EXCLUSION FROM PROGRAMMES OF OPINIONS OF AUTHORITY, THEIR SUB SIDIARY AND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS (Hansard, 24 June 1980)

§ Mr. D. E. Thomas

I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 18, line 2, at end insert, but including matters of broadcasting policy which may materially affect the position of a programme contractor". The purpose of the amendment is to limit the role of television contractors in commenting publicly on issues that materially affect the position of the contractor. The amendment, as the Department may have already divined, arises from the exercise in which a television contractor in Wales was involved last year and in previous years in seeking to influence broadcasting policy. I refer, of course, to HTV, in Wales, which has been conducting a major campaign, both off the air and on the air, against what was then a Government-agreed consensus on the fourth channel. I do not wish to reiterate our earlier arguments at this time of night, but it is a serious matter of public policy when a television company has access to the air waves and when it is possible for it to set the agenda for a public debate in which it is both the subject and object.

The legislation to which this amendment adds controls the way in which broadcasting authorities can comment on matters that are controversial and that affect them—specifically, matters that are of political or industrial controversy or that relate to current public policy. It is a very serious breach by a contractor when it seeks to use its position to influence public debate about an area of broadcasting policy that materially affects it.

The exercise indulged in by HTV not only included the significant placing of items of news about itself in its own bulletins but included the publication of material distributed widely through the post among the Welsh Establishment. One household received three copies of this publication because the persons concerned were members of both Cymdeithas Cerdd Dant and Llys yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol, as well as one of them being an hon. Member. The intention 425 of that campaign was to influence public policy, and it was successful. It is a serious matter when a contractor uses its access to information about itself in this way.

We accept that the whole of the media system is completely biased in favour of the status quo, the ideas of the ruling class, and those who are able to control and administer our present political system. I am sure that hon. Members have read reviews of the successor to "Bad News", entitled "More Bad News", published recently by Glasgow university media group, which objectively and in a scholarly fashion indicated the nature of of the bias of our media system. It is extremely serious when, in perpetrating that bias, part of the media system defends its own material interests. Thus it tends to undermine public policy. The success of the campaign that I mentioned is indicated by the fact that the Government changed their policy.

§ Mr. Brittan

I have to advise the House not to accept the amendment. Clause 21, which the amendment seeks to amend, gives effect to main essentials in recommendations made by the Annan committee. In particular, the committee recommended a relaxation of the existing provisions to allow broadcasting authorities and contractors to express their views on broadcasting matters. I believe that that recommendation was sensible. I think that the limitations that have existed up to now are artificial. Of course it is right to say that there is always a risk that a freedom granted will be abused, but to limit it in the way that the hon. Member has suggested is an unreasonable and rather artificial restriction, and not a real safeguard.