HC Deb 30 June 1971 vol 820 cc374-7
11. Mr. Evelyn King

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications why he does not intervene in matters of programme content in regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Chataway

Because I believe the long-standing convention not to do so is necessary in order to keep broadcasting in this country free from political control.

Mr. King

Has my right hon. Friend heard of the television film called "Yesterday's Men"? I think that he has. Would he agree that, where trickery on this scale is perpetrated, as it was, it should be resented not merely by the Labour Party or the Conservative Party but by Parliament as a whole? Will he also bear in mind that he, as Minister, has, ultimately, responsibility to Parliament for what is done and that he may one day have to live up to his responsibilities?

Mr. Chataway

I am not in a position to say whether deception was practised on this occasion, but my hon. Friend knows that the B.B.C. has set up its own inquiry. I am, I hope, alive to all my responsibilities. I do not believe that it would be a happy precedent to set, by this Government or any other, or by someone in my position, to seek to take control of matters of programme content of the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Loughlin

While one does not wish to interfere with the independence of either of the broadcasting authorities, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will draw the attention of the B.B.C. to the fact that there is an essential difference between freedom, to which it is entitled, and licence, to which it is not?

Mr. Chataway

That is a proposition to which I am sure both broadcasting authorities would subscribe.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

While I think that everyone would agree that there was an error of taste in the programme, surely, as politicians, we should not be too sensitive to criticisms made of us.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Gentleman is on the pay list of the B.B.C.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

After all, we are representatives of the public and, therefore, open to criticism.

Mr. Tebbit

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite, from a seated position, to imply that another hon. Member's views are distorted by being on the pay list of a public corporation or any other corporation?

Mr. Speaker

If I hear anything out of order, I will rule accordingly.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I heard what was said. I only wish that my views had a chance of being distorted by being on the pay list of anyone other than the taxpayer. I return to my point. Is not the possibility of an error of taste of this kind a worth-while price to pay for freedom from censorship, which would be infinitely worse in its effects?

Mr. Chataway

I agree with my hon. Friend about censorship, and I admire the openness of his remarks about the source of his income.

Mr. Richard

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that on this side of the House there is strong feeling that, on this occasion, the major participants in the programme were deliberately deceived, not least by the interviewer himself. I must say to him—I hope he will consider this—that the time may come when it may become necessary for him to use the powers he has, residual though they are, if this sort of treatment continues.

Mr. Chataway

I hope that there will be an opportunity to go further into that remark by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) because, if it represents the policy of the Opposition, it may have some very ominous implications for the broadcasting authorities. We believe that one of the answers to some of these problems is the existence of diversity and of competition.

13. Mr. Ashton

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many letters he has received since 18th June relating to alleged breaches of the Licence and Agreement in respect of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes.

Mr. Chataway

None, Sir.

Mr. Ashton

Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that as is shown by earlier Questions, there is great concern about this programme on 18th June? Does not he accept that we have a situation in which politicians cannot interfere with or try to control television, whereas television can interfere with or try to control politicians? What answer should politicians have to this? We cannot debate it or raise it in the House, except at Question Time like this.

Mr. Chataway

One of the sources to which the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Members of the I.T.A. ought to look for guidance and opinion is debates in this House, and it is certainly important, therefore, that opinions should be expressed in this House. But there may be a feeling that undue sensitivity is being shown by some hon. Members about one particular programme.

Mr. Cooke

Will my right hon. Friend explore the possibility of another channel for Independent Television and generally widening the means of communication through the air? No one complains about bias in newspapers, and, if there were more channels on the air, more politicians of all colours could have their say and the people could form a wise judgment.

Mr. Chataway

The argument my hon. Friend advances is an important one. The greater the number of sources from which programmes and news services come, the less power is wielded by any one source. I believe that the argument which my hon. Friend advances would command a good deal of support.

Mr. Richard

The right hon. Gentleman is treating this serious matter in an extraordinarily trivial way. Does he agree on these two points—I think a number of hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches would accept them: first, that it is the duty of television authorities, whether B.B.C. or I.T.V., to maintain a proper, fair and equitable balance between both political parties in the presentation of matter; secondly, that if on this occasion the British Broadcasting Corporation fell short of this standard, it is utterly right that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House should say so, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong in that?

Mr. Chataway

The hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing that I have not already said.