| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Sutcliffe:
That is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government. I actually think that the Minister for Sport should be in the Cabinet— [Interruption]—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. He should be in the Cabinet because sport is such an important issue for the whole country and it
affects all our constituencies. I would be very pleased if hon. Members raised that issue with the Prime Minister at every opportunity to encourage him to make the decision pretty quickly.
We have had an interesting debate, but it has been conducted in a tongue-in-cheek way by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He may be consistent in the issues he raises about the BBC, but he knows that the Bill he has proposed would not achieve what he wants—or, perhaps it would, which would make it even more worrying for the BBC’s future. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) hit the nail on the head in what he said, so we have to be careful. I think that we should be proud of the BBC as an organisation. It has a distinguished record over many years in accordance with its broadcasting principles. It has been and is revered around the world for the quality of its public broadcasting. While I agree with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) that we should be proud of the BBC—that is the only thing on which I do agree with him—we can, where necessary, be the critical friend that we should be; but, in doing that, we should in no way try to undermine the BBC, which has provided us with superb programmes for many years.
I was concerned about the comments of the hon. Member for Wantage, who half-supported some of what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch. That sent a clear message. I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s approach to what a future Conservative Government would do was rather arrogant. Any loss of the BBC’s editorial independence would be very damaging. I hope that he will assure me that a future Conservative Government would in no way damage that editorial independence.
Mr. Vaizey: I am happy to give that assurance.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Ivan Lewis): There will not be a future Conservative Government.
Mr. Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State points out, there will not be a future Conservative Government. In case that day ever dawns, however, we need to ensure that the BBC is protected.
It is important to establish where we are heading in regard to broadcasting. Having listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I want to ensure that the whole House knows that it would be very dangerous to allow his Bill to proceed.
Mr. Vaizey: Given that the Minister asked me to guarantee the editorial independence of the BBC, will he tell me whether he thinks that the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar as a Government envoy, and his continued role in presenting a flagship BBC programme, compromise its editorial independence?
Mr. Sutcliffe: That has been covered in many different ways by the Secretary of State and the BBC Trust, and I think that the hon. Gentleman does a disservice in trying to score political points.
The description of public service television broadcasting that appears in section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 provides the basis for the framework of public service broadcasting regulation set out in the Act. In particular, it provides the basis for Ofcom’s statutory reviews of public service broadcasting. Ofcom has already undertaken two such reviews, culminating in final reports in 2005 and in January of this year.
The Government believe that the framework set out in the 2003 Act provides a valuable starting point for examination of public service content. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the precise terms of section 264 of the Communications Act, which would be lost if the Bill were passed. The Act lists the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom as follows:
“(a) the provision of relevant television services which secure that programmes dealing with a wide range of subject-matters are made available for viewing;
(b) the provision of relevant television services in a manner which (having regard to the days on which they are shown and the times of day at which they are shown) is likely to meet the needs and satisfy the interests of as many different audiences as practicable;
(c) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together and having regard to the same matters) are properly balanced, so far as their nature and subject-matters are concerned, for meeting the needs and satisfying the interests of the available audiences; and
(d) the provision of relevant television services which (taken together) maintain high general standards with respect to the programmes included in them, and, in particular with respect to—
(i) the contents of the programmes;
(ii) the quality of the programme making; and
(iii) the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes.”
The Act states that a manner of fulfilling the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom should ensure
“(a) that the relevant television services (taken together) comprise a public service for the dissemination of information and for the provision of education and entertainment;
(b) that cultural activity in the United Kingdom, and its diversity, are reflected, supported and stimulated by the representation in those services (taken together) of drama, comedy and music”—
as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, drama, comedy and music would not exist on the BBC if the Bill were allowed to proceed—
“by the inclusion of feature films in those services and by the treatment of other visual and performing arts;
(c) that those services (taken together) provide, to the extent that is appropriate for facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs, a comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs in, and in the different parts of, the United Kingdom and from around the world;
(d) that those services (taken together)”—
2.30 pm
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 16 October.
Business without Debate
Fuel Poverty Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (20 March), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 June.
Protection of garden land (Development Control) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June.
Airport expansion (parliamentary Approval) bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June.
Broadcasting (Television Licence fee Abolition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July.
European Union (Audit of benefits and costs of UK membership) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July.
Climate change (Sectoral targets) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October.
Employment Opportunities Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October.
British museum act 1963 (Amendment) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 May), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 26 June.
Law Commission Bill [ lords]
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill C ommittee (Standing Order No. 63).
Sri Lanka
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Helen Jones.)
2.33 pm
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): I am very grateful to have this opportunity to debate the situation in Sri Lanka. Since the conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam came to its bloody end last month, some people might be tempted to shift their focus to other matters. However, enormous problems remain. In particular, I want to draw Parliament’s attention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of people trapped in internment camps, and the need for reliable independent sources of information. The international community has a responsibility to take urgent humanitarian action, but the Sri Lankan Government have forfeited their position of trust.
As has been well documented, the conflict in Sri Lanka has lasted for decades. The 2002 ceasefire briefly raised hopes that an end could be negotiated, but peace talks stalled the following year. As the latest Library briefing paper acknowledges:
“While for a long time it looked as if there had simply been a return to the military stalemate...in retrospect the advantage was clearly shifting in favour of the Government.”
In November 2005, President Rajapaksa was elected on a nationalist Sinhalese platform, and his Government
“appeared increasingly intent on achieving a military victory over the LTTE”.
This culminated in January 2008, when the Government pulled out of the 2002 ceasefire. Even with the credit crunch enveloping the world, the Sri Lankan Government decided to invest an incredible share of the country’s economy in fighting a military campaign against ethnic Tamils. Last year, they voted to spend $1.9 billion of the country’s budget on the military. Coincidentally, they have since asked the international community, through the International Monetary Fund, for a loan. This is for a total of—believe it or not—$1.9 billion. Although it is claimed that this is to help Sri Lanka through the global economic crisis, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this money is actually to bankroll a massive military campaign against the country’s own people. The international community therefore has a responsibility to think long and hard before it agrees to such a loan. If the loan is granted, it will send out the message that the IMF is the place to go for any Government who want to fund a civil war. I hope the Minister will assure me that our Government do not want the IMF to be seen as a fall-back for any country that wants to attack its own ethnic populations.
Throughout 2008, the Sri Lankan Government decided to take on the Tamils no matter what the cost, financial or humanitarian. It has been impossible to follow the conflict in Sri Lanka satisfactorily, because its Government have not permitted any independent reporting of the conflict. By January, they had used their military might to take the town of Kilinochchi and the causeway between Jaffna and the mainland at Elephant pass. The Government had more than 160,000 troops—in contrast, by February there were an estimated 1,000 in the Tamil Tigers.
Tamil fighters were concentrated in an area of about 30 sq km on the Vanni coast. Despite the fact that 250,000 Tamil civilians also lived in this area, it was subjected to repeated pounding by the Sri Lankan Government. The British Government led international condemnation of that tactic, which many people believe killed thousands of people. I am proud to support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, despite the pressure on him from diplomatic circles and all the other vested interests, recognised that it is not right for any Government to behave in that way. Governments need to uphold the very highest standards of behaviour. In February, he and the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, called for a ceasefire and full access to the war zone for independent humanitarian organisations. That was largely ignored, except for a brief lull in April, when the Sri Lankan Government said they were allowing civilians to escape. Many others saw that lull as an opportunity for Sri Lanka to regroup for a final onslaught, and only 300 civilians actually left the conflict zone at that time.
Two weeks later, my right hon. Friend visited Sri Lanka, but President Rajapaksa reportedly said:
“I don’t need lectures from Western representatives”.
Sri Lanka had always denied using heavy weapons against civilians, but on 27 April it then announced that it would cease using weapons that could cause civilian casualties. To most hon. Members that would be a pretty clear indication that it previously had used them and that the original denials were completely untrustworthy. The Sri Lankan Government’s words therefore had no value.
It is impossible to verify the shocking numbers of those affected by the conflict, owing to the lack of any independent evidence, but they are undoubtedly huge. A quarter of a million people were in the so-called safe zone, facing daily bombardment; 80,000 people have died in the conflict since it began and at least 7,000 Tamil civilians are thought to have died this year alone. Even in January 2008, the US Congressional Research Service estimated there were about 300,000 displaced people in Sri Lanka, including Sinhalese as well as Tamils. A further 250,000 Tamils are thought to be living in London, having left Sri Lanka for whatever reason. The impact of the conflict has been huge.
Looking forward, even though the immediate fighting is over, most commentators agree there are going to be many problems. Although the LTTE has been destroyed, the grievances that led to its rise have not been addressed. Many Tamils actually opposed the Tigers, but they are even more opposed to the nationalist Sinhalese extremists. The way in which Sri Lanka ruthlessly crushed the Tamils will undoubtedly lead to resentment among those Tamils who survived the onslaught—indeed, to say that Tamils living elsewhere around the world are resentful would be an understatement. As Parliament has learned in the two months during which a protest has been going on here, British Tamils are anxious, angry and motivated. Many feel they have nothing more to lose. So far they have been entirely peaceful, but it is possible that some will have been radicalised by the brutality back home.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |