§ Q2. Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to provide that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be bound by the rules of political objectivity and balance by which the Independent Television Authority is bound under the terms of the Television Act, 1964.
§ Q9. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to subject the British Broadcasting Corporation to the same restrictions imposed upon the independent companies by the Television Act, 1964.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. At the time of the renewal of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Royal Charter in 1964, the B.B.C. gave assurances which in effect place it under the same obligation to treat controversial subjects with impartiality as that imposed on the Independent Television Authority by the Television Act, 1964. I think that we must rely on the Chairman and Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to see that these assurances are fulfilled.
§ Mr. GregoryHas the Prime Minister yet received from the Leader of the Opposition any indication about his offer that each should consult and inform the other and exchange views on any pressure or representation made between the two broadcasting authorities?
§ The Prime MinisterMy proposal, made to the right hon. Gentleman publicly, was not that we should consult one another, but that, since it was known that all parties from time to time made complaints, it would be a useful check on the complaints if each national party were to inform the others of complaints that it had made. The answer is, no, I have had no response at all.
§ Mr. St John-StevasWould not this legislation have the double advantage of making it unnecessary for the Prime Minister to continue his campaign to indoctrinate the gnomes of Broadcasting House and also help him to avoid such political blunders as the notorious "£ in your pocket has not been devalued" which he is rumoured to have made?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first question, there is no such campaign. I said to the House on the last occasion that the circumstances in which in 1966 I felt it right to exercise the inalienable freedom of not going on television if you do not want to were that the B.B.C. was doing deals with the Opposition about election programmes without informing the Government. I thought that was reasonable, and my charge has not been denied since I said it in the House.
Concerning the second statement, I think that this has been fairly adequately ventilated despite the confusion caused by the Leader of the Opposition falsifying the words used. We have now had the further gaiety of the Leader of the Opposition below the Gangway showing his total inability to distinguish between the past tense and the future, between the words "will be" and "has been"—though no one should understand the words "has been" better than he.
§ Mr. HeathI am sorry that the Prime Minister is not, apparently, aware of the exchanges which have passed through the usual channels, but we, in writing, have said that we are prepared to accept any public pronouncement about complaints made either to the B.B.C. or the programme authorities and we are prepared to publish them.
§ The Prime MinisterI am pleased to hear that. I was asked what reply I had had from the right hon. Gentleman. All that I have had is to read in the Press the right hon. Gentleman's briefing that no such offer was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that this was made publicly on 2nd November, 1965, in HANSARD at columns 874–5. If the right hon. Gentleman has now responded, I shall be delighted to hear the details.
§ Mr. HeathI am sorry, but the Prime Minister cannot get away with it like that. Since he raised this across the Floor of the House there has been an exchange of letters between the usual channels of the three parties concerned in which, speaking for my party, we have made it clear that we fully accept the publication of any complaints, and we expect the Government to do the same.
§ The Prime MinisterWe shall certainly be ready to do the same. Having just consulted the usual channels on my side, I am bound to say that they are as mystified as I am at this very welcome news.
§ Mr. LubbockIs the Prime Minister aware that since this matter was first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about 2½ years ago there has been correspondence between the usual channels, and that at my suggestion it has been agreed by the Chief Whips of the Government and the Opposition that all these representations should be published, and is the Prime Minister aware that in default of any formal agreement the Liberal Party has decided to issue to the Press any letters that it sends to the B.B.C. or the Independent Television Authority?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far as we are concerned, the original proposal was made as long ago as November, 1965. I do not know whether that was before or after the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. I have just consulted my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He will be prepared to look into this. If he has received the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—I think I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend about that. If the letter is there, then certainly a statement will be made to the House.
§ Mr. Gwynfor EvansIs the Prime Minister aware that there has long been collusion between the Labour and Conservative Parties about the implementation of a fair and balanced policy of party political broadcasts in Wales and in Scotland? Until recently there was an absolute veto on broadcasts by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, which even now have only four minutes and forty seconds per annum to put their policies before the people of Wales and Scotland.
§ The Prime MinisterI was concerned in many of these discussions, as any Leader of the Opposition is, until 1964. In those days there was no collusion between any parties to deny reasonable rights to anyone to have freedom of the air. I am certain that in any discussions 208 between the three parties now there is still no collusion of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SpeakerMrs. Winifred Ewing.
§ Mrs. Ewingrose —[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a place where minorities are heard. Mrs. Ewing.
§ Mrs. EwingWhatever legislation applies, will the Prime Minister repeat the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a recent debate that in 1969 the time ration of minority parties will be reviewed sympathetically, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position today to say whether the ration of four minutes forty seconds on television and radio will be increased to reflect a balanced political view of the present situation in Scotland?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a matter for discussion between the principal parties and the broadcasting authorities. I should like notice of the hon. Lady's question to see whether it is possible to reply to it, but it does not arise out of the original Question, which relates to questions of complaint and balance.
§ At the end of Questions —
§ Mr. ThorpeOn a point of order. During the exchanges in Question Time, the Prime Minister said that certain correspondence which was alleged to have passed between the Opposition Chief Whip of the Conservative Party and my hon. Friend the Whip for the Liberal Party had not, to his knowledge, been received. Having seen the copies of those letters which were sent to the right hon. Gentleman, may we ask the Prime Minister whether, if upon subsequent reflection he finds that the position as he described it is not what it happens to be, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House clarifying the position and thereby setting the record right?
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order. I said that I would make a statement if I had any chance of checking on this. The answer which I gave earlier was based on a quick consultation with my right hon. Friends who are in touch with the Opposition on this matter. I said that, when I had had a chance to check on it, I would make a statement 209 in the House. I have now, with the same speed that the right hon. Gentleman is able to command, had the statement. I confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that they have said that they have no objection to publishing and registering any complaints which we may make and he—that is, the Opposition Chief Whip—went on to say, if he does not mind my quoting his letter, that they have
… considerable doubt as to the practical value of such a register … the whole question will have to be discussed with the broadcasting authorities before any final decision can be made.The answer which I gave was based on the situation as I saw it and on consultation with my right hon. Friends. I have consulted my right hon. Friend and I am very glad—I do not think that much time has been lost—to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was made in good faith by himself in the House 10 minutes ago, and answered in equally good faith by myself—[Interruption.]—I am accepting the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I expressed my regret at the long delay earlier, but I accept what he said. I have now seen the correspondence for myself for the first time. The answer I gave earlier was on the information fairly supplied to me, and I think that it is right—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen come to the House in this way, the House usually accepts their good faith.
§ The Prime MinisterI was saying that I thought it right to make a statement at the earliest opportunity. I do not think that I have been very slow. The letter of the Conservative Chief Whip to the Liberal Chief Whip, of which we have a copy, is what I have just read out.