|
11 October 1990
House of Lords
Second debate on "due impartiality"
(as outlined in Clause 6 of the Broadcasting Bill)
Taken from Hansard volume 522, beginning at column 414
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Column 415
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.-(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [General requirements as to licensed services]:
Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert ("whether or not it concerns matters at home or affecting countries abroad").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I wish at the outset to say three things. First, I apologise to the House for putting down my amendment at the eleventh hour. Secondly, the intention of the amendment is simply to ask the Government to consider what seems to me to be an important issue that may not be covered in the Bill. Thirdly, I do not want my amendment to disturb discussion of other amendments. In fact, I shall be quite happy if no one follows me on the point I am raising.
There have been several instances of unfair and unbalanced programmes affecting countries abroad. The latest, appearing a few weeks ago, was about the looting of art treasures from northern Cyprus by international thieves. The programme, particularly at the beginning, was not only factually inaccurate in many respects but was used as a vehicle for grossly political propaganda against the Turkish in northern Cyprus. It caused grave resentment not only to the whole of that community in Cyprus, which was instantly made aware of it, but also among many knowledgeable and interested people, including art historians and archaeologists in this country.
Apart from the breach of the type of fairness code which this Bill is considering, there is a danger that an irresponsible programme affecting a country abroad might even lead to a diplomatic incident and sour the relationship with the country concerned, particularly if it unfairly touched on a sensitive issue or affected some delicate negotiations. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever way be the situation in regard to the programme to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred, I can assure him that the impartiality requirements in this Bill already apply to all matters of Political or industrial controversy, or current public policy ,whether or not they concern matters at home or abroad. Therefore, in so far as the noble Viscount has tabled an amendment seeking to help the Bill I can assure him that it is unnecessary.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I can only say that it was not clear to me, or some others, that that is the case. Therefore, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 85 I have to advise the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments No. 86, or Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
Column 416
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 3 on page 7 and insert
(" (3) It shall be a duty on the Commission to-
(a) draw up, and review, a guidance code
(i) for determining what constitutes a series of
programmes for the purposes of subsection (2),
and
(ii) on the application of subsection (1) (c) in
relation to licensed services;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I must mention that this extensive and complex Broadcasting Bill has been two years in gestation and during its progress through another place it has been greatly improved, largely, I must say, through the willingness of the Minister, Mr. David Mellor, to listen with a flexible ear. Of course, some improvements have been made in this House, too. However, now at the last moment we are faced with one of the most important single items in the Bill which, as we are all aware, deals with impartiality. There cannot be anybody who is not already aware of the word "impartial" and who is not sick of it or so familiar with it that it will never be forgotten.
Since the start of independent television in 1954 the IBA has been placed under a statutory duty to satisfy itself that due impartiality is being observed by the ITV companies. It has therefore issued non-statutory guidelines. However, the Bill as currently drafted places a new statutory requirement on the ITC to draw up a code. The new Channel 3 licensees and not the ITC will now be the broadcasters of programmes - unlike the IBA which the ITC is replacing - and we naturally accept that as it makes very good sense. However, we do not accept the need for the areas which must be covered by the code to be incorporated on the face of the Bill as government Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 propose.
This is the first time that this has happened in the history of broadcasting in this country. The danger of writing into statute requirements which should not be statutory can go right beyond the whole area of broadcasting. It is extremely dangerous in a democracy and a free society to put into statute requirements which have no place in legislation, and which ought to be left to guidelines and for a code to be drawn up as it has been in the past by the authority itself.
There is a further strange aspect. The Government have stressed the light touch that they want the ITC to exercise and the whole philosophy of the Government, not only in this Bill but in all the legislation they've brought forward, has been to stress the need for deregulation and decontrol. But what do we find in this Bill? We find the most draconian set of restrictions one can think of included at the last moment in a Bill of importance and magnitude. Further, no evidence has yet been produced to suggest either that there is any real level of public concern about bias in broadcasting or that the IBA has failed in its duty to uphold the principle of due impartiality.
|
|
