§ 2.55 p.m.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what cuts were made in the spending of money on the BBC External Services in 1982 and what was the effect.
223§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)My Lords, there were no cuts in the grant-in-aid we made available to the BBC External Services in 1982: on the contrary, there was a 13 per cent. increase over the level for 1981. However, in 1982 some services—for example, to Malta, Italy and Spain—were either cut or reduced. This was mainly to offset the cost of the expanded capital programme introduced in 1981, in particular to improve audibility; and at the same time, as a result of international events, other services—for example, to Latin America, Poland and Afghanistan, for which some additional finance was provided—were increased.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that somewhat confusing Answer—confusing because her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in an interview on Channel 4 (whatever that is) said in August last year:
When I was Foreign Secretary I was told I had to save some money on the overseas services of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done".Does the noble Baroness not agree that damage was done by cutting out the Spanish services on that occasion, and particularly half the Spanish services to Latin America just immediately before the Falklands? In the light of that, can she say why it is necessary for the Government once again to cut the revenue spending—not the capital spending, but the revenue spending—of the overseas service at this time? The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe, it has been cut by between £1 million and £2 million in the current year.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the fact is that the External Services of the BBC have maintained broadcasting levels of between 720 and 725 hours a week among 36 and 37 languages ever since 1982. That is something we all applaud, and we recognise the great value of the BBC External Services. At the same time, over £100 million has been committed to the audibility programme for the period 1981 and 1991.
As regards 1985–86, the grant-in-aid will be approximately £90 million. This represents a maintenance of the previous year's allocations, increased by the inflation factor, plus an additional provision of £900,000 to increase the implementation of the audibility programme and a further £700,000 to help the BBC meet some of its increased costs resulting from the 1984 pay awards.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, if I may come back just once more, is it not the case that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in November last in another place, said that he would be looking for savings of about 1 per cent. of the total expenditure on the overseas services?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, it is true that the total increase is not quite as great as was originally intended, but it does represent an increase. We believe that it will be possible, with the extra help we have given to the BBC, for it to meet the economies for which we have called in all organisations, the BBC included.
§ Lord StrabolgiMy Lords, are the Government aware that in addition to the services mentioned by the noble Baroness as being cut the French and Brazilian services were also halved? Do the Government think that the BBC World Service, in English, is a substitute for the many people in other countries who have no knowledge of our language and who wish to hear the voice of Britain in a language they can understand?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, priorities within the BBC's External Services change from time to time, but the figures I gave for the overall time and number of languages in which External Services are broadcast have remained constant since 1982.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that since 1950, in total hours per week of external broadcasting, this country has fallen from first to fifth and is now just above North Korea, Albania and Egypt? Is this the way in which this Government are intending to project the influence of this country abroad in view of the fact that there are millions of people abroad who look to the BBC to learn the truth of what is happening in the world?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the Government are very glad to acknowledge the value of the work that the BBC External Services do, and have done for a very long time. In fact, in the present economic circumstances the amount of grant to the BBC has been increased this year, as I have already indicated, and this is in recognition of the value that we place on the services that it provides.
§ Lord Hill of LutonMy Lords, does the noble Baroness accept, first, that in the past 10 years there have been nine cuts in the operating expenditure of the BBC, as distinct from the capital expenditure; and, secondly, that those cuts have resulted in a loss of income of over £5 million of operating expenditure, plus £1 million due inevitably to the fall in the value of the pound? Now that we are presented with the proposal for a tenth cut in operating expenditure—the tenth cut in 11 years—is it not time that we recognised the immense value of the BBC to this country and its standing in the world? Why should we have, year after year, these cuts in operating expenditure? This year's proposal, I think that the noble Baroness will agree, happens to coincide with the decision by the Americans to increase their expenditure on overseas services.
§ Lord Hill of LutonFinally, has the time not come, unwelcome though it may be to say it, to end this annual reduction in operating expenditure, bearing in mind the immense services that are rendered by the BBC External Services in terms of the life, culture and democracy of this country?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I recognise the value of the great amount of service that the noble Lord has given to the BBC. I do not accept the statements that he has made about the figures. I have already indicated to the House that there has been no cut in the grant to 225 the BBC this year; the increase is not quite as large as it might have wished. If one looks at the figures for the preceding five years, one sees that there has been an increase in the grant to the BBC each year. It is for that reason that the total number of hours broadcast and the number of languages have remained approximately constant for the past five years.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, do the Government agree that the English language itself is one of the most precious capital assets of this people which invented it; and while the Government cannot probably sell it off for the benefit of Government expenditure on current account as they do with so many other capital assets, it would still be necessary to maintain a decent level of public expenditure on its use and, indeed, its teaching by all media abroad?
§ Baroness YoungYes, my Lords. I have already said to the House that the Government greatly value the work of the BBC External Services, both the broadcasts in the English language and in foreign languages. It is for that reason that the amount of money available to the BBC has increased each year.
Lord Winstanley—that on the last occasion when your Lordships' House debated this subject, in 1981, noble Lords expressed their views loud and clear but the Government ignored them? Does she think that if we were to debate the subject again in these new circumstances, it is possible that this time the Government might listen to us?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the Government always listen to your Lordships' House. I hope that the figures that I have given will indicate to the noble Lord and to his colleagues that, indeed, the BBC has been protected in the context of the Government's overall expenditure targets.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I think from the noises that I hear from behind me—and in front of me, and on every side of me—that I should be interpreting the views of the House correctly if I suggested that this very important Question has had a good run and that we should now pass to the next one.