HC Deb 27 June 1963 vol 679 cc1759-64
Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 12, line 13, after first "news", to insert "and news features".

This is a very simple Amendment which I hope to deal with quickly. In this part of the Clause the Government propose to amend Section 3 of the 1954 Act which lays down various basic instructions to the Authority, such instructions as that its programmes shall not include items which offend against good taste or decency. It is enjoined to maintain a proper balance in its programmes. It is laid down that proper proportions of recorded matter should be used, and so on.

The Postmaster-General now wants to amend those basic instructions. In spite of asking that those instructions shall include the instruction that there shall be due accuracy and impartiality in news, he is also adding that a sufficient time in the programmes shall be devoted to news. If we are to say that sufficient time should be devoted to news as such, we might complete the picture by saying "and news features". The obvious reason for this is that nowadays news is presented not only in the form of straight reporting. It is also presented—and often more attractively—in the form of news features.

Independent Television News not only puts on the news bulletins and produces programmes like "Roving Report", which is first-class material and a programme well worth watching. Some of the companies produce programmes like "This Week", which is a first-class rival to "Panorama" and a first-class news feature programme. It is right to lay down in our basic instructions that there should be a proper proportion of news features as well as of news.

On an Amendment like this, every hon. Member would like to pay tribute to I.T.N. It provides a first-class service on independent television. We all have our grouses at times, but I have never had any real cause to complain about its impartiality. I have every confidence that the amount of news put over by I.T.A. at the moment is sufficient. After all, we are not complaining in this part of the Clause. We are simply rewording the instructions.

Another point worth making is the good effect of I.T.N. and its news and news features. When I.T.N. was first started in 1955, one of the immediate results of its first-class reporting and its general activity was an improvement in the quality of B.B.C. news bulletins. This is one of the most extraordinary things that happened. I.T.N. shot ahead with its technique. The B.B.C. had to wake up and begin to catch up because of the enormous strides I.T.N. was making. I do not think we have any complaint about that. In moving the Amendment I certainly make no complaint. It is a simple Amendment. I hope that it is acceptable to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has tabled this Amendment. I am glad to think that most hon. Members are very interested in and concerned with this point in the Bill. The question of balance has always been vexatious to both sides of the House. Everybody feels that one system or other is biased against his own party.

There is an important point on which I should like an answer from my right hon. Friend. I refer to the question of balance in an individual programme. Is the Bill to leave the House with no attempt at dealing with the difficult problem which arises from the suggestion that balance is achieved in a series of broadcasts if three are biased one way and three are biased another way? That is a most unsatisfactory state of balance, in most people's view. Is this problem dealt with anywhere in the Bill? If it is not, it should be.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

Having said a good many critical things about commercial television during the course of our earlier proceedings here and also in Committee upstairs, I should like to take the opportunity of echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has just said about the very high standard of the Independent Television News. In technique, in presentation and in fairness, it has done a very valuable job, and I would not disagree with what my hon. Friend said about its stimulating effect on news and news features presented by the B.B.C.

I am a little alarmed at what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has just said about the balance of programmes. It is fair to say that, from a purely technical broadcasting point of view, it is very difficult always to present all points of view in the space of a short programme. All television programmes dealing with serious subjects are in some ways too short. When a serious and controversial issue is being discussed, an issue which perhaps has ramifications which have to be explained and when reference has to be made to its history and the way it has developed, it is not always possible in the course of one programme to put conflicting points of view.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Since making my previous remarks I have, I think, found in Clause 16 the answer to part of the question I asked, for it states that a series of programmes may be considered as a whole. However, that may result in grave bias because it may depend upon who appears first in the programme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Hon. Members will be getting wide of the Amendment if they discuss that matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker

This is a difficult problem, but I feel that the provision made in the Bill is satisfactory. One cannot insist that every programme dealing with every controversial subject must contain all points of view in one programme.

I understand that the following Amendment standing in my name—in line 13, after first "news", insert "and daily television broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings"—has not been selected, and I am not therefore at liberty to discuss the question of the televising of Parliamentary proceedings. However, I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept that a slightly anomalous position seems to exist. We require, by legislation or the terms of the Charter, that the B.B.C. in sound radio shall devote each day a specified time to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. No such provision is made for television.

Although sound radio has maintained an audience which some people find surprising despite the competition of television, many people who are interested in current affairs and who should have the proceedings in Parliament brought to their attention are more likely to watch television than to listen to the radio. It seems anomalous that there should be no requirement that a proportion of the time on both channels—or however many television channels there may be—should not be devoted as a requirement to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Mawby

I do not think that we need spend a great deal of time on this point. The important aspects of it have been dealt with particularly on the question of news and news features. At first sight the Amendment may appear unnecessary, particularly in view of the standards that are maintained on the programmes which have been mentioned, "This Week" and a number of other news features. There appears to be a healthy situation in this respect and at present these programmes feature interviews with suitable people during news periods, explanations of highlights of the news and so on. All these things are very welcome. I join in paying tribute to Independent Television News, which has done a splendid job and is producing a first-class news service. Many of its feature programmes have been of the highest possible standard.

I was attracted by the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) moved his Amendment. I believe that it would do no harm to write it into the Bill and so to make it even more clear what we want to do. I suggest, therefore, that we accept the Amendment.

If I do not deal with all the points that have been raised I hope that I will be forgiven. The question of balance in individual programmes is always a difficult matter to write clearly into a Bill or charter because there are certain series of programmes, other than party political broadcasts, which deal with different points of view. There might, for example, be a series on Communism and Fascism. If one demands that the programmes must have a proper balance in every case it is possible that one may lose much of the point of what can be brought out in such a series of programmes. It is important for us to keep a sense of balance in this matter.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Is there not a grave danger, even if one has a balanced series, that the balance will not be maintained if the individual programmes do not appear at the same sort of peak times; if one appears at a peak time and the other at an off-peak period. In such a case one might not get a proper balance. Does my hon. Friend agree with this view?

Mr. Mawby

This is an extremely important matter, and we shall probably argue until the end of time on the subject of proper impartiality. We believe that we have written the requirement into Clause 16 as clearly as possible, and that it will be quite clear to a programme contractor that if there was any suggestion at all, even in a series, of a tendency towards partiality to any group of individuals or opinions the Clause would really bite.

I think that we have this tied up, and if the House is prepared to accept the Amendment we shall make clear to the outside world what we mean.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker

Certain communications having taken place, is the Assistant Postmaster-General able to say something about the requirements to televise the proceedings of this House?

Mr. Mawby

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said all the way through that the B.B.C.'s methods of operation will be debated in this House later, when he will have an opportunity to press for the same commitment in regard to television as to sound, or to argue that, because television has not the same obligation, we should take it away from sound.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that we have gone far enough on this point. It does not arise on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.