|
THE GUARDIAN
Tuesday, 23 October 1990
Broadcasting Bill amendment jumps Lords hurdle despite warning endless wrangling over interpretation
Peers agree 'impartiality' rule
Georgina Henry
and Nikki Knewstub
THE Government last night finally succeeded in strengthening the rules governing impartiality in television when its amendment to the Broadcasting Bill was agreed during the third reading debate in the Lords.
In spite of repeated protests from broadcasters, backed by legal opinion that the amendment was unworkable and would lead to endless litigation over its meaning, the Government's proposal won the approval of peers by 155 to 116, a government majority of 39.
The Independent Television Commission, which will regulate commercial TV when it takes over from the Independent Broadcasting Authority, must now draw up a code on impartiality which must take account of "due impartiality . . . as respects major matters."
The amendment also specifies the other areas the code must cover, which in previous broadcasting legislation has been left to the discretion of the regulatory authorities.
The original amendment was withdrawn by the Government at the bill's report stage last week after protests from peers. The revised amendment has taken account of some of the criticism, but broadcasters still protest that it is unnecessary. They have been undermined, however, by the ITC, which said it believed the revised amendment was workable.
Michael Grade, chief executive of Channel 4, said: "The Government's first instincts were right: to leave well alone. The progress of this late amendment through Parliament may serve the legal profession but will do nothing to serve the public."
Peers against the amendment expressed concern that it would be wide open to legal interpretation. Lord Boston of Faversham (Lab) said it was one thing to find ourselves with unclear law, it was another to make it.
He quoted several opinions from lawyers questioning interpretation of the words "major matters", which have replaced the reference to the need for balance on "individual issues" in the former amendment.
"Of course we would want to comply with the law, but I would not know what is the law with which I am seeking to comply," Lord Boston, a director of TVS, said.
Opening the debate, Earl Ferrers, Home Office Minister, said the words "major matters" did not imply there were masses of political and industrial controversy where it would be acceptable to have biased programmes.
"This proposal is to make it clear that we don't expect impartiality to be achieved over every nuance of every matter of political or industrial controversy," he said. The treatment of the Gulf crisis, for example, should be handled in an impartial way, but that did not mean every statement about it had to have a rejoinder.
Lord Ferrers said Lord Whitelaw, who had opposed the original amendment, was happy with the new one. Lord Whitelaw was not in the chamber. His reservations, Lord Ferrers said, did not apply, since the ITC had approved the new amendment.
At the end of the debate he said it would be for the ITC to define what constituted "major matters." It was false to suggest that some new, unworkable test was being set. The IBA and the BBC had always had a code.
Baroness Birk, Labour Home Office spokeswoman, said she did not believe the shift by the Government in statutory responsibility could be justified. Labour supported the original bill, which put a statutory obligation on broadcasters to maintain due impartiality throughout independent TV.
The amendments altered even further the delicate balance between government control and the editorial independence of broadcasters. "The Government took fright after a small group put down amendments in committee," she said. "They set themselves an impossible task. They tried to make the unnecessary, the impossible, the most undesirable into something positive."
Lord Goodman (Ind) said the amendment was a serious interference with freedom of speech. Many programmes would be abandoned or changed. It would make what was a simple code more elaborate. "I cannot believe that the people in charge of our vast broadcasting apparatus cannot be trusted to make these decisions of what is impartial."
Lord Wyatt (Ind), one of the two authors of the original amendment, said that when a slanted programme was put up there should be a right to reply. "We are told this is going to lead to a terrifying amount of dislocation why on earth should it?"
Lord Chalfont, deputy chairman of the IBA and of the shadow ITC, said the original amendment had been unworkable, but the ITC's position now was that it could make the impartiality code work.
The bill was given a third reading and returns to the Commons on Thursday.
|
|
