TELEVISION TRIALS

HC Deb 27 February 1968 vol 759 cc1369-76

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now djourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

When I applied for the subject of this Adjournment debate, which is about the danger of television trials, it was then regarded as being something of a topical subject. But such are the vagaries of the Ballot that it has taken some time before I could bring the matter to the attention of the House. However, that is not a bad thing, because the issue can now be discussed in an atmosphere divorced from the programme which originally gave cause for wide public apprehension about the matter.

I hope that we shall hear some assurance from the Postmaster-General that the television authorities, both the B.B.C. and I.T.A., have considered this problem and are about to deal with the matter. The problem to which I allude is the one in which a television programme seeks to decide whether a man is guilty of some alleged criminal offence or some alleged breach of his professional code of etiquette. In normal circumstances, such allegations are best dealt with either by the courts of law in the case of the former or by the appropriate professional disciplinary committee in respect of the latter. I do not believe that they are appropriate subjects for a programme which is designed for entertainment.

I have in mind, in raising this debate, a series of programmes—there were two—relating to the case of Dr. John Petro which appeared in the "Frost Programme". These gave me real cause for concern, although this was by no means the only programme. In the same week there was another programme relating to Dr. Savundra, to which I shall not refer because that issue is still sub judice. There were others, too.

I take as my main example the Frost Programme on Dr. Petro, because that seems to be an excellent illustration of the dangers to which I wish to draw attention. I have no desire in this debate to criticise David Frost. I know that it is fashionable in some political quarters to do so, but it seems to me that he is a man who is utterly competent in his profession, has contributed a great deal to the development of television within his sphere, and is providing entertainment for the public which they like and appreciate. I do not believe he is an oracle of truth. I am sure that in due course he will suffer the fate of others and find himself debating serious questions like Vietnam on "Any Questions" with Lady Barnett. Although that may be his fate, at the moment there is no doubt that he has influence in the country by reason of his television personality. He seeks to entertain, and it is that to which I object most—he seeks to entertain by conducting what is in effect a trial of an issue about which the public feels apprehensive. Since his object is to entertain he cannot be considerate of the rights of the alleged accused in the same way as courts of law or a disciplinary committee would be.

Take the case of Dr. Petro. This gentleman was accused in the Press of over-prescribing drugs. I think there is a real distinction between the case of the newspaper which is conducting a general investigation of an allegation and this sort of television confrontation in which the person is asked questions about his conduct. There is an immediacy about television which gives it an aura of a courtroom confrontation. If to that is added an invited audience who are expected to pass a judgment upon the programme by saying whether they accept or reject the accusations made against the particular person, one has all the atmosphere of a courtroom. Unfortunately it is an atmosphere which is much more akin to a lynch mob in the wild west.

Here is an audience where feelings have been generated by public means about the subject and there are no checks such as would be found in a court of law. If these programmes are to go on, I would ask that a code of conduct should be established by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. for the programme planners and the producers which will ensure that fairness is achieved, and seen to be achieved, in the production of the programme.

It is essential that a man should know what is going to be alleged against him before he is invited to attend a programme. He should know it not only in general terms but, if a general allegation which is akin to a criminal offence or a breach of his professional code is to be made, he should know it in detail. He should know also who is going to be invited not only as a participant in the discussion on the floor of the programme but in the audience. It was clear from the Petro programmes that some people with special knowledge of the case were invited into the audience, and they were called upon to give their experience in the same way as a witness would in the courtroom.

Thirdly, he should have an opportunity before the programme of consulting his records and notes and any other means at his disposal, and of seeing people who may refresh his memory in order that he can be prepared to answer the allegations made against him. Fourthly, he should have the opportunity, if he so desires, to see that other people are in the audience, if an audience is to be present, to counterbalance those who have been called by the television commentator to give their side of the case so that he can present his side. This would give an appearance that justice was being seen to be done and would be according to the rules of natural justice. Unlike a newspaper campaign, a television campaign with mass coverage throughout the country can do more to damage a man's reputation and a man's career than a conviction in a criminal court, because it is seen by so many people and they are able to pass a judgment which in the atmosphere generated in some programmes which have taken place would almost inevitably be adverse.

Take Dr. Petro. It is true that he has been charged and convicted before a criminal court of failing to keep a record of his prescriptions. But that was not the allegation which David Frost made against him, which was that he was over-prescribing drugs. He is still practising as a doctor, but it is inconceivable that he would be able to acquire a reasonable practice as a general practitioner after the way in which he was treated in that programme. It may be fair that that will be so. Perhaps he deserves all that he has got. But I should feel much more easy in my mind if he had had all the benefits of the safeguards and provision for representation and the calling of witnesses which would have been afforded to him if he had been charged before the disciplinary body of the G.M.C. I should much prefer that this was the way in which matters were dealt with. If that cannot be, I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to assure us that a code is about to be prepared.

10.26 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short)

We are all very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for raising this important subject. It draws attention to the interviewing of an individual on television against whom criminal proceedings have been or could conceivably be preferred. My hon. Friend added the case of an alleged breach of professional conduct into which an investigation by a professional body may be pending. As my hon. Friend said, the interview may be before a selected audience which is then invited to pass judgment on the individual's behaviour or actions.

In his speech, my hon. Friend referred to one case in particular—the interview of Dr. Petro by Mr. Frost on 10th and 11th January on I.T.V. The programmes were produced by Associated Rediffusion. After the second programme, Dr. Petro was, I understand, arrested by the police as he left the studio. Since then he has been tried and found guilty of failing to enter particulars in the appropriate register of drugs obtained and supplied by him.

The case itself, the fact that Dr. Petro was arrested on leaving the studio, and the fact that the television programme in question took place not long before Dr. Petro was put on trial, attracted a great deal of attention. The circumstances were dramatic. The subject matter and method of the television interviews have given rise to much public disquiet. An audience of millions saw the programmes, and it is more than likely that the 12 persons who were to form the jury at the trial saw the programme.

Dr. Petro thus became very widely known as a person who supplied drugs and who had been in a sense called to account for his behaviour and actions in so doing. Let me say at once that Dr. Petro was, of course, under no obligation to appear on television. The fact that he did so was entirely a matter of his own free choice.

My hon. Friend referred also to an edition of the "24 Hours" programme which included an interview of Dr. Savundra. Dr. Savundra is still on trial, and I do not think it would be proper for me to say more either about the interview or about the comments made in court later about the interview.

So much for the main facts of the cases to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. Now let me set them into the constitutional context in which broadcasting is conducted in this country. As hon. Members will know, in matters of programme content and in the day-to-day conduct of their affairs, the two broadcasting authorities—the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.—are independent of Government. This is a fundamental principle, and as the last independent Committee of Inquiry, the Pilkington Committee, observed, to break it in a particular case, no matter how trifling, would be to threaten the whole basis of British broadcasting. It is upon the Chairman and the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and members of the I.T.A., therefore, that full responsibility lies for everything that is broadcast in their services. It is in them that full authority to control their services is vested. Everything that is said or shown on their services is said and shown on their ultimate authority. They are answerable to the public and to Parliament and the Government do not intervene in the content of their programmes.

I do not think I need to defend this constitutional principle. Intervention by Government, no matter how justified it might seem to be in this or that case, could and probably would insensibly become intervention for Government. The notion that the broadcasting media with all their capacity to influence and persuade should become in the least degree the instruments of Government is one that has been rejected absolutely in this country ever since the inception of broadcasting. Yet though the principle is unquestionable, it must be recognised that in the kind of case to which my hon. Friend has referred many of us see a development which offends against the basic principles of British justice evolved over the centuries. These have, I think, a general and a particular aspect. The general one is that the citizen is answerable under the criminal law to courts of justice which are circumscribed' by carefully enunciated procedures to ensure fair play. Even the procedure of disciplinary tribunals of private organisations has to observe certain principles. There is a real danger if people are exposed on television to programmes which are in the nature of a trial but which provide no such safeguards.

The particular aspect to which my hon. Friend has referred is the doubt whether a man who is to stand trial can confidently be said to get a fair hearing if he has already been "tried", so to speak, on television, and where a kind of verdict is passed explicitly or implicitly by an audience or an interviewer when the jury and court will almost certainly have seen the programme. Where such a television programme might put justice at risk, I agree that something must be done to restrain the broadcasting authority, but if the Government do not intervene, how can the broadcasting authority be restrained?

It is, I believe, from considerations of this kind that my hon. Friend suggested in a Question he put to me recently that legislation should be introduced. He did not ask me to use my reserve power to veto programmes of the kind in question. Rather he suggested that statutory safeguards should be provided. Tonight he has proposed that safeguards should be imposed from without on the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to do so.

I will say why I believe this. As I have said, for constitutional reasons the Government do not intervene in the content of programmes. I do not tell the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. not to broadcast this or that programme, or this or that class of programme. But it certainly does not follow that when hon. Members complain about or criticise programmes—whether by asking me to veto programmes or by proposing the introduction of legislation—no notice is taken by the two broadcasting authorities, and that they go on their way unrestrained and unheeding. I know that Lord Hill and the Governors of the B.B.C. and Lord Aylestone and the Members of the I.T.A. pay the closest attention to the complaints and criticisms of their services which are voiced in Parliament.

These complaints and criticisms are part of the continuing pressure of public opinion in all its variety on the performance of both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. The two broadcasting authorities would be failing in their duty if they did not heed the kind of criticism which has been made tonight by my hon. Friend. When the criticism and the complaints show that something in the broadcasting services really runs counter to the general interest, their duty is not only to listen and consider but to take the necessary measures. There is nothing that so much makes for an active sense of responsibility in a person or organisation as being told that this is where the buck stops.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Since Dr. Petro's activities were also widely noticed in the Press, and since the Press operates under different restraints from those which the right hon. Gentleman is outlining in the case of the television authorities, does he not concede that there might be a case for bringing in a statutory limitation on the actions of the television authorities such as those under which the Press operates?

Mr. Short

The whole point I am making is that I do not think so. By assuming some kind of supervisory rôle and initiating our own rules for detailed control we would diminish the broadcasting authorities' responsibilities to the public and the House.

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that both Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone have told me that they were acutely concerned at the possibility that programmes of the kind to which he has drawn attention might become, in effect, a form of trial and that justice might suffer. I know that they are determined to see that this is not allowed to happen. I am sure that some kind of voluntary code of conduct, though not of the kind my hon. Friend suggested, will emerge from the discussions I have had with them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. In doing so, he has again brought it to the attention of the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and Members of the I.T.A. We can leave the matter to them as the people who have been appointed by Parliament as trustees for the national interest in broadcasting.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan (Howden)

We all accept what the Postmaster-General has said about the Government's not interfering with television programmes. I am very sorry to have missed what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said, but I know that what he is worried about is also what many other people are worried about.

I wonder if we could come a little nearer to satisfying the public through the office of the Postmaster-General or in other ways. What I have in mind is that where there is a prima facie case of injustice, bias or offence to public taste, if the Postmaster-General asked for an explanation or report on the programme from the television authorities this would be a very considerable thing to do. He would no doubt get the report and the public would read it. Would not this in itself satisfy the public's worries and probably also be quite helpful to the authorities?

Mr. Edward Short

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman came in after the debate was a third of the way through—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must have leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Short

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. The best safeguard is the assurance I have obtained from Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone that they will see to it that this does not happen again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.