|
(Earl Ferrers' speech continued from overleaf)
Column 1145
Further minor technical amendments will be proposed to the provisions relating to S4C. They will not change the substance of the provision for S4C, which requires the Welsh authority to apply the Independent Television Commission code on impartiality to programmes broadcast on S4C. In short the amendments list - but not exclusively - the subjects which the Independent Television Commission should cover in its code. But how the subjects are covered, what wording is used, the strength or leniency of the coverage and the severity of the enforcement are matters wholly and exclusively the prerogative and the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission. Government cannot interfere. Parliament cannot interfere.
Many of your Lordships were, I know, concerned on Report that the shadow Independent Television Commission had said that it considered the words then proposed unworkable. We were concerned too. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the Independent Television Commission considers that the words I now propose are fully acceptable. It is the commission who will have to implement and enforce the code, and it is content with the words in the amendments. It is content that it can draw up and enforce a code which would be based upon them.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw is also content with these amendments. Unfortunately, he is unable to be in your Lordships' House today. Your Lordships will recall that he expressed reservations on Report. However, he has told me personally that the reservations which he expressed on Report do not apply to these amendments because the ITC is content with them and finds them workable. I hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve the amendments. I know that they are controversial in so far as the very term "impartiality" is controversial in terms of broadcasting and Bills.
Parliament is not being invited to draw up the code. Nor is it going to be entitled to approve it or to disapprove of it when it is drawn up. It is entirely the ITC's responsibility. We have merely proposed a list of items which shall be covered by the code. I read how one influential gentleman in the broadcasting world said the other day that he did not like the amendment. He said, "It is so important to get the wording right". I agree with that. I think that we have got the wording right, and so does the ITC.
I am afraid that some people who say, "We must get the wording right" really mean to say, "whatever words you produce we shall not like them". If there are those of your Lordships who are that way inclined, I am bound to say that it is difficult to find a meeting of minds. To hold the view that the Bill should not state what the code of practice should include is an entirely respectable view to take. But I hope that those of your Lordships who do not take such an intransigent view - even if it is a respectable one - will agree that the Government have done with this subject what they have been at pains to do throughout the passage of the Bill in both Houses. We have listened to opinions, both inside and outside Parliament. We
Column 1146
have adjusted our proposals. We have produced proposals with which the ITC is content. We have produced proposals in these amendments which are workable. It is on that basis that I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister explained the amendments today in a persuasive manner. I am sure he is glad to come to the end of this difficult, rocky road. This is the third bite that we have had at this difficult and important subject. We should remember today that the Bill passed through the Commons without any change in this area at all. The Minister in charge of the Broadcasting Bill in the Commons made it clear in speeches both inside and outside the House that he thought it was quite wrong for Parliament or government to interfere in laying down detailed codes of practice on impartiality for broadcasting authorities. He made a much better case against what the Government are trying to do today than many of those of us who are speaking against the measure now.
We on this side of the House have always supported the statutory obligation on broadcasters to maintain due impartiality throughout independent television. Therefore we support the new statutory requirement in the Bill as originally published, that the ITC should be obliged to draw up a code on impartiality. That is a shift in statutory responsibility from the position adopted in broadcasting legislation since 1954. It can be justified by the change in the status of the ITC. That body will be a regulating authority, but will no longer be a broadcasting authority. That differentiates it from the present IBA. This shift can be justified by the change in status of the ITC, but the government amendments cannot be justified as they would alter even further the fragile balance between government control and the editorial independence of broadcasters.
This matter came about because a small group of noble Lords tabled some amendments in Committee which did not meet with the satisfaction of the Chamber. If they had been voted on, the amendments would have been defeated by a considerable majority. Unfortunately the Government took fright at that point. They should have allowed the amendments to be voted on. The Government had enough support from all round the Chamber to defeat the amendments. However, instead of that, the Government promised that they would return at a later stage with a different measure. That is where the problem started. The Government set themselves an impossible task. They tried to do the impossible. They tried unnecessarily to turn the most undesirable provision into something positive. The result is before us today.
I suspect that Ministers in the Home Office are themselves not happy about this measure. I more than suspect that many of their advisers wish that it had not been embarked upon. I am sure they wish that it had not ended in this way. The Minister has returned with a measure which is the best that he can do in the restricted circumstances in which he has had to work.
Column 1147
He has tried to produce something which is acceptable. However, I am afraid it is not acceptable. I hope that other noble Lords will take the same view. The amendments stem from prejudice against broadcasters whose natural instinct and democratic function is to be critical of the establishment and many of those in public life. I admit that that has always been the case. That is the way the noble Lords who tabled the original amendments expressed it. Criticism by broadcasters is a sign of a healthy democracy. When a Labour government are in power, the broadcasters have a go at that government, but they equally criticise a Conservative government. Each government, no matter what their political leanings may be, are critical of broadcasters. They often want to try to muzzle them. However, when a different government come into office, the whole thing goes into reverse.
These government amendments wreck the principle that government should remain at arm's length from the editorial decisions of broadcasters. The precedent of existing broadcasting legislation directly charges the IBA and the BBC's Board of Governors with the responsibility for regulating all aspects of editorial policy, including the due impartiality requirement. Both those bodies are publicly accountable to Parliament. Members of their boards are appointed by the government of the day. Therefore if any bricks are to be thrown, they could be thrown at those who appoint the members to the boards. But, there again, that is in the lap of the - I was going to say the gods, but it is in the lap of the Prime Minister.
The maintenance of this balance is vital not only to freedom of expression in our democracy but also to sustain the independence and quality of our broadcasting system which, if not always fully appreciated by the British public, is held in high esteem by all other nations of the world. There must be many broadcasters in other countries who are wondering what on earth we are trying to do and why we appear today to be trying to wreck something which they consider to be precious. They consider the policy of arm's length broadcasting to be precious and worth preserving.
|
|
