|
(Baroness Birk's speech continued from overleaf)
We believe that the ITC should have the discretion to draw up and interpret the code without any of these restraints added to what is already in the Bill. We have tabled Amendment No. 85 to reassert the status quo contained in the Bill which sets out the ITC's statutory duty to draw up a code giving guidance on the issues contained in Clause 6(1)(c) and to define a series. We believe that the Government's amendments represent an inflexible and mechanistic formula for impartiality which probably was not the Government's intention but which we are being asked to accept today.
If the Government's amendments are accepted inevitably they will lead to more uncertainty and ambiguity in what is a highly sensitive and subjective area of broadcasting. Therefore, we must return to the statutory requirement which is contained in the Bill at the moment and which requires the ITC to draw up a code without any qualification or particularisation. Any tinkering with the Government's amendments will not do. That will not reach the principle and the basis of this issue which is putting in the statute book something which has no business to be there. It is recognised that such a provision would be absolutely wrong.
I believe that this matter is being taken in your Lordships' House because of the combination of wisdom, common sense and experience held by your Lordships in a number of different fields. If these amendments had arrived here from another place it would have been considered that reliance could be placed on this House to reject them. It is amazing that we should be in the position of being the creators of this very unfortunate, unhappy and bad idea. Therefore, in order that we can set matters right, I
Column 420
commend to the House Amendment No. 85. I fear that the government amendments cannot be improved and therefore they must be abandoned. I beg to move.
4.00 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful if I were to intervene at this point, not least because the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said that if your Lordships were to approve this amendment he would not be able to call Amendment No. 89. In my view that would be a pity. For that reason, if for none other, I hope that your Lordships will not approve the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
It has been thought that it may be for the convenience of the House if we take all the impartiality amendments together and discuss them in one debate. Assuming that that is so, I should point out for the sake of clarity that we shall be referring to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 144, 172, 173, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235 and 236. I think that is the sum total of the impartiality amendments.
The amendments tabled in my name seek to introduce the topics which the Independent Television Commission should cover in the code of practice it is obliged to draw up under the Bill. It might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to explain first the Government's position and then speak in a little more detail on the individual amendments.
I gave an undertaking in Committee that the Government would introduce an amendment to indicate the sorts of subjects which the ITC would be expected to cover. I thought that this would generally meet with the approval of your Lordships, as this seemed to be the favoured idea. We produced the amendment, and as a result the heavens fell about us - and, I might add, a good slice of hell too!
The press of course has had a field day. Articles have been written; leaders have been written and letters have been written. Even the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has joined in the sport, with other noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins - who I see is not present today - the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who is present, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. They wrote in The Times in what was, if I may say so, fairly colourful language saying that the Government are introducing a measure,
"which surpasses the worst excesses of the Nanny State".
Everyone is entitled to their view but I venture to suggest that in the cascade of words which has flowed about these amendments in the media some mistaken ideas have emanated as to what these amendments were designed to do and what effect they will have.
The position is this. There has always been an obligation for broadcasters of television and radio to be impartial. It was written into the original Broadcasting Act 1954 and it is in the present 1981 Act. So there is nothing new in that obligation being written in statute.
When this Bill was introduced, we wrote in it the obligation for impartiality. The wording in Clause 6 is
Column 421
virtually the same as that which is in the 1981 Act. In all its stages through Parliament that fact has caused no problem. We also suggested that there should be a code of practice drawn up and administered by the Independent Television Commission. That has been in the Bill since its inception, and that fact has caused no problem during its passage in either House; indeed, it has been welcomed. The Independent Broadcasting Authority already has a code of practice, and to state that the new ITC should have one too is merely to continue what has been done before.
It was suggested in Committee that, if the ITC were to draw up a code, Parliament should see what was going to be put in the code. Some noble Lords suggested that the code, when it was made, should be laid before Parliament for Parliament's approval. We resisted that suggestion for the fundamental reason that parliamentary approval could mean parliamentary rejection. That would mean that it would be Parliament and not the ITC which would be the arbiter as to what was or what was not impartiality.
As the noble Baroness and my right honourable friend Mr. Mellor have said, that is not a matter for Parliament to decide; and that is not what we are inviting Parliament to decide. What we said we would do - this seemed to meet with general approval and it is what we have done - is to say in the Bill what should be the subjects which the code must cover. That is all.
There is one significant difference with regard to the future from what happened in the past. In the past, the Independent Broadcasting Authority was both the broadcaster and the regulator. The IBA was responsible for what it transmitted. In the future, these two roles are separated. The licensee will be the broadcaster and the Independent Television Commission will be the regulator. It will be up to the ITC to determine whether or not the broadcaster has infringed the concept of impartiality. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the licensee should know the sorts of guidelines to which he would be expected to adhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that these are the most draconian set of restrictions ever produced. However, with the greatest respect to her, I must point out that they are not restrictions; they are merely subjects which the code must cover. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is smiling. Of course there is nothing unusual about that; indeed, I am delighted to see him do so. However, the important points are how these subjects are covered, the words which are used to cover them, the severity or the laxity of the words which are used and the way in which they are covered, and how the code is implemented. These matters will be wholly, totally and entirely the prerogative of the Independent Television Commission. It will have nothing to do with the Government and with respect it will have nothing to do with Parliament.
|
|
