|
(Continued from overleaf)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wish mainly to speak to Amendment No. 95, but I should like first to say a brief word about Amendment No. 94. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, in the spirit of what he is trying to achieve. He wishes to ensure that we have the maximum impartiality in programmes both in the ITC and the BBC. As I said previously, I do not dispute that; indeed, it is our primary concern.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is not in his place. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned my next point. There is no way that John Birt, the deputy director general, at the meeting last night indicated that he was not in favour of ensuring that we in the BBC care about due impartiality. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, nodding his head in agreement. In fact, I would be most surprised if the deputy director general disagreed with his vice-chairman. Therefore, I naturally assumed that he agreed with what I said previously, although he did not know what I was going to say.
I quoted statistics. I can assure your Lordships that I am only too well aware of the danger of taking too much account of statistics. I have fiddled too many myself not to be aware of the problem. I should not want your Lordships, or the noble Lord, to be under any misunderstanding. The fact that a survey showed that only 1 per cent of the people were concerned about bias does not mean in any way that we in the BBC would not be concerned about that 1 per cent. I promise the noble Lord, and your Lordships, that we are worried about one complaint, let alone 1 per cent. We take them all seriously.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is not present, but I must deal with the point that he made about John Birt. I know that the noble Lord is a great personal friend of the chairman of the BBC, Duke Hussey. He said that when he wrote to him about the personal view programmes the impression he gained was that they were not part of the concern about impartiality. That is not the case. We care about all programmes. We take account of that point when considering the personal view programmes.
It would be wrong to try to put the provisions of Amendment No. 94 into legislative form. We look all the time at that issue and other ideas on rights of reply. I know that the ITC when looking after the independent television companies will do the same. It would be wrong to impose the provision on them by way of legislation.
Amendment No. 95 seeks to give the Secretary of State powers by secondary legislation to include the BBC. I hope that your Lordships will agree that an amendment, at the very end of the Session, which overrides the Royal Charter and provides that the Bill
Column 460
should include the BBC regardless of what is in the charter - I am not arguing whether it could do it - is wrong. I do not want to quote directly but the Minister will know that in a previous debate when he was replying to the noble Lord-
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Does not the Broadcasting Standards Council have authority over the BBC, and as at present in the Bill already override the Royal Charter? So what is the matter with this amendment?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I must make it clear to the noble Lord: Parliament is sovereign. It can do what it likes. I am not standing on that argument. What I was saying was that at this stage, at the very end of the Bill, to seek to override the charter would not seem to be a sensible way to behave.
I was going to conclude by referring to what the Minister said in our previous debate. He said that not only would it be wrong to include the BBC at this stage, or at any stage, but that it should not happen for the reason that he gave: that it is covered by the Royal Charter. I hope that the Minister will stand by that and not reverse what he said in Committee.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, does not have a great deal of confidence in me, but I do not blame him for that. I hope not to disappoint him unduly. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 94, which relates to the ombudsman. It is important to remember that the ITC is the regulator so far as concerns impartiality. We must be careful not to confuse the roles by introducing an ombudsman. The amendment indicates that a complaint to an ombudsman would not preclude the right to complain to the commission. That implies that in some circumstances it would be in order for the ombudsman to investigate the complaint without the ITC taking any action.
It is important that we make it clear that it is the ITC which has the responsibility for regulating impartiality in licensed services. There should be no opportunity for what one might call passing the buck; nor should we create an opportunity to make the responsibility for dealing with complaints of impartiality unclear or even divided. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will not press that amendment.
Amendment No. 95, as we are aware, relates to the BBC. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that we must be careful not to sweep up the BBC into a Bill which deals primarily with independent television. The amendment seeks to deal with a different organisation. It is different in structure. It has different responsibilities and a different constitutional position.
The Bill is fundamentally about independent television and not about the BBC. The BBC is not a licensing body. Its governors perform both a regulatory and a managerial role. It operates, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has reminded us, under a Royal Charter with the consent of Parliament. That means that we should not proceed merely by an
Column 461
extension of the ITC requirements. I accept that the practice of impartiality is important. It is as important for the BBC as it is for commercial broadcasters. The BBC, as a public body, must clearly be responsive to views expressed about the way it handles issues.
Decisions on those matters rest with the BBC governors. I suggest that that should continue. In that respect, I hope that I have not disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I have no doubt that the BBC will take into account any provisions on impartiality as regards the independent sector which Parliament may see fit to make. I have no doubt that it will take into account the points that your Lordships have made.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that every effort will be made to persuade the BBC to conform and comply with the code of instructions contained in Clause 6 when it is finalised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
|
