|
(Lord Orr-Ewing's speech continued from overleaf)
It seems to me that that is shelving the responsibility. Surely it is the licensee who has to keep due impartiality, whether it is the BBC or the independent service. Here we are opening up a rather loose term. This is a quite simple amendment. I am sure it was omitted by accident and I hope that my noble friend win now find it possible to accept it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: On this point it may save time and assist the noble Lord to note, as I am sure he is aware, that this programme is one of a series called "Open Space", which gives the opportunity to give different points of view. I have seen in that series highly Right-wing programmes which I found very offensive. However, I put up with them because I know that the other point of view win be given subsequently.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I know about the programme "Open Space". But if one says that an arms should be destroyed and if that were to happen every maltreated child would be an right, there has to be some rival point of view from the other side. One has to match one side with the other. We shall be discussing amendments on this issue. I mention the matter because I believe that programme makers ought to be included in this definition. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: On Monday there was a very important contribution to our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, speaking on Amendment No. 1. He said:
"Television is now the ordinary person's major source of information. It provides information on all
topics - politics, current affairs, sport and the weather. People do not obtain
Column 367
information to the same extent from the press, from schools or from ordinary conversation. They
obtain it from television". [Official Report, 9/7/90; col. 14.]
Surely that reinforces the need to have very clearly on the face of the Bill that the provider of services and indeed of programmes has a duty at least to attempt to provide accurate, correct information with due impartiality.
We can understand that everyone has a certain degree of subjectivity of approach on the presentation of a programme or its ideas. But over the past few years there has no longer been an attempt to be objective. That is the difference. We are all subjective in our approach but some radio programmes and some radio services at least try to have a certain objectivity with which they present their thoughts and ideas so as to give an alternative point of view which is acceptable to others.
In a recent article in the Financial Times, Christopher Dunkley writes in what he calls "Opinion pieces" that in this case the BBC,
"is beginning to broadcast various sorts of one-sided journalism".
I shall not go into the details he gave but they were published and his reasoning was very cogent. That example supports the view of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in proposing the amendment that is before the Committee tonight. Surely the duty rests on those who think that the current wording can explain how one measures impartiality in a service. But how is that done? How can one tell over a year on a radio service whether or not it has been impartial? Surely one has to look at the fruit of that service; namely, programmes. The programmes must be the method by which one judges whether or not the service itself has been impartial over a period. It is understandable that every single minute will not be objective. It is clear that that cannot be so, otherwise, as the Minister said, the service would probably be extremely boring. But at least at the end of the day one wants an average, if nothing else. It is up to those who consider that the Bill could produce impartiality for radio or television serices to show how it can be measured and proved to the pubic.
My second worry is this. If one discovers that a programme has not shown due impartiality, there seems to be no follow-up procedure. How does one complain, and to whom? Who supports one's case? The ITC will be defender, judge and jury, with no remedy and no publicity. One can write and ring up, and do as much as one like - and many people do so - but what is the outcome? It is precisely zero and the programme continues along the same line of thought.
I very much hope that the Minister will consider the amendment very seriously. To say that the provision will be included in a code is totally inadequate. A code is not justiciable. The matter will fall back into the hands of the ITC. Many of us in professional life have been concerned with bodies which are self-regulatory. There is always a block at the top one can never get any further. The rights of the individual are totally
Column 368
neglected and denied. I press the Government to consider the amendment very seriously to see whether they can accept it.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Might it be convenient to the Committee if I moved Amendment No. 83?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He can speak to the amendment but not move it at this stage. There can be only one Motion before the Committee at anyone time.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I apologise. Perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if I now speak to Amendment No. 83 and those amendments grouped with it. If that is the case, I shall proceed to do so. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 83, 248, 251, 256 to 259, 312 and 313, which stand in my name and those of other noble Lords.
These amendments are not intended to protect the interest of any particular political party or individual but to strengthen the Bill so that due impartiality is observed. They also bring radio broadly within the same impartiality rule as television.
The Labour Party, whether or not in office, has understandably made numerous protests about lack of impartiality. There was a famous BBC programme in 1971 called "yesterday's Men" which depicted Labour's leaders as forlorn relics out of touch and out of date. It rightly raised bitter complaints from the Labour Party. Recently the Labour Party complained about ITN's misrepresentation of what Mr. Kinnock said in his "Panorama" interview with David Dimbleby about who might or might not be asked to pay more income tax. Labour Ministers and Shadow Ministers are as liable to suffer from lack of impartiality as anyone else.
When he was Secretary of State for Energy in 1978, Mr. Tony Benn complained fiercely about what he called the few hundred privileged executive producers and broadcasters at the BBC who were shaping public opinion. One of his targets was BBC's "Panorama". He also complained that no one was ever allowed to say all that he wanted to say in the way that he wanted to say it. All were subject to the editorial control of the BBC. I disagreed with Mr. Benn at the time, but in view of what has happened since I am now converted to his opinion.
|
|
