|
(Baroness Birk's speech continued from overleaf)
Column 417
The justification for the Government's amendment relies on anecdotal evidence about certain programmes or the unscientific and largely discredited research undertaken by the Media Monitoring Unit which has been quoted in past debates in this House. In fact, the research conducted over the years by the IBA reveals that there is very little public disquiet about bias on television. We have not seen demonstrations and we have not received masses of letters regarding individual programmes. Sometimes people rightly object to programmes, but there has been nothing to justify suggesting that there is a great feeling in the country that something should be done about bias.
The latest independent research covering 1989 shows that 76 per cent of the public believe that ITV does not favour any political party, and a similar figure of 78 per cent is given for Channel 4. Since the research started in 1976 independent television has consistently been regarded as unbiased. Any bias detected by a minority of respondents was seen to be evenly balanced between the two main political parties, with 8 per cent believing that the channel favoured the Conservatives and 9 per cent that it favoured Labour. That seems to be a very healthy figure.
The figures show that the charge laid against broadcasters that due impartiality is not being observed or enforced cannot be sustained. Broadcasters have voluntarily accepted the principle and application of due impartiality. While they readily admit that mistakes have been made - and they have; it is true that mistakes will always be made in anything we do unless we turn into a completely authoritarian regime - the vast majority of independent television programmes transmitted reflect the provisions of the IBA guidelines.
There is no reason to believe that the IBA board and the new members of the ITC which is to follow it, appointed by the present Government, have not implemented and will not implement the provisions of the code on impartiality. For more than 30 years the system has been proved to work and in the handful of cases where bias has been alleged the IBA has fully carried out its statutory obligations.
The Bill at present sets out a statutory requirement on the ITC to draw up an impartiality code covering matters of political and industrial controversy and current public policy and to define a series in order to ensure balance. We fully support the principle that broadcasting should be empowered by statute to be impartial. There is no query about that. Throughout the Commons consideration of the Bill no attempt was made by any Member of the House - I refer to the elected House - to amend this principle by placing further restrictions on the code.
The Minister, Mr, David Mellor, said on 30th January in Committee in the other place:
"When I was presented with the opportunity to reflect on whether we should make changes to the
impartiality requirement, it occurred to me that a government of any stripe are always the last group to
be credited with impartiality. I decided that it was better to leave well alone".
Column 418
I agree wholeheartedly, as I imagine we all would, with those sentiments. As recently as 4th September of this year the same Minister said during an after-dinner speech at the Royal Television Society:
"Not only do I not believe that Parliament could provide an adequate definition of due impartiality in
a statute, I do not believe it should try".
Yet today we are, unfortunately and alarmingly, faced with government amendments which seek to specify in detail and to particularise the areas of due impartiality which the ITC must cover. Not only have the Government responded to the concerns of a minority of well-organised Peers (one would have thought that they would have been grateful for what the Government have brought up) but there are also a number of other government amendments in the Marshalled List which are aimed at tightening the code in order to provide even more restrictions. One wonders whether Parliament would ever be able to produce a code which would satisfy them.
This is a dangerous road to follow because the more that is given so more is wanted. We shall be on a sliding, slippery slope leading to greater restrictions. It is not, and should not be, the business of Parliament or of politicians to interfere in the formulation and interpretation of due impartiality by particularising the areas to be covered by the ITC code. I wonder how many Members of Parliament and Peers, with all their commitments, engagements and work in the House, have the time to watch a sufficient amount of television to be able to adjudicate on the matter at all.
The danger of what is being proposed has been recognised by a wide range of people in the professions and all kinds of other occupations. Most national newspapers, including those which are normally the best friends in Fleet Street of the Conservative Party, have also recognised the danger. I could have kept the attention of noble Lords for hours while I read out a number of quotations from The Times, including an article entitled "Inane", and the Financial Times which dealt with the matter under the heading "Time to Grow Up".
At the end of a leader in the Daily Telegraph of 4th October called "Broadcasting Folly" it stated:
"The amendments in question here take intervention well beyond what should be acceptable to
Conservatives. To many eyes this Government already conveys the impression of one none too
bothered about curbs on free expression. That is a bad reputation for a Tory Government to acquire.
In this instance it is folly".
I do not have to remind noble Lords that the Daily Telegraph is usually vociferous and strong in its support of the Conservative Party, and why not? Do the Government really want to get themselves into a position where they have antagonised a great many of their own followers or Members? It is not necessary for me to try to support the Tory Party in that way. It seems wrong that in our democracy this situation should arise. We are faced with these amendments and we are convinced, as the broadcasters are, that the Government's amendments are both unworkable and fundamentally flawed. They are also totally unnecessary. Legal advice obtained from a variety of respected sources states that the
Column 419
Government's amendments drafted in this detail are unworkable and could distort news programmes in particular to a point where the due impartiality requirement, apart from the service to the viewer, could often be rendered meaningless.
The amendments would place intolerable burdens on broadcasters to effect the particular and restrictive requirements for due impartiality and balance. They would not want to stick their necks out too far because the difficulties will be immense. The result may be that we have bland, anodyne and boring broadcasting which we do not believe is what the Government intend. The Government's amendments have also created concern that the broadcasters will be much more subject to political interference and litigation from Left and Right than is likely by the provisions in the Bill as it stands at the moment.
The shadow ITC has said that the Government's amendments raise serious doubts about the workability of the code of practice. They may lead to vexatious litigation, including the serious risk of prior restraint through injunctions or subsequent judicial reviews. What is more important is that doubts about the practicality of the Government's amendments led the shadow ITC to say:
"A code which is not workable will bring the law into disrepute and it is unfair to ask the ITC to
administer it".
|
|
