BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS (Hansard, 18 December 1968)

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 8, leave out lines 1 to 12.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have suggested that we take at the same time the following four further Amendments:
No. 4, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'Subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'Subsection (1)'.
No. 5, in page 8, line 43, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
No. 51, in Schedule 5, page 46, line 48, column 1, leave out' and (2)'.
No. 52, in Schedule 5, page 46, line 50, column 2, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

§ The Attorney-General
Amendment No. 3 is the principal Amendment and the remainder are consequential drafting Amendments. The subsection which the main Amendment would remove from the Bill makes it an offence for any person, in managing or editing a broadcast about a particular constituency, to favour any of the candidates taking part in the broadcast. This provision was discussed at some length at a late hour in Committee, and it is right that I should frankly admit that it was criticised on both sides. Unhappily, the Government were most unfairly accused by one hon. Member, contrary to the usual tenor of 1445 his contributions to debate, of introducing the provision for an improper motive. I endeavoured then to explain, as I repeat now, the perfectly innocent history of the matter.
The Clause as a whole derives from a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, part of which was that broadcasts involving candidates should be allowed only if all are given an equal opportunity to state their views". In an attempt to give statutory form to that conception of equality of opportunity, the Government took the view that the proper course was to make it an illegal practice to favour one candidate at the expense of another. That there should be no such favouring is common ground. The question is whether sanctions would be necessary or effective to prevent such favouring.
I readily conceded in Committee that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are under an obligation to maintain political impartiality. This is an important duty in view of the potential influence which this medium of communication may have. In Committee, however, the general view expressed on both sides was that it was unnecessary to reinforce that general duty by creating this offence. That opinion was stressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). It was urged also that the scope of the offence was uncertain and that the threat of prosecution would unfairly handicap interviewers and editors who might: honestly be striving to provide an impartial view of a local election situation and campaign.
I thought that there was force in the argument that the subsection was unnecessary and that we could rely on the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to see that candidates taking part in broadcasts were fairly treated. I therefore undertook that the Government would reconsider the matter before Report. This my right hon. Friend and I have done, and we have also considered representations about the matter made on behalf of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. We have decided that the best course is to drop the subsection, and I hope that this will commend itself to the House.

§ Mr. Sharples
The Attorney-General has taken the view that the Committee generally expressed in the debate, and I am sure that the decision is right. We are glad that that provision has gone.

§ Dr. Winstanley
I, too, welcome the move and everything the Attorney-General said. When he declines to do something he does it so amiably that when he agrees the effect is almost overwhelming.
We readily accept that the parentage of the subsection was wholly innocent. It was its operation which would have proved guilty, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to accept that there is no alternative to relying on the general duty of broadcasters to be fair and to leave the matter at that. We greatly welcome his action, which is in accord with what we recommended earlier.
I have said so often in our debate on the Bill that the Government are doing what we asked them to do that I begin to wonder whether we should have drafted it and let them table some Amendments.