Main Index

This is the mammoth nine-hour House of Lords debate on the 1990 Broadcasting Bill that provided the catalyst for the strengthening the then current 1981 Broadcasting Act's requirement for broadcasters to report political issues with "due impartiality". 
    Three Peers in particular express concern at the alleged flouting of the existing law by Britain's broadcast media: Lord Orr-Ewing, (former BBC producer and Member of the Royal Commission on Conduct in Public Life); Lord Wyatt of Weeford (journalist, co-founder of BBC "Panorama" and a former Labour MP); and Baroness Cox (an authority on human rights issues).  Together they propose several amendments that would result in the forthcoming ITC's Programme Code having statutory force with specific emphasis on the need to report political issues impartially.

House of Lords debate No.1 (extracts) (5 June 1990)

The first of three Lords debates concerned solely with new "due impartiality" amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.  Twenty Peers contribute in a session lasting two hours.  Those who oppose amendments nevertheless stress the importance of broadcasters maintaining impartiality in the reporting of political issues.

House of Lords debate No.2: (11 July 1990)

Britain's broadcasters make known their opposition to the strengthening of the Bill's impartiality clause through Opposition Peers and Peers with broadcasting backgrounds.  In a heated debate lasting three hours, Opposition Peers cite broadcasters' claims that the amendments are unworkable and would lead to legal actions; and that they are an assault on freedom of expression.  Peers supporting the amendments claim that they are the opposite of censorship and would provide for greater freedom of expression.

House of Lords debate No.3: (11 Oct 1990)

Broadcasting Peers and Labour Peers alike continue their opposition to the impartiality amendments on the grounds that they amount to censorship of free speech; and raise a new objection to the term "major matters" (with respect to political issues) which they claim is indefinable and would lead to legal actions.  The Leader of the Labour Peers opposes the amendments but stresses her support for the principle of statutory enforcement of "due impartiality" in the broadcasting of political issues.  After over two hours of heated debate the amendments are voted through 155 votes for ('Contents') versus 116 against ('Not-Contents')

House of Lords debate No.4: (22 Oct 1990)

In this Commons debate, as in the Upper Chamber the Labour and LibDem Opposition adopt the media's characterisation of the "due impartiality" requirement as being censorship of free speech.  A couple of Conservative MPs concur whilst others allege widespread disregard for the existing requirement for "due impartiality" and imply that its cause is Left-wing bias within the media.  At the end of the debate the Lords amendments are passed 268 votes for ('Ayes') versus 181 against ('Noes').

House of Commons debate (25 Oct 1990)