. Some were higher, some were lower, but the evidence was clear that the audience was low compared with other World Service services; indeed, it was 38th out of the 42 vernacular services provided by the World Service. On average, only 1.2 per cent. of Thais listened to it. My hon. Friend disputed that figure.
The service was no longer viable when judged against the World Service's other priorities, but I reassure my hon. Friend that closure of the Thai language service does not signal the end of the BBC's broadcasting to Thailand. The country will continue to receive the English language radio service and online services, and BBC World television is available to cable and satellite viewers. The demand in Thailand for English language services has grown in recent years, and UK-Thai relations, which are based on our vibrant commercial and cultural relationship, and on strong personal links that have grown up in recent years, will continue to be strong. The 750,000 British tourists who visit Thailand every year can testify to the depth of those relations.
My hon. Friend raised several important issues that are beyond those purely formal facts. He spoke about the importance of the Thai vernacular service to individuals, which I can understand. As a lifelong listener to the various programmes that the BBC uses to convey the thoughts of its listeners about all sorts of programmes, I know that people write passionately about BBC services. We only have to witness the current row over Radio 4's morning medley. I well remember how angry I felt when "Desert Island Discs" was shifted. Suddenly my Sundays and Fridays were not the same, until Parkinson came on. That is what I listen to now.
7 Mar 2006 : Column 253WH
Nevertheless, the fact remains that all such bodies must reassess their priorities. I believe that the journalists who were affected by the closure of the Thai service have been very well looked after by the BBC. I made a special point of inquiring about that. It seems that they were well rewarded for the service that they provided, and they were given good redundancy packages if they did not have other jobs. Their expertise and professionalism were not cast aside or wasted. As I tried to make clear earlier, Thais will be afforded access to many other services, including, of course, the World Service.
The closure of vernacular radio services leads to redundancies at the World Service. Because of linguistic and regional expertise requirements, it is not always possible to reassign World Service staff internally. As I
7 Mar 2006 : Column 254WH
said, the terms and conditions were satisfactorily agreed between the World Service and the trade unions, and the BBC is confident that the changes will not affect the quality of its news gathering operation.
I know from when Broadcasting Bills have been taken through this House that MPs feel strongly about the issue. We all worry when news gathering and news broadcasting headquarters and services are centralised and taken out of our region or constituency, and we are right to worry about that. If Lord Triesman or I had thought that this decision would result in a degradation of services to Thailand, we would have put up some resistance to the World Service's proposal.
| Index | Home Page |