|
(Baroness Elles's speech continued from overleaf)
The 1981 Broadcasting Act which required "due impartiality" to be shown on politically controversial matters allows a "series of programmes" to be considered as a whole. Either a topic is dealt with fairly in one programme or it should be dealt with in a group of programmes covering between them the main aspects of the argument. Is the new ITC code to spell out exactly what is meant by a "series of programmes" in this connection so as to prevent future abuses of the type which have so often happened in the past where one-sided programmes are shown and no contrary view is subsequently screened? Even if it does, will we be any further forward? I think not. Guideline 6.3(i) of the existing "Fairness and Impartiality" code of the IBA entitled "The Series Qualification" states:
"The Broadcasting Act's requirements about impartiality allow a series of programmes to be
considered as a whole. This presupposes that the presentation over a series, of different points of view
is planned in advance, and that the intention to achieve impartiality in this way is made clear so that
the viewer of one programme is not misled into thinking that he has seen the whole story".
These instructions seem crystal clear. They are, however, ignored. I do not wish to go into the party political aspects of these programmes of which many examples have been given by my noble friends and other noble Lords. I merely point out that matters which are contained in a code are not necessarily able to be enforced or applied, nor can viewers make complaints which can be dealt with satisfactorily. That could also be reflected in the implementation of European Community law from the directive to which I referred which would be included in certain codes.
The supposedly stringent safeguards set out in the IBA's own guidelines have allowed blatant circumvention of Parliament's will that political impartiality must be preserved on controversial issues. Safeguards for the maintenance of political impartiality are needed on the face of the Bill and an independent body is needed to adjudicate on complaints that the requirements are not being met.
I contend that this is a ground to look closely at the way in which the codes of both the ITC and the BSC are meant to provide guidelines and guides to broadcasters. The codes should be available to those both in this country and other member states. They must ensure that both the will of Parliament and the intentions of European legislation can be guaranteed…
9.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland spoke for 14 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
9.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool [member of the advisory committee of the BBC and chairman of the Central Religious Advisory Committee] spoke for 10 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
10.04 p.m.
Viscount Torrington [director of a cable TV broadcaster] spoke for 7 minutes without mentioning impartiality:
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury spoke for 12 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
10.23 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote spoke for 24 minutes during which he said:
Column 1328
…I now turn briefly to deal with one other point; namely, the requirement for true unbiased presentation of news and current affairs, which has already been so fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I should like to make one or two brief additional comments. Clause 6 raises four important issues. We need first a definition of the word "current" in subsection (l)(c). Surely there is no objection to a historical programme on events which occurred more than 100 years ago being put out without presenting conflicting views. However, that would not be acceptable for events which took place, say, in the 1920s. Therefore, we need a definition as to what "current" means in that context.
Column 1329
Secondly, news may be gravely distorted by selective quoting from interviews or by editorialising. Such practices must somehow be prohibited. Thirdly, Clause 6(2) makes it possible for impartiality to be judged over a series. That aspect has already been fully dealt with by my noble friend Lady Elles. But how long is a series to be over which impartiality is to be judged? Finally, subsection (3) requires another code to be drawn up by the ITC and the Radio Authority. Again, parliamentary approval must be obtained for such a code…
10.35 p.m.
Lord Ardwick [former ITN executive] spoke for 7 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Plowden [husband of former vice-chairman of the BBC and chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority] spoke for 5 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Colwyn [director of a radio station] spoke for 14 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
11.02 p.m.
Lord Donoughue spoke for 9 minutes without mentioning impartiality.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Forbes [former founding director of Grampian Television] spoke for 9 minutes without mentioning impartiality, though he did say:
….However, many people are expressing concern over the future of television programmes. It is right that concern should be expressed. Television is one of the most powerful influences in the hands of mankind today.
11.20 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso spoke for 12 minutes, during which he said:
Column 1341
…In my view the Government have been wise to propose just a few basic consumer protection regulations on these new broadcasters. The restrictions are few in number but significant nonetheless.
Column 1342
For example, I am pleased to see that the Bill requires that news be truthful and impartial, a point well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing…
|
|
