HL Deb 21 February 1973 vol 339 cc225-38

7.45 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the light of the recent decision of the House of Commons against televising proceedings, and in view the fact that television has become the basic vehicle of news and information to the majority of the people, they will now insist that, in terms of Clause 13(1) and (2) of the Licence and Agreement, regular reports of the proceedings of Parliament are broadcast on B.B.C. 1 on the same lines as "Today in Parliament" on Radio 4. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I hasten to assure your Lordships that the Question has nothing to do with televising the proceedings of Parliament. I asked an Unstarred Question in somewhat similar terms on June 22, 1971, and the reply I received on that occasion was that whereas under Section 13(4) of the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement the Minister may require the Corporation to refrain from publishing anything, he has no power to direct that any matter shall be broadcast. I was not altogether satisfied with that reply, but, it being an Unstarred Question, no more could be said. In any case the position was that the problem of televising the proceedings of Parliament had still to be decided in another place.

My Lords, I hardly expect to be satisfied with the reply of my noble friend to-night, though I keep on hoping that some day some Government, on behalf of Parliament as a whole, will face up to the present situation. I do not see this as any Party matter. I believe sincerely, even passionately, that as things stand the public is not sufficiently informed about the processes of Parliament, and that their indifference stems from the fact that they have little or no access to news of what actually goes on in the Palace of Westminster. Such inquiries as I have made go to show that many people are interested, but they have no information on the subject, hence their frustrated indifference. I would not have ventured to trespass again on your Lordships' time had it not been that since that Question in 1971 to which I referred, four important changes have taken place in the situation. The first is the spread of colour television, which is so marvellous that television has unquestionably established the "box" if I may so call it, as was quoted in a leader, I think in the Telegraph: as the basic vehicle of news and information to the majority of the people. The second change is that Parliament has now decided not to go forward with televising its proceedings and the third is that there has been a change of B.B.C. chairmanship, though I have no knowledge of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, any more than I have of the views on the subject of Sir Michael Swann. But the fact is that there has been a "new broom" installed.

The fourth change, my Lords, is that the programme "To-day in Parliament" on Radio 4 is no longer, after April 1—a rather ominous date—to be at 10.45 p.m. When is it to be broadcast? I am credibly informed at 11.00 p.m. The new Radio 4 schedule, as reported in the Press by the correspondents, indicates that "A Book at Bedtime" will be read at 10.15 p.m. and a new arty, musical theatrical review programme, called "Kaleidoscope", will run from 10.30 until 11.00 p.m. So "To-day in Parliament" is to be broadcast three-quarters of an hour after "A Book at Bedtime". Verb sap! This, my Lords, tends to illustrate my contention that the most important Parliamentary programme is being pushed into a corner. Is it surprising that the people as a whole know little, and consequentially care mighty little, about it?

The Press, other than the "heavies" give little or no space to it. Even the "heavies" give it less space than they gave a number of years ago. Incidentally, the cost of buying two newspapers, say one "heavy" and one "popular", for a year is much more than the cost of running and licensing a television set. On the radio the B.B.C. programmes "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" are superb examples, in my opinion, of what can be done in 15 minutes; though "Today in Parliament" is now reduced to 14 minutes by some sort of programme parade. I do not know what it costs to produce, but whatever it is, I believe that Parliament and the people are heavily in debt to the staff concerned: the B.B.C. certainly get their money's worth in terms of skilfully edited and produced, unbiased and up-to-the-minute material. But who listens to it? The "Today in Parliament" rating, according to the figure given to me by the B.B.C., is 150,000. "The Archers" rate at 1½ million; and on television "Nationwide", between six and seven o'clock, rates at 8 million. The time of 10.45 p.m. is too late for working folk, though some listen in bed; and a later hour of course would mean still fewer listeners. But for "Yesterday in Parliament" at 8.45 a.m. the bulk of the population are at work. It has a rating then of about 1 million. Who are the listeners? They are mainly retired folk, housewives in their homes and white-collar commuters listening to car radios.

Section 13(2) of the B.B.C.'s Licensing Agreement reads as follows: The Corporation shall broadcast an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. By the way, my Lords, the B.B.C. started programmes of this nature before it was ever in their Charter, and the section that I have read was drafted before there was ever a television service. These two programmes certainly comply with the letter of the Agreement. But do they comply with the spirit of it in present-day conditions? Of course the B.B.C. contend that there is other coverage of Parliament, both on radio and television. This is partially so; but it is processed stuff. It does not meet with the requirements that I have just read, in which respect "Today in Parliament" stands alone with its sister programme of the following day. There is "The Week in Westminster" at 9.45 on Saturday morning for 30 minutes. That is not too good a title, because the content is not purely factual. That rates at 250,000 listeners. Of course it is by no means peak viewing time at quarter to ten on Saturday morning. "From the Grass Roots", at 11.45 on Sunday morning, I have only heard once in my life, and I will not comment on it other than to say that it is processed stuff and it is broadcast at a time when many potential listeners are in church. Nevertheless, it rates at 350,000.

On television, I think quite highly of "Westminster" at 7 p.m. on Saturday. But it is not a good title. It would be much better, in my view, if it were called "Window on Westminster", or something of that sort. Sometimes it goes even wider than "The Week in Westminster". But it has two remarkable disadvantages. First of all, it is on B.B.C. 2, which is not a channel generally available, especially in Scotland. The second disadvantage is that for much of the year it is concurrent with "Dixon of Dock Green", with 13 million listeners. That does not leave many for "Westminster". Indeed, it is no wonder its rating is so small: and, in fact, it is so miniscule that I am informed that the B.B.C. prefer not to say how many listeners it has.

So, my Lords, the only programme of any consequence to comply with the requirements of Section 13(2) is tucked away in a corner. Not so the more popular and far from impartial "World at One"—I refer to the comments after the one o'clock news—which rates at 2,850,000, compared with the 4 million who listen to the news. I think that programme tends to be unbalanced. It sometimes reminds me of the sins of omission which were such a feature of the "British Empire" series. In the letters that I received inevitably after the stand I took over the "British Empire" series there was a considerable volume of opinion that subversive elements were gaining too much power in the realms of broadcasting and television. I am inclined to be of the same view, though I would not attribute any deliberately subversive motive to the individual who in the coloured still facing page 226 of the B.B.C. Handbook for 1973 hung the Union Jack upside down in the hands of a standard-bearer of a patrol of redcoats. I thought that a very suitable envoi to the whole series. However, joking apart, to think that there are not employed in the industry people dedicated to an alien ideology is to bury one's head in the sand. I am not suggesting any sort of witch-hunt, but I suggest that the authorities must be sensible, and that to give a fairer measure of time to the obligations of Clause 13(2) would be a proper thing to do. The B.B.C.'s obsession about competition with the independents is, in my view, an unworthy one. Ratings are there for analysis so far as they are concerned, not to be used as a spur to entertainment value, which is too often regrettably in terms of triviality and dirt—but that is another question.

I had the privilege on Monday last of addressing a small group of padres—and I say "padres" because there were several denominations present. The subject was "Parliament As I See It". Parish ministers and priests have their fingers on the pulse of a wide cross-section of the people, and I took the opportunity during discussion time to sound them on the subject of which I speak. I pointed out some of the difficulties, the most important being that Divisions in the other place come after ten o'clock, so that "Today in Parliament", to be complete, must be late. One said that he always listened to "Today in Parliament" at 10.45 when in bed, but nothing would induce him to do other than switch off at 11 o'clock. All agreed as to the prominent place taken in the lives of most people by television. Most agreed that, if it was to be done at all, television presentation would have to be a "talking head"—and that, as some of your Lordships will know, is a phrase they use in the business for a news reader speaking. With all the disadvantages (many of the people I consulted were not in favour of still photographs; and I know I am right in saying that when the Select Committee of your Lordships' House considered edited reports at the time of our experiment a good many years ago they were also opposed to the idea of stills), the consensus of opinion was that, in addition to the radio programmes, deploring as they did the 11 p.m. time, television presentation would have to be of "Yesterday in Parliament" if it was not to be either late or in the middle of the peak of the evening's entertainment. The question we asked ourselves was whether a talking head "Yesterday" programme could form part of "Nationwide" somewhere between 6 and 6.45 p.m. "Nationwide" has a rating of 8 million. As for the radio, what about 11 p.m., for "Book at Bedtime", and "Today in Parliament" at 10.15? That might allow for a "Stop press" for the result of a Division before the end of the programme.

Be that as it may, I have come to the conclusion that I agree with the proposal ventilated in The Times during the last few days, that a Committee of Inquiry on the future of broadcasting would be a wise step. I would go further and suggest that its terms of reference should include specifically—and I repeat "specifically"—the reporting of Parliament. I would go still further and say that any future franchise of the Independent Authority should contain an obligation similar to that of the B.B.C. This may sound an extravagant idea. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw a panel programme on television recently the subject of which was broadcasting, and in which the head of the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation in the United States took part. He held the view that the United States of America was originally in error in not including an obligation upon all broadcasting circuits to give a modicum of space daily on the lines of Section 13(2).

In conclusion, the fact remains that the television screen has replaced Parliament as the political forum of the nation. I believe, although I may be wrong (and I hope I am), that this is a dangerous situation. I do not believe that any Government—and I have already said that this is not a Party matter—cannot bring pressure to bear upon the B.B.C. (although they can do nothing at present about the I.T.A.) and demand that the old-age obligation—one that existed long before television—which is set out in the section I have read, is observed not only in the letter but also in the spirit. I repeat my belief that far more people want to know about Parliament than might appear to be the case; that the general indiffierence stems from a lack of communication, and that this is a dangerous situation for our system of Parliamentary democracy. I am certain, however, that it can be remedied.

8.3 p.m.

LORD WADE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is to be congratulated on the framing of this Question and on the amount of time and thought he has given to preparing his case. As to the question of whether the general proceedings of Parliament should be televised—and I appreciate that that is not the issue which the noble Lord is raising to-night—this House, as I understand it, has indicated that it is broadly in favour. I believe that that is right and that eventually it will come to pass. I believe the time will indeed come when the proceedings of Parliament will be televised. But we are aware that this House cannot give effect to its wishes in that respect so long as the other place takes a contrary view. Nevertheless, I believe that some of the arguments which can and should be deployed on the subject of the televising of Parliamentary proceedings are relevant to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has raised to-night. It is in the interests of Parliamentary democracy that the public should have the opportunity of seeing and hearing as much as possible of what goes on in Parliament, and it is very important that what they see and hear should be balanced. I have not actually read what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said about another place after listening to a debate recently; therefore I cannot comment on it. However, any adverse impressions might be offset to some extent if the whole of the debates in both Houses were seen in their proper perspective. But whether the impression is good or bad, I believe that the public ought to have the opportunity of seeing and hearing more about the proceedings of Parliament.

So far as the televising of Parliamentary proceedings is concerned, I am not advocating an unabridged version. I imagine that most of those who watched the internal television experiment came to the conclusion that the shortened version was preferable. However, I would emphasise that to produce this kind of programme will require great skill and expertise. Here I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about the programmes on sound radio, "Today in Parliament" followed by "Yesterday in Parliament". Those programmes undoubtedly achieve a very high standard and we are entitled to ask why it is that they are so widely appreciated. In the case of the morning programme, I think it is first because of the timing; but it does achieve a balance, and also there is the teamwork that goes into it. Of course, there are times when one has made what one thinks is an important contribution to a debate, only to find that one's speech is not mentioned. Being human, one may regret that, but one must accept these disappointments philosophically. I believe it is a balanced programme; and the key to its success is the teamwork, the long experience of those engaged in the preparation of the programme and the highly professional approach involved. I believe all those qualities would be relevant to the kind of programme that is being advocated to-night by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I agree there are anomalies at the present time. On the instructions of Parliament—and it is indeed on the instructions of Parliament—we have these two linked programmes on sound radio. There is nothing really comparable on television. The practical question, as I see it, is: What can be done about it in the absence of permission to allow cameras into the Palace of Westminster?

I am not quite so convinced of the probable success of what the noble Lord has referred to as "the talking head". I am a little uncertain whether that type of programme would be appropriate for a mass audience on a major network. There is a danger that if it is shown only, say, on B.B.C.1, a substantial part of the audience would switch over to I.T.V. However, I should welcome any attempt to try out a programme along those lines. I believe that there should be two "talking heads" and not one, and that the heads should be those of experienced presenters; and in the background I believe it would be essential to have the benefit of the teamwork and the years of experience that go into the preparation of "Yesterday in Parliament".

However, we have to recognise—and I have referred to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.—that this programme, broadcast by the B.B.C., is in accordance with the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement. If this idea of extending the programme to television is adopted, surely it should be applied to commercial television and also to commercial radio, when this comes into being, for in any case there are no practical or professional difficulties in the way of presenting a programme about Parliament on commercial radio. My Lords, to sum up, I think the noble Lord was right in paying tribute to "Yesterday in Parliament". It has a fairly substantial audience, and certainly a regular number of listeners. If it were possible to extend that kind of programme to other media I think it should be welcomed.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would emphasise that my worry is for the working folk, the people who during the week are at work by eight o'clock in the morning and in bed by ten o'clock in the evening.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. What I was trying to explain was that if the powers are applied to B.B.C. television without any comparable powers in the case of commercial television, the viewers to which the noble Lord is referring would be inclined to switch over to another programme. I am not in favour of compulsion, but if you are going to have it you must have it for both.

8.12 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Ferrier, for standing here and answering this Question which my noble friend Lord Gowrie was down to answer. Unfortunately, my noble friend succumbed to 'flu this afternoon and was eventually prevailed upon to go to bed with suitable advice regarding medicinal or pseudo-medicinal preparations to take with him. I know that he was sorry to do so, because he did a large amount of work preparing an answer to this debate, and I hope that your Lordships will extend whatever indulgence may be necessary if the remarks I make fail to meet the standard which my noble friend would have reached had he been here.

I must say—and here I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Wade—that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for putting down this Question, because it gives us the chance of debating the subject once again. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrier that it is most important that the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament should he generally and thoroughly known to the public, and this debate gives us the possibility of discussing the merits of one way of doing this. I should also like to associate myself with his congratulations to the B.B.C. for the work which they put in on "Today in Parliament". As so often happens, one tends to take these things for granted; one tends to forget the point which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, made, that a great deal of time, effort, work and professionalism goes into producing such a programme.

The debate also gives Parliament the opportunity to let the B.B.C. know whether Parliament thinks that the Corporation is fulfilling its obligations. It would be fair to say that debates in Parliament are one of the most important ways in which the broadcasting authorities are kept sensitive to public opinion. Here I would make the distinction that, particularly in such a matter as this, where it is the content of programmes and the distribution of programmes which are concerned, it is what Parliament thinks as opposed to what the Government thinks which is important. As my noble friend Lord Denham explained to the House in a similar debate on a similar Question put down by my noble friend on June 22, 1971, to which my noble friend referred, I am bound to say that I must tell him at the outset of a fact which I am sure he knows: my right honouorable friend has no power to require the B.B.C. to broadcast on television a similar programme to "Today in Parliament". It is right that he should not have the power, for it is a long-standing constitutional convention in this country, one which I believe we should think very hard about before altering, that the broadcasting authorities are wholly and solely responsible for what is broadcast in their programmes, and the Government do not intervene. If we intervene with the positioning of programmes, or their content, even in the way in which my noble friend and noble Lord, Lord Wade, have tried to persuade us this evening, we shall find ourselves embarking on a very slippery slope indeed.

I suggest to my noble friend that it is for the individual Houses of Parliament to invite the B.B.C. and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to broadcast the proceedings in whatever form each House would like; but it is for the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. to decide whether or not to do so. As in all other questions of programme content, the ultimate decision rests with the broadcasting authorities alone, and must rest with them. In his Question this evening, my noble friend Lord Ferrier is proposing that the B.B.C. should be asked to broadcast on television a similar programme to "Today in Parliament" on Radio 4. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, went a little further and said that if the B.B.C. were to do this, then similar facilities should be made available on independent television.

LORD WADE

My Lords, in order to get the record right, I said that if the B.B.C. were required to do this then the I.B.A. should be required also.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I accept the distinction. There is a considerable weight of opinion in the House that the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament should be televised, although that may not be the view of the majority of your Lordships. We had a debate on this subject in 1969 and it is not appropriate—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and my noble friend specifically avoided this—to go into the matter this evening. What has been proposed to-day is what one might almost describe as a compromise or half-way stet) which should be considered on its merits. Of course the B.B.C. already provide numerous ways in which opinions which are expressed in both Houses of Parliament are disseminated.

"To-day in Parliament" is a 15-minute summary of the proceedings of each House broadcast each day on Radio 4 after the bulk of the daily business in Parliament has been completed. It is repeated again next morning as "Yesterday in Parliament". In addition to these daily broadcasts when Parliament is sitting, there is the "Week at Westminster" broadcast on Saturday mornings which reviews the week's business and includes discussions with noble Lords and Members of another place. There are special programmes on Parliamentary proceedings which are of local interest on Radio 4 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Then there is the programme to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred called "Westminster", which is broadcast on B.B.C.2 television on Saturday evenings and which depicts the background to the political scene. I accept his remarks that the B.B.C.2 has limitations in not being readily available to all parts of the country, particularly to his part, Scotland.

It is obvious that your Lordships regard those programmes as very valuable. Most would agree that it is a reasonable allocation of timing, taking into account the demands of broadcasting time and the rather specialised nature of the subject. I fully accept that there are some noble Lords—and both noble Lords who have spoken to-day have drawn attention to this—who might feel that 15 minutes a day on radio does not do justice to the business of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Ferrier said that television audiences have increased considerably, and I would agree with him over that. Television is now watched by millions in the evening and the audiences for radio at that time are obviously small. And it could be argued that the interests of democracy would be the better served by having the summary on television as well as on radio.

My Lords, impressive though these arguments may be, I am bound to tell your Lordships that it is the Government's view that the B.B.C. are meeting their obligations under Clause 13(2) of their Licence and Agreement to which my noble friend referred and which he read out. The B.B.C.'s present view is that, unless they could televise the proceedings of Parliament, they would prefer not to broadcast a television version of "To-day in Parliament". They do not think that a television summary, whether or not illustrated with slides of the speakers and of the subjects of their speeches, would make interesting viewing or offer significantly more than the sound summary. The B.B.C. believe that people who like to follow Parliamentary proceedings—and here they would probably part company with my noble friend—are quite satisfied with the present arrangements.

There is much force in what both the noble Lords have said this evening. While I am bound to tell the noble Lord, and can only repeat to your Lordships, that Her Majesty's Government have no power to direct the B.B.C. along the lines which my noble friend's Question has advocated, I have no doubt that the B.B.C. will listen to the strength and the substance of the views which have been expressed by your Lordships this evening and will consider whether, and how, they should act upon them. I know that the B.B.C. lake Parliament's views very seriously, particularly on a subject such as this.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I am not sure whether I heard him aright. I think he implied that I said that 15 minutes was not sufficient even on the radio for broadcasting the proceedings; or he may have applied that remark to the noble Lord, Lord Wade. But I think 15 minutes is quite enough on the radio.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, if I gave my noble friend that impression, I am sorry; I did not intend it. What I meant to say was that on the whole the B.B.C.'s view was that people who are interested in the particular subject which we have under discussion consider that the facilities which the B.B.C. offer are adequate. That was the point on which I meant to say that my noble friend and the B.B.C. might part company.