EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

HC Deb 24 June 1980 vol 987 cc284-311

'(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 10 of the main Act it shall be the responsibility of the Authority to appoint specific representatives of the appropriate organisation to the Educational Advisory Council.

(2) The Council shall establish a sub-committee with special responsibility for overseeing the educational programmes of the Fourth Channel as defined in section 3 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Gwilym Roberts.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert 'Without prejudice to so much of main section 2(2)(a) as relates to the dissemination of education, to ensure that not less than fifteen per cent. of broadcasting time shall be programmes of an educational nature which shall include a substantial proportion of programmes to promote public understanding of world development and international interdependence and which shall be produced with financial resources and transmitted at broadcasting times no less favourable than other programmes'.

No. 12, in page 3, line 11 leave out 'a suitable proportion' and insert '20 per cent.'.

No. 13, in page 3, line 14 at end insert— '(d) to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development'.

No. 52, in clause 7, page 7, line 18 at end insert— '(aa) An account of the way in which the Authority have discharged their duty under section 3 (1) (b) as regards the dissemination of education, and in particular as regards the Authority's determination of what is a suitable proportion of the programmes that are of an educational nature and of what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature.'.

Mr. Roberts

The aim of the new clause and amendment No. 12, which is in my name, is to strengthen and formalise the existing tentative educational arrangements in clause 3. At a time when adult education in this country is under attack, there is every argument for having as strong and as formal an arrangement as possible to provide education wherever possible.

I appreciate that the IBA has given an indication of minimum hours for educationally validated programmes. On 12 September last year, the authority suggested that about 15 per cent. of programmes on the new channel should be educationally validated programmes. I hope that the Minister will support at least that figure or move towards the 20 per cent. that I have included in amendment No. 12 and will formalise the Government's support for such a share of educational programmes.

I am also concerned about the Educational Advisory Council and the more formal representation on it. Lady Plowden has made clear to me in correspondence that in its councils and sub-committees, the IBA is well provided for in terms of educationists. She said that it is her intention to have two educationists among the 11 members of the new board and she has suggested that there are about 60 education advisers in the whole IBA structure.

I do not suggest that education is under-provided, but there is a strong argument for some of the educational organisations, which have great experience in such matters, to be represented directly on the advisory council. Such representatives could make an enormous contribution in the validation of educational programmes and could ensure that the right types of programmes were provided to conform with the minimum hours provision.

6 pm

Mr. Whitehead

I should like to speak briefly to my amendment No. 11. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) is also hoping to intervene in the debate. I am sure that the House will await her remarks with interest, drawn from her much greater authority in these matters. The amendment has been moved largely as a probing amendment to discover the views of the Government and the views that they have, no doubt, ascertained from the authority, concerning educational programmes that deal with the subject of world development and international inter-dependence. All are concerned, in the light of our current relative economic failures and the desperate position in which the country finds itself, about a growing spirit of chauvinism, and a desire to look inward rather than outward and to ignore the major issues of the world.

A House of Commons that could give such an attentive hearing recently to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the debate on the Brandt report, is a House of Commons, I hope, that will also consider that issues of this kind should be given a fair share of proper viewing time and not tucked away in the middle of the night on the fourth channel. That is the whole purpose of my amendment, supported by many organisations in education. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark has to say.

Dame Judith Hart (Lanark)

I should like to refer to amendment No. 13 which inserts in page 3, line 14, clause 3: '(d) to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development'. We shall be eager to hear the Government's response to this amendment. It is an issue that was only touched upon in Committee. I was not a member of the Committee but I have read all the reperts of its proceedings. The matter was barely touched upon, but it is crucial. It is an amendment with the strongest backing, as I intend to indicate. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. It would follow naturally on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3(1).

Clause 3(1)(c) is to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes". The amendment would add to that a further paragraph: to ensure that a reasonable proportion of programmes are concerned with questions of world development. That would not be to embark on any new principle of intervention in the Bill. It would merely extend the principle of the clause in a direction that we believe is of great importance. The Minister is not asked to accept any new principle but merely to take the existing principle a stage further.

I should like to indicate the backing that exists for the content and general thrust of the amendment. I wish sometimes that we had the privilege of Congress in Washington to be able to read matters into the record. Since that is not permitted, I fear that I must quote one or two items. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a letter was published in The Times in November last year—when the subject of the fourth channel was entering into wide areas of public discussion—from the Archbishop of Canterbury and others. I was one of the "others", as The Times describes them, together with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Richard Hoggart and Jack Jones.

The letter stated: Much has already been said and written about the role of the new fourth television channel. Despite some scepticism, many people hope that it may provide an exciting and potentially enriching new service. Among other things, the fourth channel should offer a real opportunity to focus attention on issues that the other channels can treat only briefly or irregularly. Not least among these is the relationship between the rich and poor countries. The letter also stated: The leading organisations in the field of development education in Britain have now written to the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority proposing that a significant amount of time on the fourth channel be allocated to programmes promoting an understanding of the interdependence of the developed and the developing world. We believe that this imaginative proposal should be welcomed, and incorporated in the forthcoming drafts for legislation. That is what this amendment, in essence, seeks to ensure.

It is not known at this stage whether the Government are likely to accept the amendment. I fear that I must, therefore, place on the record for the Advisory Committee on the Fourth Channel the names of those in the Fourth Channel Development Education Group who urge the approach I am advocating. I am sorry to bore the House, but it is necessary to read into Hansard the names of organisations that, surely, should impress the Minister and persuade him to accept the amendment. These are the members of the Fourth Channel Development Education Group who met representatives of the IBA in November last year to urge the point.

The membership in May this year was as follows: Action in Distress, Africa Centre, the Afro-Asian Caribbean Standing Committee on Merseyside, Broadcasters for Development, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the Centre for Multicultural Education, the Centre for World Development Education, Christian Aid, the Christian Education Movement, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, the Church Missionary Society, the Council for Education in World Citizenship, the Commonwealth Institute, the International Defence and Aid Fund, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Earthscan, the Overseas Development Institute, Oxfam, Population Concern, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Runneymede Trust, Scottish Education and Action for Development, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Standing Conference on Education for International Understanding, the Sussex Development Education Group, the Trade Union Education and Research Unit, the Trade Union International Research and Education Group, the United Kingdom Committee of UNICEF, the United Kingdom Standing Conference for United Nations Second Development Decade, the United Reformed Church, the United Society for Christian Literature, Voluntary Services Overseas, War on Want, the Workers' Educational Association and the World Development Movement.

It is important that the list of those associated with this request should appear clearly on the record. We await the Minister's response to the amendment. The delegation which met the IBA not only proposed that there should be written into the Act a statutory provision of the kind that I have moved but put forward the concept that it could advise on how such content might be incorporated and offered to organise the contribution to input that might be necessary.

That is the background to the amendment. It is moved on the heels of the Brandt debate last week and the Venice summit. Conventional thinking—I suspect that this is the conventional thinking throughout the media—might and, I think, does, assume that the subject of this amendment is very much concerned with a minority interest. The question that I put to the Minister and to those who will organise the distribution within the public service element of the fourth channel is "Is it a minority interest, or is it that one generation regards it as minority interest while, for the younger generation, it is a consuming interest"?

The present three channels do not offer enough. When Willy Brandt came to Britain to talk about the Brandt report, he went to Oxford. My understanding is that there was the largest meeting of students which has been held in Oxford since the 1930s. The examination schools there were crammed to overflowing. Apparently it was the biggest event at Oxford for two, three or four generations.

The Churches of all denominations regard our relationships with the developing world as at the centre, not only of their thinking, but of their activities. In my experience, young people around the country find this an area in which they feel a commitment and an involvement. So do old people. I had a touching letter from a constituent only yesterday. He is an old-age pensioner who lives in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency. He happened to have seen one of the rather rare programmes on the subject of famine in East Africa, which was intensely moving and partly as a result of which there is now the appeal of the Save the Children Fund and other voluntary bodies which is raising so much money for children and mothers in East Africa. That old-age pensioner wrote in an unsteady hand and told me that he had watched the programme and that he was deeply concerned. He asked how he could help raise funds to send to East Africa and also what we in Parliament were doing about it.

I should like to touch on what people who are involved and engaged in this subject have the opportunity of seeing at present. The Minister will appreciate that, having had 10 years' experience of this issue, on one side of the House or the other, I have been able to consider and to contemplate what is offered on the present television channels. I suggest that we are offered occasional excellent reports on disasters and crises. They are excellent. They are highly evocative, good documentaries which arouse emotions, concern, interest and involvement. Then, usually late at night, or on what is popularly known as the "God spot", we have the occasional, naive, starting-from-scratch programmes about relationships between the industrialised world and the Third world. It is as if a Department which has a guilty conscience says "We must do something about the Third world", and a producer starts from scratch, rings a few of us up and we try to take him through from A to B to C on the whole content of what he is trying to do. Although he means well, it is not what we need.

There is remarkably little on regular news and current affairs programmes. Last night, I observed the way in which BBC news and "Panorama" reported the Venice summit, at which the whole issue of the Brandt report and North-South was absolutely crucial in the view of many of us. There was no mention of it on the news on BBC 1, and in "Panorama", which had a very full report of the Venice summit, we were treated in a brief second to a list of the four major points which were printed out on the television screen, one of which was "No summit on North-South". That was all that we saw on BBC 1 about the major element which was discussed at the Venice summit.

That is not good enough. We want the opportunity which the fourth channel offers to be used. We regard it as one of the real responsibilities of public service broadcasting. We therefore believe that that opportunity should be embodied in clause 3. If we want to encourage innovation and experiment, we have the right also to urge that a proportion of programmes should be devoted to the major issue of this century.

6.15 pm

I remind the Minister—I think that he will be responsible for it when it comes his way in September or October—that 18 or 19 months ago there was the UNESCO conference on the mass media. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not yet have received his brief on what is likely to occur at the UNESCO conference in October in Belgrade on the subject of the mass media. But what is clear is that it will be of the greatest importance for industrialised countries clearly to be able to indicate that they take extremely seriously their responsibilities to report what is happening in the Third world adequately and fairly. Although one cannot write into a Bill anything to do with fairness in the treatment of a subject, one can write into it—and we suggest that we should—the adequacy of time alloted to the subject.

If the Minister or his officials are able to go to that UNESCO conference which will deal with the McBride report on the mass media—which has aroused tremendous concern among our own media and journalists—and say "We have just written into our Bill a provision that the fourth channel shall allocate a reasonable proportion of programmes to the question of world development", it will stand them in extremely good stead. I counsel him accordingly.

We shall be most interested to hear what the attitude of the Government is to this amendment. I merely repeat that it has the most distinguished, solid and extensive backing. We shall regard it as unreasonable if the Minister is not able to give a reasonably positive response.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

Before my hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate, perhaps I can sound a slight note of warning. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) read out a list of immensely impressive and serious organisations that do marvellous work in many corners of the world. However, we in this House should be extremely careful about trying to establish directions based on our own inclinations, or the inclinations of such organisations as the right hon. Lady cited, about what broadcasting programme content should be.

The right hon. Lady referred to what "we" want, but I have a haunting fear that in these instances what we want is often not what people want. It is difficult enough for us in politics to identify what the real desires of people are in almost any area of policy. It is extremely difficult in broadcasting, which, of course, is an amalgam of information, transmittal and entertainment. It is difficult, because we need to get it more nearly right. At the end of the day the ability to switch off remains with the viewer, who, however, cannot switch off his reaction to the fact that he has to live with the effects of policies in other areas.

I advocate the provisions of clause 3, which specifically apply general quality guidelines for programmes on the fourth channel which will appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV and in which the authority is charged with encouraging innovation and experiment, as well as with specific areas of direction of programme content, rather than attempting to establish—as do the new clause and the amendment—a specific requirement as to programme content.

On Second Reading I raised the issue of the constitution of the new board. The make-up of the board will have a direct effect on the content of programmes. As I understand it, the board will be made up of professionals rather than representatives of shareholders, workers or regions. I raise again with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State the question whether the board should be representative of any interests—educational or any other kind. I ask whether, on the other hand, the board should not be made up of individuals who, because of their interests, occupations, and track records, are seen to be concerned for the creation of exceedingly good television of all kinds directed at minority and majority audiences.

I want to say a word about the direction of programmes to minorities. The essence of television as presently developed is that it is a broadcasting medium. It is not a "narrowcasting" medium. As it broadcasts it must strike at least a common denominator with a sufficiently wide audience to make it viable. I speak of programme viability and not economic viability, though in a commercially supported station the two elements are indivisible.

I fear that if the House follows the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Lanark we shall fall into the trap of requiring to be broadcast television programmes that would be fascinating to us in the House and to a small minority outside the House but would not be in the nature of broadcasting, or fulfilling the intention of the establishment of the fourth television channel.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)

I support new clause 4 and amendment No. 12, which lays down that instead of "a suitable proportion" of educational broadcasting the proportion should be 20 per cent.

The IBA expresses the hope that the fourth channel will serve fresh educational needs and use to the full new and exciting opportunities. The authority says that it attaches special importance to reaching individuals and not merely audiences, and that it recognises that this will require connections to be made between broadcasts and the means that exist outside broadcasting to follow up the interests created by programmes in relation to popular and specialist journals, home study, local groups and societies, volunteer services and classes in a variety of institutions.

The authority also says that it wishes to devote resources to establishing such connections and to making the new structure of educational broadcasting something wider and deeper than that which appears on the screen. I do not suppose that anyone in the House would disagree with the aims and objectives that the IBA there expresses.

Unfortunately, what does not appear, either in the proposals by the authority or in the provisions concerning the fourth channel in the Bill, is a means of ensuring that the hopes of the authority—which one respects and admires—will be adequately fulfilled. That is why I speak in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) and his attempt to insist that a specific proportion of broadcasting on the fourth channel should be devoted to educational subjects.

My hon. Friend, when laying down the 20 per cent. proportion, might have gone on to specify that some of those programmes should be screened at peak times, otherwise we could too easily find, yet again, that educational programmes were relegated to those times when people were least likely to wish to view them. In saying that I no doubt arouse the opposition of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who, when referring to programmes about the Third world, suggested that we should beware of putting on television programmes which, in his view, the majority of people did not wish to watch. In speaking in that way he fell into his own trap in claiming, at least, to know what people do not wish to watch.

Mr. Rathbone

No, quite the opposite.

Dr. McDonald

I think that the hon. Gentleman failed to recognise that people can quickly become involved in a programme or a subject that they did not expect to engage their interest. An example is the recent programme about starvation in East Africa. A programme can suddenly make an impact on a wide range of people and cause them to think about problems that they had never previously considered.

Hence, it is important that at least some educational programmes should be transmitted at peak hours, and we should help the IBA to realise its ideal by encouraging it to lay down guidelines in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock suggested that representatives of various organisations should be involved in the work of the educational advisory council. That would seem to follow from what the IBA has said. If educational programmes are to have permanent value it is important to link the individual with other groups, societies and institutions in ways of following up the initial interest that a programme may have excited. It is therefore important that the right kind of people should be brought in to work with the educational advisory council.

If I make proposals about bodies that are interested, and that are representative of a wide range of people, it is because I believe that they illustrate the kind of body that my hon. Friend has in mind.

I have here a letter from the Workers' Educational Association, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). In it the WEA stresses, first, that it is aware of the important contribution that broadcasting—particularly television—can make in the development of workers' education. The association already has considerable experience of television through the Open University and through its work with the BBC.

The WEA is also anxious to link in to the educational output of the fourth channel, but it stresses that such collaboration should not continue on the present pattern of occasional co-operative ventures and informal liaison. That is not what the WEA would want. If it were limited to that occasional co-operation there would be little that the WEA could do either to bring its experience to bear on the kind of programmes that are put forward for adult education or to involve the individual viewer in the way in which the IBA seems to want. The WEA therefore suggests that it should have a particular role to play and that the national extension college should have a special responsibility for the preparation of support publications. In that way, adult education in Britain might, through the use of television, become much more of a reality than it is now and, indeed, is likely to be in the future.

6.30 pm

I want to stress here the importance and value of television in both adult education and other types of education. For a number of years before I became a Member of Parliament I was involved in education at a variety of levels—in secondary education, adult education and university education. Where educational programmes are designed to inform and instruct and to prepare people for degree courses, and so on, the Open University has certainly shown the way. One hopes that the fourth channel will be able to reach that kind of level and be able to provide the kind of support and back-up, and the link with tutors, and so on, that the Open University has been able to provide.

For informal education the fourth channel will need to draw on the experience of both the WEA and youth organisations. I have received representations from the National Youth Council about the way in which the fourth channel should be used in order to educate the young. Once again, if youth organisations are used only in an ad hoc way, then, as the IBA recognises, the fourth channel will not be able to fulfil all of its potential.

The National Youth Council points out that only over the last three or four years has television begun to involve young people in the production of programmes and to consult them about the kind of material that they want to see on television and from which they would benefit. There have been isolated experiments. For example, Thames Television networked earlier this year "White Light", which featured issues concerning young people. It was viewed by young people in the studios and they were subsequently involved in television discussion. Other programmes dealt with the problem of youth unemployment. They helped young people to overcome apathy and indifference when on leaving school they found that no jobs were available. They helped them to direct their energies towards setting a job and in presenting themselves for interviews, and so on. Television has recently used youth organisations by first screening various social problems and then involving people, particularly the young in volunteer action groups.

So far, all this has been done only in an ad hoc way. What is needed now is to use something like the educational advisory council to involve youth organisations and to set up a proper structure for the use of the fourth channel to educate young people in the broadest sense and, particularly now, to help them to find a place in society both in terms of a job and in terms of involving themselves in society's attitudes and cultural traditions.

If the fourth channel is to have any value and if its educational content is to be a serious one, these are the procedures that must be used. So far, the Bill does not impose on the fourth channel a proper use and ensure that that use will be made of it. Too much is being left to the advertisers and others who wish to make money out of it.

Finally, the IBA talked about the need for innovation and experiment, particularly in educational programmes, although I think that this is quite a general point. Throughout the Bill the argument has been that little has been done to ensure that that innovation and experiment will take place on the fourth channel. Here we need to stress once more that more scope should be given to the independent producers, since it is from them that we can expect the kind of innovation and experiment, and the willingness to take risks, that may not be available if we use traditional sources of programming.

There is no point in leaving educational programmes and programmes concerned with the Third world to the chance of "a suitable proportion". There should be a proportion of 20 per cent. It should be a proportion that involves the use of peak time for some of these programmes. There should be ways of ensuring that the fourth channel will involve the organisations outside television that have a contribution to make and that can take up and involve the individual's interest, which has been developed through television, and will properly ensure that innovation and experiment take place by giving a greater opportunity than the Bill now proposes to the independent producers.

Mr. Freud

I rise in support of amendment No. 13, standing in my name and the names of the right hon. Members for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).

I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I think that the Minister and I, for once, perhaps, will agree on something almost unreservedly, in that I believe that it is difficult to legislate specifically in a case such as this. I think that it would be wrong for the House to lend its name to a charter for a new television programme in which we specify too closely how that new programme should be made up. I am not at all sure that a reasonable proportion of programmes has any real meaning. "Reasonable" means different things in different people's minds.

I believe that the House would be much better served in hearing from the Minister that he has some sympathy towards our amendment, and that as well as saving that the new service will have innovation and experiment it is expected to have re sponsibility and to show concern. I hope that the Minister will come towards us—not, perhaps, in instantly giving you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a manuscript amendment saying that such-and-such a percentage will be devoted to programmes, such as is asked for in our amendment, but in giving a broad consent to the concept of the amendment.

I am sure that the Minister and the whole House will know of the enormous power of television, and of people who had no serious intention of watching being seduced by a message, such as the message of the famine in East Africa and the many different messages that have come via television to an apathetic audience that, having thought about the message, decided that something must be done.

I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House will have met constituents—as I have met constituents—who have said "Why should we help the Third world when things are so bad in England?" We depend on television channels to show us that, compared with the Third world, things are really rather good in England, however bad they may appear.

It is for that reason that I hope the Minister will support us. I know that what we say in the House will be listened to and read with care by the IBA. All that we can ask for is not so much a reasonable proportion of programmes going in one direction as consent on both sides of the House that on the new television channel there shall be responsibility and concern about the suffering and the plight of those worse off than ourselves.

I do not believe that the opportunity to motivate a new service comes to the House very often. In 1967 we thought that we were giving a 10-year charter, but it has gone on for 13 or 14 years. This is the time to declare our intention. I hope that the declaration will come from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Robert Hughes

The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was right to warn us about the dangers of legislating on the subject of television programmes. However, he misunderstood the purpose of the amendments when he spoke about legislating on programme content. If we were legislating on programme content I should not be in any parliamentary lobby that sought to direct television companies on the content of particular programmes. The amendments seek to draw to the attention of the authority and to whatever new company should be involved a range of topics that they should deal with responsibly and in an educational manner.

In these days it may be trite to say that all the peoples of this world are interdependent, but few people in this country are aware that the constantly expressed demands for a higher standard of living and greater wealth for each individual in Britain or the Western world cannot be met forever. Indeed, nowadays the demands that we make on the facilities and riches of the world can be met only at the expense of people who are much worse off than ourselves.

It is essential for us to give some direction in relation to a range of topicalities. Whether any hon. Member likes it or not, conscious decisions are made about the kinds of television programmes that are projected on the screen. The average viewer has no control over the programmes, their content, or how they are projected. Those decisions are consciously made. The ways in which the programmes are made effectively determine the way in which people look upon events in the world outside Britain.

What strikes me about television today, especially the news coverage, is the absolute bias that appears in it from time to time. I give one or two examples of what arises in news programmes and why it is essential to have as broad a range as possible of educational programmes dealing with the Third world.

Many people in this country have come to the conclusion that the reason why we are suffering from economic difficulties is that the greedy Arabs are putting up their oil prices, but any rational examination of the reasons behind the oil price increase would take into account, for example, what happened to the oil-producing countries in the days when they had no economic power.

I give one other example. At the time of the Lancaster House discussions on Rhodesia, when there was an agreement, one ITN news bulletin purported to give the views of the man in the street in Salisbury. The reporter interviewed about a dozen men. By some curious chance, in a country where the whites are outnumbered, every person whose view was asked was white. That had an effect on the way in which people considered matters.

Looking at news bulletins from day to day, we find that the people who quite rightly resist the Russians in Afghanistan are variously described as "freedom fighters" or "resisters against oppression", but in news bulletins about events in South Africa, people are described as "terrorists". Essentially, both groups of people are doing precisely the same thing—they are trying to free themselves from oppressors. In Afghanistan they are trying to free themselves from a wholly external oppressor while in South Africa they are dealing with an internal oppressor.

6.45 pm

I may be wrong; perhaps I am giving the people who deal with the news media too much benefit of the doubt. I am not sure whether they take a conscious decision on how far they may affect people's attitudes and values about the world at large. I hope that I am not doing them an injustice. I hope that they are not setting out consciously to describe people in certain ways. If that is what they are doing, it is thoroughly bad.

That is why I come back to the point that I made at the beginning, in relation to programme content. There should not be directions by a political body to determine how matters should be presented. Certainly, the news should be presented as objectively and neutrally as possible, free of political content. That rarely happens.

There have been some excellent documentaries, some of which I agreed with and some of which I violently disagreed with. They set out to examine problems in the Third world and to present them to the public. I hope that there will be balanced educational programmes, which widen the perspective of people's lives.

I should like to ask one question which may or may not be related to the new clause. I may get the question in before I am called to order. How far, in the provision that deals with imaginative content, is there an intention to encourage the contractor for the fourth channel, or, indeed, the present contractors, to have more access-television and to give more air time to people who want to make a programme and put over a specific message? There is nothing wrong in allowing people to express their views on television as well as in the public parks.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. They are important. As time goes on, the pressure to make money will reduce the standard of service that we receive. It is difficult for anyone to say what kind of programme should be seen on television. In the major battle that arises from time to time about the ratings the tendency is always to go for the lowest common denominator instead of the highest common factor.

I hope that the fourth channel will have a much broader perspective and will provide a much better service than anything we have received so far. I hope that the amendments—if accepted, as they should be—will go sonic way towards providing a sense of responsibility within one of the most important media in the country today.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

I shall not detain the House for long. I approach these matters with a good degree of cynicism.

As in many other instances, and especially when a clause is couched in such general terms as this one, there is a great temptation for individual Members to parade their own prejudices. They lay themselves open to the charge that they are seeking to inflict their prejudices on the mass of the viewing public.

Clause 3, as drafted, would be amusing if it were not so serious. Television is an extremely powerful medium. For us to legislate in such meaningless terms as those contained in clause 3 naturally leads the Opposition to seek to be more specific.

Clause 3(1) says: it shall be the duty of the Authority—(a) to ensure that the programmes contain"— this is the phrase that has been paraded around in the last half hour— a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by ITV. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us specifically what tastes and interests are not now generally catered for by television which will be covered by the new channel.

Clause 3(1)(b) says that the Authority must ensure that a suitable proportion of the programmes are of an educational nature. That begs the question. All kinds of so-called educational programmes would not be so defined, for instance, by Mrs. Mary Whitehouse and a whole lot of other people of that kidney.

Is page 3 of The Sun defined as "educational"? If a series of photographic reproductions of page 3 of The Sun are screened for half an hour, in the belief that this is what the Prime Minister approves of because she knighted the fellow who produces those things, is that an educational programme?

Mr. D. E. Thomas

I am certain that a detailed study of that photograph, especially a semiotic study, would reveal the inherent sexism of the British media.

Mr. Hamilton

I am emphasising the vague generality of the phraseology in the clause. Paragraph (c) states: to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes, and generally to give the Fourth Channel Service a distinctive character of its own. Those interested in the fourth channel are interested in one thing only—making money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) does not have a hope in hell of the amendment being accepted. We are trying to write into the Bill a provision to ensure that the contractors shall engage 15 per cent. of their programmes on world development. That in itself is a vague term which could mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people. My right hon. Friend knows what she wants, and I know what she wants. If we got what we wanted, it would not appeal to the majority of viewers.

I receive letters, even from Labour supporters, complaining about the aid that is given by the Government to under-developed countries, on the basis that charity begins at home. If the contractors find that the programmes are not popular, although they might be educationally good—they will be taken off because they do not make the cash for those running the show. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that matters should be left as they are, namely, that control should be left to the good judgment of the IBA. Presumably, the IBA will read and digest what has been said in the debate. It knows that a fair representation of hon. Members want a larger educational content—the sort of programmes that have been mentioned by Labour Members. I am surprised that we have not tabled more amendments, although some may have been tabled in Committee. I am sorely tempted to say that we should give 15 per cent. to youth programmes and 15 per cent. to the unemployed—which is a growth industry under the present Government. There could be programmes on the use of leisure time for the unemployed. There is an infinite variety of ways in which we could lay down the content of programmes.

On balance, I accept the advice of the hon. Member for Lewes that it is better to leave the matter in the general propositions contained in clause 3, hoping that the IBA will take full account of what has been said in the debate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Bolton, West)

I wish to speak briefly about the points of the amendments that deal with educational broadcasting Amendment No. 52, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), is grouped with new clause 4, which was moved by my hon, Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts). I hope that the Government will feel able to accept amendment No. 52, which is modest. If the Government accept the amendment it will go some way towards allaying some of the fears felt by those involved in educational broadcasting—especially those who work in the Open University—about the future of educational broadcasting when the fourth channel is under way.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. Two of the principles that we have written into the amendment are taken from the Bill as it stands, and as it was written by the Government. First, there should be educational broadcasting on the fourth channel—a principle that is generally accepted by the IBA and by the Government, and that is written into the Bill in clause 3(1)(b). Secondly, there should be a degree of accountability, and that is written into the Bill in clause 7. It is important that those two principles should be linked and that there should be a degree of accountability on educational broadcasting. The amendment tries to ensure that there is some responsibility in that respect and some attempt to define the meaning of educational broadcasting, which is lacking in the Bill as it stands.

We wish to ensure that the phrase a suitable proportion of programmes are of an educational nature is more clearly defined—if not now, at least once the fourth channel is established by those who have responsibility for its operation. As the Bill stands, references to the educational content of programmes or to educational broadcasting are pretty meaningless. They are no more than a token acknowledgement that there should be educational broadcasting on the fourth channel.

I mentioned the Open University because those who work with it or who are connected with it are concerned with the development of educational broadcasting. This afternoon many hon. Members—and even more hon. Members during previous stages of the Bill—declared their interest. I do not have any interest in the Bill as it stands, but I have a past interest, in that, for a time, I worked for the Open University. I was keenly aware of the significant role that television played for students studying for an Open university degree. Anyone who knows anything about the amount of effort that they commit to their work must be impressed by their motivation and dedication.

The problem for those students is not only the amount of time that their work takes but the hours when they have to study. At present, anyone studying for an Open University degree has to work very anti-social hours because of the times at which educational broadcasts are available on television. Anyone looking at today's papers to see the television programme timetable would find that students had to be in front of their television sets at 6.40 am to view some of the programmes that are necessary to help them with their course work.

That is not a satisfactory position. Many of those involved with the Open University are worried that the position may deteriorate further. There is no guarantee that the fourth channel will either allow sufficient time for educational broadcasts or allow time at the right part of the day for such broadcasts to be useful. Many are worried that the BBC, feeling that it must compete with Independent Television programmes, may put even more pressure on the Open University to come off BBC 2 in the early evening and broadcast its programmes at even more unsocial hours than at present. That is a cause of genuine concern.

7 pm

It is obvious that the time at which most adults are free to study or to pursue any special interest is probably going to be the same time as that at which mass audiences are available to watch popular programmes. Someone in the authority will have to make a basic decision to resist the pressures to seek mass audiences. So far the IBA has been reluctant to guarantee regular transmission times or the continuation of transmission times, or even to guarantee adequate repeat facilities, all of which are necessary if coherent planning of any type of educational programme is to go ahead.

Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesend)

I am interested in what the hon. Lady says about that aspect, but does she admit that many students of the Open University are mothers and fathers, and that the one difficulty that they would have at peak times would be to persuade their children to turn over to the Open University lessons when they wanted to watch someting more entertaining?

Mrs. Taylor

I think that most Open University students would prefer to tackle that problem than to stay up until 12.30 at night to watch educational programmes or to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning to begin their studies. I think that they could more easily cope with that kind of situation than the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

This problem is causing a great deal of concern for the Open University. What will happen to educational broadcasting when the new channel is established? Will the Open University get a fair deal from the new channel? If it will, on what basis will it be? If not, will the Minister use his powers under section 21 of the 1973 Act to make it more likely that suitable time will be provided for Open university broadcasting in future? I realise that the Minister has been asked about this matter in the past, and I think that he has had representations from the Open University about it. However, it is a problem that is causing great concern. The Minister should be in a position to give some assurances to the House this evening.

We have not been too specific in the amendment. We have not embarked on too many tight definitions of "educational broadcasting" or of "suitable times". I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there are some shortcomings in the Bill and will accept that there should be a greater degree of accountability in educational broadcasting.

It is essential that further safeguards should be introduced into the Bill so that commercial broadcasting can provide an effective educational service for adults. If the Minister intends to display his concern and interest in this matter, he will accept that the amendment is a reasonable step in the direction of ensuring that educational needs are met. The Government have only to decide whether they are interested in an attempt to safeguard educational programmes. If they are, the amendment should be acceptable to them. If they refuse to accept the amendment, many people will be concerned about the Government's attitude to educational broadcasting in future.

Mr. Brittan

Discussions between the IBA and the Open University are taking place. I am not able to report the outcome of those discussions because they have not been concluded.

The Government agree with the essential aims of amendment No. 52, which would require an obligation to be placed on the IBA to give in its annual report a description of programmes of an educational nature on ITV and the fourth channel and to describe the Authority's determination of what is a suitable proportion of the programmes that are of an educational nature and of what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature. I support the idea that the IBA should be accountable in the sense of its being required to describe in some detail the provision that it has made for educational programmes.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) is right if what she is saying is that one way of ensuring that what is—we would say necessarily—a fairly general obligation is adhered to is if at the end of a specific, limited and regular period the body upon which that necessarily general obligation is placed has to give an account to Parliament and the country of how it has discharged that obligation. That seems to be an appropriate way of ensuring the adequate discharge of a duty which, by its very nature, has to be cast in general terms. Therefore, I do not disagree with the general aim that the hon. Lady put before the House.

The only reason why I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment is that that general aim is met by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Clause 7(2) deals with the report that the authority has to provide and stipulates— The report shall include …

1. (a) a general description of the programmes broadcast in ITV and the Fourth Channel Service respectively, with particular reference to programmes containing news or news features and programmes of an educational nature, and a general account of how the programmes broadcast in the Fourth Channel Service differed from those broadcast in ITV, with particular reference as aforesaid"

That means that the report must give an account of what the IBA has done to discharge its obligations under the Bill to ensure that there is a suitable proportion of programmes of an educational nature. I do not believe that the further provisions in the amendment take the matter much further in a helpful way. Obviously that account, which will be included in the report as a result of the provisions in the Bill, will be descriptive and will therefore be a helpful document. But to say in that report what determines whether a programme is of an educational nature does not seem to take the matter much further.

If we are not trying to be controversial or polemical, we all know that there are difficulties for anyone, whether broadcasters or educationists, in deciding what is or is not "of an educational nature". Leaving aside the references that were made to page 3 of The Sun and whether that is educational, even matters that generally would be regarded as being of a valuable and life-enhancing kind— whether they are to be regarded as educational on the basis that they add to one's breadth of understanding of the world or have a content relating to some particular course—are difficult. It would be better for the authority to give an account of what it has done, and then for the public and Parliament to decide whether they are satisfied with the discharge of responsibilities given in that account.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

May I assume from what the Minister has said that, if he thought that the account was not satisfactory, he, as Minister, would be willing to use his powers under the 1973 Act on programme content and the timing of programmes?

Mr. Brittan

If ever there was a hypothetical question, that was it. I do not propose to envisage a situation in which a report has been issued with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not satisfied, and to say how and in what way he would exercise powers vested in him to deal with a situation revealed by a non-existent deficiency and a nonexistent report. I do not think that that would be very helpful. I have accepted the principle, and it should indicate the nature of the concern of the Government that we have specifically included this matter in the Bill to ensure that the educational obligation is taken seriously.

I turn now to the other more general matters about the content of the programmes that will appear on the fourth channel that were raised particularly by the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart). The debate has been valuable, and I hope it will be accepted that I do not say that in any empty sense or with a desire to apply compliments, let alone flattery. I genuinely believe that the programmes that appear on the fourth channel will be determined by a number of inputs. We are talking about a service in its incipient stages. I have no doubt that one of the factors that will play an important part in what appears will be what is said in this House and the degree of interest that is shown by hon. Members on these matters. Therefore, the points that were made by the right hon. Lady about the extreme importance of matters relating to the Third world, and the degree of interest in those matters will be heeded by the IBA and by those responsible for running the fourth channel. The fact that she was able to pray in aid a large number of individuals and organisations in support of her interest and concern will not go unnoticed.

The anecdote that the right hon. Lady related to the House of the visit to Oxford by Herr Brandt must be of significance to those concerned with the making of programmes. If she is saying that this is an important subject, the handling of the matter by the House last week shows a general acceptance of that fact. If she goes on to say that an important subject of that sort should be dealt with extensively in a responsible and mature way on television, I doubt whether she would find any dissent. If she tells us that that subject invokes a particular response from young people, that, too, would accord with our common experience and with the experience of those who talk to younger sections of the community. If, in addition, she is conveying the message that a fourth channel that seeks to encourage innovation and experiment in the form of and content of its programmes should heed the interests of the young, then, too, I suspect that she would be giving a message which would be well received and well heeded.

7.15 pm

I hope that I can give a measure of support to the spirit of what the right hon. Lady said, and to what was said on education. I differ from the right hon. Lady on the question of whether it is appropriate for the House to give directions to the IBA in a legislative form—beyond what is contained in the Bill—as to the content of the programmes to be put out on the fourth channel. I differ from the right hon. Lady because it is important to bear in mind the general structure of what we are providing and what we are seeking to ask the IBA to provide. The right hon. Lady was not present throughout the discussion on that point in Committee. She says that she has read the reports of the Committee proceedings, and I accept that. But she will realise that in making this point it is not merely an attempt to excuse the Government's reluctance to accept this amendment, but rather a reflection of the general philosophy that applies to world development, education, or whatever.

We are seeking to provide in legislation a general outline, guide and direction to the IBA as to the character of the programmes that we wish to see on the fourth channel, and as to the sources from which those programmes should be derived. We are not seeking to tie the IBA in a straitjacket, and any attempt to impose quotas or percentages, however well-intentioned or well-meant, is sure to have that effect. A quota becomes a norm, and that is an undesirable principle to apply in broadcasting.

Therefore, we have resorted to general phrases about the suitable proportions, upon which it is easy to cast scorn, but which provide a sounder basis for the development of a project from scratch. Just as we do not wish to impose quotas, we would be unwise to prescribe the subject matter. To do that is not the same as to dictate the content of particular programmes, but there are many worthy contenders for special reference, and there are many subjects which everyone would agree should be dealt with on television. It is not appropriate for us to produce a list. There is no specific requirement that there should be a suitable proportion of religious programmes on the fourth channel, but no one doubts that that is a subject matter of supreme importance to millions of people.

In rejecting the concept that there should be a requirement that these schemes be particular quotas or subject matter, we are doing nothing, and we do not seek to do anything, to discourage the IBA in its conduct of the programmes from including among them a responsible treatment of these matters. We are doing quite the reverse.

The right hon. Lady says that education has already been mentioned. That is true, but education and matters of an educational nature are, for the reasons that I mentioned, different. We are not talking about a subject matter. Education can cover almost any subject. We are talking about a treatment, an aim and a function. That is different from a particular subject.

I hope that I have responded in a positive sense to the aims, purposes and aspirations of right hon. and hon. Members about what should go out on the fourth channel. I hope that the House believes that the right way is to make its views heard but not to impose their aims in legislation.

Dame Judith Hart

I am glad that the Minister has said that both sides of the House and the Government agree with the principle and intent of the new clause. In those circumstances I am sure that those responsible for the fourth channel will be bound to pay full heed to the House's view.

Question put and negatived.