|
(Earl Ferrers' speech continued from overleaf)
We are well aware of the doubts of some noble Lords regarding whether the impartiality code will deal effectively and clearly with the areas in contention. Therefore there is a strong case for amending Clause 6 to indicate on the face of the Bill some of the matters which must be covered in the code, Those areas may include the ways in which impartiality could be achieved in a specific context, having regard to the subject matter, the nature of the programmes and the circumstances in which broadcasting takes place; the timescales within which the requirements of balance should be met; the circumstances in which licensees should announce, at the time of the first programme in a series, the dates and times of the broadcasting of subsequent balancing programmes; where specification of individual programmes is impracticable, what alternative strategies for achieving balance would be acceptable, and also applying impartiality to personal view programmes.
The Government will consider those possibilities carefully between now and the Report stage of the Bill. We shall particularly take note of and consider what has been said by noble Lords this evening.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 86, tabled by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, seek to apply the impartiality requirements direct to the programme makers as well as to the licensees. They are based on a misapprehension of the ITC's powers. The provision in Clause 6(4) is intended to ensure that there is no scope for licensees to offer the equivalent of what one might call an editorial column, such as appears in a newspaper. The principle is that no view may be expressed which gives the impression that it is the view of the licensee. It is not necessary to place such restrictions on individual producers, who are subject to the impartiality rules. If the producer breaks the rules the licensee for whom the producer works will be in breach of Clause 6.
Column 389
Those amendments which seek to impose on radio the impartiality requirements applied to television services are undesirable and impractical for these reasons. Local radio stations will include those who cater for ethnic or religious groups. We cannot expect the same levels of even-handedness to apply as should be the case with television services which reach large sections of the population. However, the undue prominence provision in Clause 85 will prevent such stations being used for political propaganda purposes.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 312 and 313 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. These would extend the remit of the Broadcasting Standards Council to cover the subject of impartiality - a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, felt fairly strongly. We do not believe that this would be of benefit to broadcasters. Nor would it be of benefit to the public or the council. The subject of impartiality is quite properly a responsibility of the broadcasting regulatory bodies who can hold the licensees to the provisions of the code and who can exercise firm sanctions if they. do not comply with them. The Broadcasting Standards Council is not a regulatory body and it would not have those powers. The council was set up primarily to provide broadcasters with advice on taste and decency matters and to publish its findings on those programmes which are clearly unacceptable in this area. It would be a much more difficult proposition for the council to adjudicate on the sensitive and far more subjective area of impartiality where it often has to decide the precise boundaries between what is and what is not acceptable. It would also divert the council from its main work and could reduce its effctiveness in setting standards for taste and decency.
I can well understand why noble Lords are concerned about impartiality. It is an important subject and it is important that the broadcasters get it right. They have not always done so in the past and that is why we shall be considering amending Clause 6 in the way that I have already indicated in order to set out the sort of matters which ought to be dealt with in the code before coming forward with further proposals on Report. As I said, the views expressed by the Committee this evening will be carefully taken into account.
Impartiality is a sensitive and important subject. All broadcasters have vital duties and responsibilities in regard to impartiality. This part of the Bill, of course, only applies to independent broadcasting. Some noble Lords referred to the BBC but this does not and should not apply to the BBC, which is governed by its own royal charter. The BBC is, however, under similar obligations in relation to impartiality and I have no doubt that it will wish to consider in due course whether it is right to reflect in its own code the matters which I have indicated parliament may regard as appropriate for the Independent Television Commission's code.
In view of what I have said and the undertaking that the Government will consider the possible strengthening of the provisions on impartiality in Clause 6 I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to
Column 390
withdraw their amendments and that the Committee will feel it preferable not to pursue these issues through amendments tabled this evening, other than those of my noble friend Lady Cox.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am much encouraged by much of what the noble Earl said, particularly with regard to having a form of code of practice on due impartiality partly on the face of the Bill. However, when the Government publish this code will it be published openly, well before Report stage, so that we may examine it and see whether we are satisfied that the objective has been achieved?
Earl Ferrers: I do not see how the Independent Television Commission can publish a code before it is brought into existence. Nor do I see how, even if the ITC were in existence, it could publish a code the directions to which are themselves a matter of content at Report stage. Therefore, I regret that I have to advise the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that he will not be able to see the code published in advance of Report stage.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I understood the noble Earl to say concerning the amendments to Clause 6 that it was the Government's intention to put on the face of the Bill a code or guidelines as to what due impartiality meant.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord misunderstood me. I said that we would amend Clause 6 so as to provide on the face of the Bill the kinds of requirements that should be in the code when it is published.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Can my noble friend table those amendments in reasonable time? This time we received the Government's amendments at a very late stage before the debate started. We now have coming two months of Recess. It would be nice to have the amendments in September and not have to wait until the beginning of October. Then both sides of the House could see what the Government plan to put into the Bill. Many of my noble friends and myself would prefer to have these amendments on the face of the Bill rather than in a code. Until now the code has not proved to be effective. I know that the ITC is a stronger body than its predecessor.
In Amendment No. 92 we suggested that, as the code is so important - it may be even more important as a result of what the Minister has said - it should be laid before the House so that we all have an opportunity to see it wherever we sit in both Houses of Parliament. I know that consultations are taking place now, but when the ITC code is drawn up it should be laid before the House. Perhaps my noble friend can deal with that point or let me know in writing later.
|
|
