|
(Lord Bonham-Carter's speech continued from overleaf)
As broadcasting is now the responsibility of individual companies, it may be argued that they might need to appoint such bodies in the same way as do newspapers. I should have thought that in the case of the BBC and the ITC there are plenty of means of registering complaints and having them dealt with without adding yet another layer to the process. For that reason I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Column 457
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I do so not for quite the same reasons as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, although I have considerable sympathy with the views she expressed. I have listened to every word of the debate. I can assure your Lordships that I do not propose to revert to Amendment No. 86. I approach the issue from the point of view of practicalities. I have spent a lifetime in the insurance industry for which we have an ombudsman; indeed, the previous ombudsman was a great personal friend of mine. The insurance industry is needed by everyone; we all have to carry insurance. There is a genuine need to have such a person available to deal with complaints.
We do not have to watch and listen to the BBC. We do not have to watch independent television or, indeed, the satellite broadcasts. That does not mean to say that it is not desirable to do so. I question whether we can really get an independent ombudsman. As has been said, there are many mechanisms within the BBC and the IBA to deal with complaints. Of course, impartiality is not always possible; it could be said that it is always in the eyes of the beholder.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will elucidate a particular point. I have appeared on television only twice. Unlike many noble Lords, I have no practical experience of the running of television. However, I am a fairly ardent consumer. How can this amendment be made to function? The spirit of the amendment may be desirable; it is the application which I question.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be possible to vote on Amendment No. 94.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I have been waiting the whole afternoon to speak.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I aware of that fact. However, I believe that my noble friend was merely asking a question about procedure. Unfortunately, as a result of the unrest, I was unable to hear it.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, my question was whether it would be possible to vote on Amendment No. 94 which I support, but not on Amendment No. 95 which I am against.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the two amendments were grouped together for the convenience of the House. Although discussed at the same time, they will be moved separately. In the circumstances my noble friend can do as he wishes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 refers to impartiality which also featured in our previous discussion. I agree with Mr. David Mellor who, incidentally, was my successor as Member of Parliament for Putney and is now my successor as Minister for the Arts. That fact ought to go in the Guinness Book of Records as perhaps should the fact that I happen to agree with him. I do not think that such a situation has often occurred before. It is rather to the point that I agree with him In what I have to say. Although the quotation has already been referred to, I do not think that there has been mention of that part of Mr. Mellor's remarks of 30th January when he said:
Column 458
"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 to leave well alone. That is what I have done".
It seems to me that in those words Mr. Mellor struck exactly the right attitude towards impartiality. I emphasise the words "a government of any stripe", I would be equally opposed to this proposition if it were put forward by the Labour Party. Indeed, I should oppose my own government on that issue, as I have done on many others in the past. We are concerned here to ensure that the Government keep their hands off the media. I have always been absolutely certain that that is the right policy to follow. Anything which leads in the direction of giving the Government a direct or indirect hold over the public means of information is something which we must resist so far as we can under all possible circumstances. That is all I wish to say on that point.
I turn now to the issue of the ombudsman. If anything, I think that those in the media are overcluttered with people looking after them and trying to care for them. They have advisory councils, regional councils; they have the general, the common and the particular law; and they have their governors, their charters and goodness knows what else to watch over them. The addition of an ombudsman on top of all that would be a waste of time and money.
I do not believe that this proposal is as objectionable to the same degree as that contained in the amendment which has since been withdrawn. However, it is quite possibly undesirable because we would have an ombudsman in respect of each licensee. Some licensees are licensed in a small way while others are much larger organisations. Therefore, the question would arise as to whether we have one ombudsman for each licensee or whether the ombudsman, under certain circumstances, would need a staff of sub-ombudsmen who would have to regulate each of the programmes. For example, it would need quite a large body of people to keep an eye on BBC Radio 4.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, made clear that he would be quite keen to have an ombudsman in the BBC. Indeed he told us so just now. It is also mentioned in his amendment which reads:
"The Secretary of State may by order require the BBC to draw up a parallel code in accordance with
the provisions of this section".
Therefore, this is not an idea to which the noble Lord has agreed; it is one which is in his mind already and which is printed on the Marshalled List. It would seem that the intention is to have a whole body of ombudsmen to supervise such matters. In my view this would be a total waste of time and money. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me and that, possibly, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will say that he does not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, if he should do so, it is my hope that - despite its relative inoffensiveness - because of its cumbersome form and its undesirability, your Lordships will decide to vote against it.
Column 459
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that it is difficult for primary legislation to set out exactly how impartiality is to be achieved in every set of circumstances. In my view, it is impossible for it to do so. A large impossibility is wholly undesirable. Even a little impossibility is, I suggest, to be avoided.
|
|
