South Africa (Hansard, 30 June 1986)

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the situation in South Africa, particularly with regard to the BBC's role in reporting it. It is important that an objective assessment should be available to the nation about what is happening in South Africa. Many people feel that we are not now getting it through the BBC. It is particularly important that we debate the matter because of the obsessive and possibly, therefore, misleading view of the BBC on the issue.
I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that, like me and many other hon. Members, you have yet to receive a single letter on the subject of South Africa, yet for the last fortnight—day in and day out—the BBC has been boring on with little else. The events in South Africa are important, tragic and complex. However, there are many other issues of at least equal importance, not least the Single European Act, yet this and many other issues do not get even a dicky-bird on the BBC.
I am sure that the demonstrating and the posturing classes are much exercised by their concern over South Africa, particularly the extreme Left councillors in Brent and Northampton who are indulging in anti-South African jamborees at ratepayers' expense—possibly illegally. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that South Africa is not a topic ofconstant conversation on the Northampton omnibus.
The matter is urgent because the myth-building potential of the BBC, if it continues to use its apparent bias, means that unless we have a debate we shall be unable to gain an objective view of the situation. There are daily interviews with Bishop Tutu, who favours sanctions, yet the screen is denied to Bishop Mokoena, who is against sanctions. Is he less Christian, or does he have fewer followers? The nation's sitting rooms are papered with flickering pictures of Winnie Mandela, the promoter of the unique barbarism of dangling burning tyres around the necks of living victims, yet we see only glimpses of Chief Buthelezi and there is oblivion for the courageous white opposition leader, Helen Suzman.
Why this virtual censorship, a policy that the BBC claims to abhor? Is it because they oppose sanctions? When the general, all-purpose, stand-up comic the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was questioned on his meeting with South African businessmen, why was he not asked whether they favour sanctions? Is it that there is a BBC case? Is there, outrageously, a corporation point of view? Or is its approach motivated merely by an institutional "megasulk"—part of a vindictive crusade against any policy advocated by the Prime Minister, and in particular her positive and courageous stand on South Africa? Is it retribution or revenge for her approach to Peacock? I think we ought to know.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take points of order afterwards.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
They really should come before.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I know that Mr. Erskine Skinner knows about these things, but the hon. Member for 704 Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the situation in South Africa, particularly with regard to the BBC's role in reporting it. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Later—

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members have the right to move an application under Standing Order No. 10, but no different views can be heard. At this sensitive moment, after what has happened, it could be thought by those who do not know our parliamentary procedure that only one view about South Africa exists in the House. Is there any way in which hon. Members can protest at the way in which an hon. Member has put forward the South African authorities view, using the House of Commons to spread propaganda, when there is no opportunity for the expression of the alternative view which, I believe, is shared by the overwhelming majority of the British people?

§ Mr. Speaker
Frequently, in applications under Standing Order No. 10, views are expressed with which the rest of the House does not agree. There is no opportunity to put a counter argument during a Standing Order No. 10 application. I have no doubt that other opportunities will arise in the days to come, as they did last week.

§ Mr Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an additional matter which I wanted to raise earlier so as to save your time.
Normally Standing Order No. 10 applications are made by Members who want to raise an issue which is of public importance because they want to generate some propaganda for their cause. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), however, was able to inveigle a Standing Order No. 10 application to stop the BBC getting across a message which he did not want to be publicised. In effect, he was saying to the BBC and the media generally, "Do not give us any statements about what is happening in South Africa because that does not matter. We should be discussing the World Cup and goodness knows what else." The hon. Gentleman then went on to put the opposite point of view.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when Standing Order No. 10 applications are made by those who do not want an issue to be publicised they should not be allowed to get past their first sentence. If some Opposition Members were doing this, it is my guess that their applications would be regarded as trivial and unimportant. The hon. Member for Northampton, North argued the opposite of what he really wanted to say. He said that he wanted a debate, yet in reality he wanted to stop others talking about South Africa.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no idea what the motives of the hon. Member for Northampton, North were. That is not a matter for me.