We must not jeopardise a resource that is vital to our national security

A column for outside contributors. Contact: agenda@theherald.co.uk

IF you were to ask members of the public what BBC Monitoring is they would either profess ignorance or guess it was the department that pursues licence fee dodgers. They would not understand that BBC Monitoring is a vital part of the intelligence gathering necessary to the security of the UK. So important is this small division of the BBC that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee has opened an inquiry into its future. I gave evidence to the committee earlier this week and attempted to set out the argument why this relatively unknown unit should be protected.

BBC Media Monitoring was created in 1939. Its purpose was to provide intelligence to various agencies of the British Government, to BBC journalists and to commercial clients. This remains its purpose. It does so by monitoring foreign media freely available on air, online or in print. It provides “open source intelligence” (information of high value to the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the security services) by monitoring nations and regions such as Russia, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.

It is neither clandestine nor invasive but, when the threat level in the UK remains at “severe” one would naturally assume that the vital services BBC Monitoring provides would be well-resourced as a necessary component of our security strategy. But it is not as simple as that.

BBC Monitoring until recently was directly funded by the Foreign Office because of its importance to national security. When the Government decided to clip the wings of the BBC and refused any increase in the licence fee, the burden of the funding of the organisation and of the BBC World Service similarly independently financed by the Foreign Office was imposed upon the BBC. The BBC paid a high price for its success in warding off the abolition of the license fee completely.

None of these proposals went unnoticed. In trenchant terms the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee wrote: “We conclude that it is utterly perverse that the future of BBC Monitoring should be placed in doubt at the very time when its services are arguably most important to the country’s security and diplomatic needs, and when it is being almost universally praised by its users. We recommend that BBC Monitoring be given financial security ... to ensure its future.”

The judgment of the select committee has proved only too prophetic. In 2015, as part of its efforts to absorb the impact of the Government’s refusal to allow any increase in the licence fee, £2.5 million was taken out of the budget of BBC Monitoring. Further cuts are in the pipeline along with a programme of redundancy to be implemented in the autumn. Redundancy will inevitably impact on capability.

The Foreign Affairs Committee was given many assurances that the future of BBC monitoring and the BBC World Service would not be jeopardised by the tight financial settlement but it now appears otherwise. When it was suggested to BBC witnesses to the committee that these services might find themselves competing for funding with Strictly Come Dancing, pained expressions passed over their faces and confident assurances to the contrary were given. One of the Coalition Government’s most successful achievements was the creation of a National Security Council which, for the first time, brought together all of the agencies and departments concerned with UK security. But the harsh financial settlement imposed upon the corporation, including the responsibility for funding BBC monitoring, sits uncomfortably with that achievement.

There are two possible solutions. One is to reinstate direct government funding to the monitoring unit and to protect it against the cold chill of the BBC’s requirements to make the books balance. The second is to establish an independent agency with its own budget, answerable to government for the provision of opensource intelligence with the same remit and rigour.

I think the first is the right one as it seems the simplest, the easiest and the quickest. One thing is certain: without one or the other, a valuable resource essential to our national security will be adversely affected at a time when it was needed most. Lord Campbell of Pitenweem is a member of the House of Lords and former leader of the Liberal Democrats.