BBC Transcription Services (Hansard, 24 July 1981)

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, it is not the Government's wish that the transcription services should be wound up, merely that the annual contribution of some £1 million from the grant-in-aid should cease. We hope that the BBC External Services will be able to continue to sell some of their recorded radio programmes to overseas countries and find alternative means of finance.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which is not quite as negative as some people might suppose; nevertheless, it is a disappointing Answer. Do not the Government realise that this is a false economy? Do not they see that by jeopardising, reducing, this service they are risking the loss or the diminution of a minor but quite precious asset; that this service manages to persuade stations in one hundred countries throughout the world to pay a small subscription to broadcast the very best in British radio, and this gives us a presence and it gives us an influence which is the envy of other Governments, who will immediately leap in and supplant it with free services if we go out or substantially reduce the services, as the Government now intend?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I think perhaps we ought to be rather certain in this particular case exactly what we are talking about. The transcription services, as the noble Lord will be well aware, include music, drama, light entertainment, education and scientific material. It is the Government's view that it would seem more appropriate that sources of finance other than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be found for those parts. After all, the FCO is entirely concerned with foreign policy questions. There are also some news and current affairs programmes specially made by what is known as the topical tape service. This will continue to receive some £350,000 a year from the grant-in-aid, 479 and we can see no reason why the really important part of the whole service should cease.

§ Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when one was loading ships for invasion one always left a space for NAAFI goods, and that cultural defence is exactly the same in relation to the billions being spent on straight defence? Does the noble Lord remember that there was an important general, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, in the last world war who described the work of the British Council in the Middle East as worth a brigade to him? It seems to me absolutely incredible. Do the noble Lord and the Government really mean to save what is something under £1 million on a budget of £6 or £7 billion? Do they not believe that in order to get intelligence you have to make friends, and that in order to make friends you have to show them the best we can do in this country?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Yes, my Lords, I would agree with the cultural value of this, but what I would not agree with it that this service should be financed from the grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am glad the noble Lord mentioned the British Council, because this is exactly one of the sources that are being looked at for aid. But, of course, this is a matter for the Board of the British Council, and we do not yet know what they may or may not decide.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, are the Government aware that protests have been received from over 40 countries in connection with the Government's decision? Will they reconsider this, not only on cultural grounds but also because of the valuable contribution that these services make to our invisible exports, which should appeal to them on more materialistic grounds?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I should have thought that the Government's attitude and position on this matter was perfectly clear, but I would remind the House—the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will need no reminding—that we are to have a full debate on this subject on Thursday of next week. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be speaking on this matter, and so, I believe, shall I.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a number of Members on this side of the House also who are anxious to see this matter properly reviewed in the forthcoming debate? In the meantime, he has brought up one reason which I do not think has previously emerged, which is that this is a question of shuffling off the responsibility from the existing Foreign Office grant to perhaps some other Ministry. If that is the reason why we are suspending the transcription service, or a portion of it, and thus saving £1 million, could it not continue until such time as the Government have found some alternative Ministry or some alternative Vote which can pick up the responsibility? Is it not foolish to shed this service and thus lose the audience and lose the service to overseas people while we are trying to find out who should pay for this very important operation?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I may be naive but I really cannot see why the transcription services should be threatened with extinction, as the original Question suggested. I do not think this is a matter of shuffling off.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, should it become clear next Thursday that the House is opposed to these foolish proposals, will the Government be prepared to withdraw them, and not fall back, as I have heard suggested elsewhere, on the alternative scheme for making similar economies in the money devoted to transmitters for the BBC, which would be obviously cutting off their nose to spite their face?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord would expect me, or would himself expect, to pre-empt the decision of this House next week.

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, it is, of course, for the House to decide, but I wonder whether, in view of the debate that we are to have next Thursday, the feeling might not be that we are slightly pre-empting that debate.