B.B.C. HEBREW AND ARABIC SERVICES (Hansard, 8 October 1968)

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)
My Lords, the B.B.C.'s Hebrew Service is being discontinued because the Government reached the conclusion that the money being spent on it would be more effective if used in other ways, in particular on the expansion of our educational and cultural activities in Israel. The B.B.C.'s World Service in English, which has a much larger audience in Israel than the Hebrew Service, will of course continue. The B.B.C.'s Arabic Service at present broadcasts for 70 hours a week and costs approximately £350,000 a year.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his 973 reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? Is my noble friend aware that the decision taken by the Foreign Office to end the B.B.C. Hebrew Service, which I believe is for only 30 minutes a day, has given rise to a suspicion as to the motives for this decision and to the view that it is a concession to Arab pressure? Secondly, may not the small number of listeners be due to the poor quality of the reception? If this is so, is there any reason why the broadcasting of Hebrew should not be made from Cyprus, apart from possible Arab objection?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, I hope that there will be no suspicion of the motives of Her Majesty's Government or of the B.B.C. in this respect. I can assure my noble friend that the decision was based entirely on the ground of the cost effectiveness of the service. I am sorry to use this jargon. It was based on the relative cost and efficiency of the service and not on any political considerations at all.
I think it is clear that the extent of broadcasting to a foreign country is in no way an indication of the extent of our friendly relations with that country. We have to broadcast to a country in its own language when its population cannot be reached by other means. We have the closest links with the Government and people of Israel by many other means. I hope there will be no suspicion of any political motive behind this decision because it has been taken entirely on the basis of economic factors. On the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question—the poor quality of reception—it is true that the Hebrew Service is poorly received in Israel whereas the service in English is not only well received technically but reaches a far larger number of people.
On the question of broadcasting in Hebrew from Cyprus, this is an extremely complicated and delicate question, and I can assure my noble friend that it is not exclusively or even substantially the views of the Arabs that are taken into account in this case.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, if I am permitted to put a further supplementary to my noble friend, may I ask him this question? If it is really necessary to save a mere £21,000, winch I understand is the cost of the B.B.C. Hebrew Service, is it not possible to find this amount from some of the other 39 sections of the external services, Which I understand cost in the region of £9 million a year?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, all the B.B.C. services, external and otherwise, are judged by the same considerations of cost and effectiveness as we have judged the Hebrew Service. I think it is worth pointing out on this occasion that Israel is one of the countries where English is very widely understood, whereas in other countries, such as Arab countries, English is not widely understood and therefore a service in the vernacular becomes more important. I know that all these factors were taken into consideration. We thought and we believe that this money could be better spent in other ways, in ways which would increase the impact of our opinions in Israel.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.

LORD ST. OSWALD
My Lords, I am slightly at sea. In his answer to the last supplementary question the noble Lord said "we thought", presumably speaking for the Government. Earlier he said that this was a decision of the B.B.C. He will recall that on other occasions when services have been closed down, it was not a decision of the B.B.C. but a decision of the Foreign Office. I wonder whether he can clear up whose decision it was on this occasion.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, if the noble Lord will study the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I did not say this morning that it was a B.B.C. decision. However, in reply to the question he has asked, I think your Lordships are aware that questions of policy about overseas broadcasting—that is to say the countries to which broadcasts are made and the amount of time spent on them—are matters for the Foreign Office and the Government, whereas the contents of the programmes are a matter for the B.B.C.