BBC World Service (Hansard, 11 December 1995)

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, the reductions to the World Service were almost entirely to its capital allocation. The private finance initiative offers scope to 1098 make that up through greater use of private sector finance and expertise. There is also scope for greater efficiencies. The BBC World Service is a superb asset and will remain the world's leading international radio broadcaster. Meanwhile, BBC World TV News is growing rapidly, at no cost to the taxpayer.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, though he failed to come clean. The reduction must mean cuts in services because it involves a massive 20 per cent. cut in capital this year and further big cuts in both operating and capital next year in complete breach of the 1994 triennial agreement with the BBC. Is the Minister aware that one of his noble friends, when reflecting on his distinguished period as Foreign Secretary, concluded, When I was Foreign Secretary, I was told I had to save money on the Overseas Service 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 Minister disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the reductions are the most foolish and false of economies?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, we have done everything possible to keep the reductions to a minimum. Next year's percentage reduction is lower than that of the Foreign Office—3.1 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. for the Foreign Office as a whole.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, does the Minister realise that the importance of the World Service is that it is broadcast to 100 million listeners in foreign languages which most of our diplomats do not understand? It would be a great deal better to cut the diplomats, who are fairly useless in trade terms, and substitute for them the World Service. That would cost around £5 million a year and save us supporting a lot of diplomats who do not add much to the price of tea.

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, it is for the World Service to decide on the optimum mix of languages in consultation with the Foreign Office. We are confident that the World Service can maintain its essential front-line activity and further increase its audience penetration through the use of the private finance initiative.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, bearing in mind that the World Service makes a major contribution to international understanding and in doing so enhances the reputation of this country, can my noble friend confirm that the reductions will not in any way impair the service but there is simply a different way of financing it?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is merely an alternative method of financing the service.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, but on this occasion I believe that he almost got it right? I agree with the Minister that the BBC World Service is superb, and widely recognised as such throughout the world. But if there must be a cut, would it not have been 1099 better, in terms of value for money, for there to have been a modest cut of the same size in the Foreign Office budget rather than in the budget of the World Service?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I agree that the World Service is a superb asset. There is no question of that. However, I pointed out that while there was a 3.1 per cent. cut in the World Service budget, there was a 7 per cent. cut overall for the Foreign Office.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, as someone who has been stopped no less than six times in the streets of Hangzhou by Chinese anxious to practise the very good English that they learnt from the BBC World Service, nevertheless, will my noble friend entirely discount the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford? Over the 23 years that I have been travelling abroad commercially, I have recognised an astonishing improvement in the service of the Foreign Office which is now second to none in the world.

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I welcome that comment. We believe that the Foreign Office is doing an excellent job backed up by the BBC World Service.

§ Lord Thomson of Monifieth
My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that a member of my family works for the World Service. But are not the Government going back on a contract entered into by them with the World Service? Was not there an agreement 10 years ago between the Foreign Office and the Treasury on the one side and the World Service on the other, to carry out the funding on a three-year basis? Have not the Government unilaterally reneged on the final year of the present triennium and are they not setting the figure for the first year of the next triennium unilaterally without negotiation?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, that is not true. There cannot be any absolute guarantee of funding three years ahead. The World Service would be the only public body that had that benefit and we cannot guarantee a three-year agreement.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in those circumstances is it not peculiar that the Government give a yearly guarantee by way of its vote in the Council of Ministers to millions being spent by the European Commission on propaganda throughout Europe, most of which does not rest on any discernible factual basis? That is at great cost to the taxpayer who receives literally nothing at all.

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, that is a different question from the one appearing on the Order Paper. We were talking of a three-year, not a one-year guarantee.

§ Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposed funding cuts to the BBC World Service will affect key programmes and will be a 1100 disaster for all those countries who will no longer be able to listen to the reliable news always introduced by that old soldier's tune of "Lillibulero"?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, there is no suggestion that there will be a cut in services. The cut is in capital expenditure, and that cut will be made up through the PFI.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, is the Minister aware—

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, perhaps I may—

The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in what has been a most agreeable exchange so far. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is not due for a question.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in introducing the private finance initiative government Ministers on all occasions have said that it would not be a substitution for investment from the public sector? Is the Minister further aware that there is grave concern at the World Service? Can we read anything into the noble Lord's words that substantially the same programmes would be able to go out? That implied a cut.

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I believe I have already said that it is up to the World Service, in discussion with the Foreign Office, to decide what programmes go out. We do not believe that there will be any substantial reductions in the programmes broadcast by the BBC World Service.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in relation to what he said about there being no cuts in services, is he aware that the chairman of the BBC has stated that this will result in cuts in services? Is the noble Lord saying that the chairman of the BBC is not telling the truth?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I do not believe that is exactly what the chairman of the BBC said. What he said on 29th November was that he accepted that the BBC World Service could not be seen in isolation from the totality of the budget.