Broadcasting Standards Council

HC Deb 16 May 1988 vol 133 cc689-98 3.55 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Broadcasting Standards Council.

I am glad to tell the House that Sir William Rees-Mogg has agreed to serve as the first chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Tory apparatchik.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Hurd

The unique power of the broadcasting media to shape perceptions and their influence over attitudes and actions are widely recognised. We drew attention in our election manifesto to public concern over the display of violence and sex on television. In line with that commitment, we now propose, by setting up the new council, to srengthen standards in this sector and to reinforce the work of the individual broadcasting regulatory bodies.

The Government will put forward proposals to the House for placing the new Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis. We intend that it should be set up soon and function for a time on a non-statutory basis. During this settling-in period, it will, first, draw up, in consultation with the broadcasting authorities and the other responsible bodies in broadcasting, cable and video, a code on the portrayal of violence and sex and standards of taste and decency.

Secondly, it will monitor and report on the portrayal of violence and sex, and standards of taste and decency in television and radio programmes received in the United Kingdom and in video works.

Thirdly, it will receive, consider and make findings on complaints and comments from indivuiduals and organisations on matters within its competence and ensure that such findings are effectively publicised.

Fourthly, it will undertake research on matters such as the nature and effects on attitudes and behaviour of the portrayal of violence and sex in television and radio programmes and in video works. Fifthly, it will prepare an annual report, which the Home Secretary will lay before Parliament and publish.

In addition, the Government will consult the council on the implications, for the matters within its remit, of the negotiations under way in Europe for the regulation of transfrontier broadcasting, and on the implementation of the result of those negotiations.

Sir William Rees-Mogg has suggested that the council might function best if it were to preview some imported fictional material before it is broadcast. I have therefore asked him to explore, with the relevant broadcasting bodies during this pre-statutory period, an arrangement under which they would make available to the council, before transmission, fictional material acquired from abroad that is believed to give rise to special concern, and on which accordingly they would find the council's prior comments helpful.

Sir William will discuss with the broadcasting authorities how best they should publicise the council's views on programmes and programme standards. The BBC, IBA, Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and other relevant regulatory authorities will remain responsible for exercising their powers and duties under existing provisions, as will the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

The Government will frame their proposals for the statutory powers of the new council in the light of progress made meanwhile in making sensible arrangements for co-operation between the new council and the broadcasting authorities.

The administrative arrangements for the new council are well in hand. Further details, including its membership, will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Is the Home Secretary aware that, although his statement was clearly intended to be bland, it will cause great disquiet among those who believe in the freedom of broadcasting and broadcasters? No one seriously believes that the new council will simply be the combination of think tank and complaints box promised in the Tory manifesto. It is the thin end of a highly authoritarian wedge and we shall continue to resist every attempt by the Government to interfere with free broadcasting in a free society.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the power to vet and veto individual programmes which he has trailed today as the wish of Sir William Rees-Mogg is wholly unacceptable? The idea of a further regulatory body superimposed on the BBC and IBA, which act under legislation and charter to observe acceptable standards, is simultaneously dangerous and absurd. The additional power to regulate gives the Government the chance to impose their wishes on broadcasting. That is an unacceptable practice in a free society.

I warn the Home Secretary that fears about his real intentions will be heightened by the appointment as chairman of Sir William Rees-Mogg. Sir William played an ignoble part in the suppression of the "Real Lives" programme when he was vice-chairman of the BBC, and he is one of the few people of any standing to have publicly condemned a television programme—"Airbase"—and then gone on to admit that he had not seen it. Moreover, he has openly—most recently yesterday afternoon with the Daily Mail—demanded the right as chairman of the new council to vet and veto individual broadcasts. He is a wholly unsuitable chairman. He does not have the support of the Opposition and he will not have the confidence of the broadcasters. Only a weak Minister would have appointed a chairman who first announced his terms of reference in public and now proposes to negotiate them after his appointment has been announced to the House today.

I emphasise once again that to give the Broadcasting Standards Council regulatory powers is wholly unacceptable to Opposition and broadcasters alike. It will be resisted in the House and I believe that broadcasters will not co-operate until the legislation has passed through all its stages in the Commons and in the House of Lords.

In the light of that, I wish to ask the Home Secretary five specific questions. First, will he give a categorical assurance, without any doubt or attempt to equivocate, that the BSC will cover only matters relating to sex and violence—that is, matters of so-called taste and not matters of politics? Representatives of the Conservative Back-Bench broadcasting committee said on television yesterday that the powers of the council must be extended to other matters in addition to sex and violence—[HON.

MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] I want an assurance that the Home Secretary will not succumb to the "Hear, Hears" that we have just heard from Conservatives below the Gangway.

Secondly, what powers will the councl have over video sales and the commercial use of videos? For instance, is Sir William to spend his evenings in assorted hotel bedrooms deciding what is appropriate for broadcasting in that arena, or is commercial video to be excluded from the terms of reference?

Thirdly, how will the council's judgment affect the broadcasting of current affairs? If it is concerned with violence, will Sir William have a view about what can be broadcast concerning murder and mayhem in Belfast and Beirut?

Fourthly, will the Home Secretary give examples of the kind of programme that concerns him? For his announcement to have any veracity or honesty, he must say what it is that concerns him. We must have examples of the type of programme that it is intended that Sir William should suppress.

Finally, is not the truth of the matter that the programmes to which the Government object are concerned not with sex or violence or taste but with the Government's political inconvenience? We believe that the new body will eventually he expanded to inhibit those who dare to criticise the present Administration.

Mr. Hurd

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spent a good deal of last week in the media and in his letter to me stirring up confusion on this subject, and it is clear from his questions that he has managed thoroughly to confuse himself. He has tried to invent a link between the straightforward carrying out of an election manifesto pledge and what he erroneously believes to be the Government's intention to impose their wishes on broadcasting. His attempt has entirely failed, as the outcome will show.

The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms, following those of one or two broadcasters, of Sir William Rees-Mogg personally are grossly unjust. Had we selected a person who knew nothing whatever about broadcasting or about the creative life of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have"]—the right hon. Gentleman would have had some grounds for irritation and criticism. It is clear that the main criticism of my choice for this appointment is that, as a former editor of The Times, a former vice-chairman of the BBC and actual chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William knows a great deal about the matters in hand. I should have thought that that was a qualification rather than a disqualification.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked a number of specific questions. I confirm, as our manifesto and all that we have said on the subject made clear, that the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council has nothing to do with politics—[Laughter.]—or political bias and nothing to do with the treatment of political matters by the broadcasters.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Of course not.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no point in shouting from a sedentary position. It takes up time and it does not help.

Mr. Hurd

Some of my hon. Friends will suggest that the council should concern itself with such matters and there will be plenty of time to discuss those suggestions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but that is not the Government's intention.

As regards video, contrary to what has appeared in parts of the press, we have had considerable discussion with the broadcasters about the scope of the new council. One of the points that the broadcasters made most insistently was that the realm of video must be within the council's remit if it is to deal effectively with the matters with which it is supposed to deal. As my statement today made clear, the council will be concerned with the portrayal of sex and violence.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, in my view two of the biggest social changes in this country in recent years have been the immense increase in the amount of time that people, especially young people, spend watching the television and, secondly, a considerable increase in violence. Research on the subject is inconclusive. That is why one of the points with which the council will deal is the provision of research. Nevertheless, even if a link between those two major changes in society—the growth of television viewing and the increase in violence—exists only in a small number of cases, we must pay proper attention to it and strengthen the means by which we deal with it. The creation of the Broadcasting Standards Council has that objective in mind.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day and that a large number of Back Benchers wish to take part in the subsequent debate.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

This is a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker

It is indeed, but it will be bad luck for Back Benchers if they cannot be called in the next debate. I ask hon. Members to put single questions and to be brief.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of this would have been necessary if the broadcasting authorities had exercised the necessary restraint and control over the unacceptable amount of television violence and sex to which society has been treated in recent years?

Mr. Hurd

The broadcasting authorities do pay attention to this. As we said in our manifesto, we believe that responsibility for enforcing broadcasting standards must rest with the broadcasting authorities, but they need reinforcing by the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the council will in no way conflict with the existing role of the BBC's governors and the members of the IBA? What real consultation did he have with the BBC and the IBA before reaching his decision and making his announcement today?

Mr. Hurd

In October last year, we undertook considerable consultation with all the broadcasting authorities, and I have a wedge of correspondence resulting from that. Last week, we went over the ground with them again and discussed the contents of the statement. Those discussions will be carried forward by the chairman.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission meets at lengthy intervals and on rare occasions and that it sometimes takes many months for a complaint to be dealt with properly and findings produced? In his review of the commission's work, could he also tighten up the arrangements for broadcasting complaints?

Mr. Hurd

I note what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has a narrow remit and, on the whole, Lady Anglesey and her colleagues perform it well. During the pre-statutory period, they will continue to do their job and no doubt they will take note of my hon Friend's remarks. One of the things that need to be considered before drafting legislation is how the Broadcasting Complaints Commission could be subsumed in the new standards council.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

If the Home Secretary takes the view that there is a need to tackle sex and violence further, why has he thought it appropriate to create a new quango rather than examining the regulation or operation of the two authorities themselves? What does he intend to do to secure the freedom of broadcasting of current events—a point to which he has not yet addressed himself?

Mr. Hurd

I believe that the second point is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities and it would be dangerous territory for any Government of any party to enter. That is why I replied as I did to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As the hon. Gentleman knows, over the past year the broadcasting authorities have examined their own arrangements and codes for dealing with violence in particular—partly in response to two rounds of representations from me. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that there is a need for a clearer focus for public concern on these matters than the existing arrangements allow, and the Broadcasting Standards Council will provide that.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that what is needed is not so much a Pope who will issue encyclicals and offer prayers as an ombudsman who can rectify grievances both before and after. Why has my right hon. Friend confined himself to standards relating solely to sex and violence when standards of truth and accuracy are equally matters of concern to the public?

Mr. Hurd

I know that that is my hon. Friend's view and, as I have said, he will have full opportunities to develop it. The BCC deals with accuracy and fairness as they relate to individuals and their grievances. For the reasons that we gave in our manifesto and during the election campaign, we believe that the new standards council ought to concentrate on excessive sex and violence and their portrayal.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

Does not this announcement come at the end of a lengthy period of attack and assault on public service broadcasting? Is not this an appalling step to take? Could not the Home Secretary have asked the Prime Minister to do her own dirty work? Clearly, she is not concerned with standards, as she has been forcing upon us deregulation in both television and radio. For radio, light or no regulation is recommended. Is not the truth that the Government are not concerned with standards at all? They are worried only about what they would regard as a dirty play; under the Prime Minister's proposals, all the rest can be pap. Is not that combination of the patrician and the philistine appalling for standards in this country? Is it not the case that under this Government censorship has increased, is increasing and should be abolished?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman has the balance completely wrong. In a whole range of policy work, we are trying to combine and reconcile the deregulation of radio and television and enlargement of choice for the individual—for the hon. Gentleman's constituents—that modern technology now makes possible with the maintenance of the standards that we expect in this country. It is a huge task—international as well as national. Today's ann- ouncement is part of that, but throughout our policy work we are concentrating on those two objectives, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that they can indeed be reconciled.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

Is it not a little curious that, some years after giving up pre-censorship of the London theatre by the Lord Chamberlain's office, we are to enter into similar arrangements for broadcasting? Will my right hon. Friend treat very cautiously Sir William's request for prior censorship of programmes, because it would undermine the role with which the IBA and the BBC governors are charged?

Mr. Hurd

I understand my hon. Friend's point. If he reads my statement carefully he will see that I am proceeding cautiously—indeed, step by step. I think that it is reasonable that Sir William should discuss with the broadcasting authorities the question whether it would be sensible, as I personally believe it would, to have some arrangements whereby the new Broadcasting Standards Council could preview certain types of material—particularly imported material. It could then make a finding—not act as a censor—at the same time as a broadcast, rather than afterwards.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

Can the Home Secretary confirm that, under the present arrangements, anyone making a controversial programme in independent television is bound to consult the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Will he further confirm that the IBA has very carefully laid-down and detailed programme guidelines, contained in a lengthy booklet? Will he explain how the new arrangement will work if the Broadcasting Standards Council gives one piece of advice to the producer of an independent television programme and the IBA gives another? Which advice should the producer take?

Mr. Hurd

That is not quite the position. It is perfectly true that the IBA has a tradition of previewing, which the governors of the BBC do not have. That is one of the complications in the arrangements. For the great majority of material, the new body will receive complaints and comments after a broadcast, as the public will not be aware of the contents of a broadcast until after it has been transmitted. It will review those comments and discuss them with the broadcasters and then make a finding. One aspect that will need to be discussed during the settlingin period—and eventually settled by this House in legislation —is how the finding is to be effectively publicised. Presumably, it will be in the same slot as the original broadcast.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very warmly welcomed? Does he agree that nothing could be more out of touch with the mood of the public than the defence by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of television companies' right to depict gratuitous and repulsive scenes of violence? Will he bear in mind that it is important that the new body should not act as a cushion against complaints for the broadcasting companies and that the test will lie in the measures and in the new body's powers to enforce its views as well as speaking out when it regards material as unacceptable?

Mr. Hurd

I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. His first remark was also true. It would be a mistake for the House to underestimate the deep concern felt on this subject, particularly by parents. It may not be felt by huge numbers, but it is very deep. I recall a meeting in my constituency a few years back at which parents expressed their anxiety in passionate terms. If, through the council, we can provide such people with a focus for their anxieties and an assurance that they will be properly followed up, it will be a considerable advance.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Who is more out of touch with public taste than Sir William Rees-Mogg and establishment retreads? Does he know much about young people's attitudes to violence and sex? Given that the Home Secretary has made this decision, will there be a regional dimension to the Broadcasting Standards Council? Will he reassure us on the weasel words about the arrangement that Sir William Rees-Mogg will make with the IBA and the BBC authorities? Can we be sure that it will not be one in which he will intrude on their regulatory responsibilities?

Mr. Hurd

Those involved in the discussions that are now to take place will try to illuminate the last point. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so patronising about Sir William Rees-Mogg, whose qualifications for holding views and handling these matters sensibly are very great indeed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite view. We shall announce to the House the membership of the council. I am very conscious of the Welsh aspect of all broadcasting matters; my predecessor but one taught me that in my cradle, from his own experience. I do not want a council that is regionally balanced or has representatives from one part of the community rather than another. We shall seek, in general, a balance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be less patronising about the chairman when he sees the results.

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North)

I welcome the appointment of Sir William Rees-Mogg, largely because of his experience in advertising and the media. There is, however, one difficulty—three bodies will have overlapping powers. Will my right hon. Friend be careful with the guidelines and ensure that they are published before any decisions are taken, so that Sir William has the clearest view of the line that he should take in appropriate cases?

Mr. Hurd

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sensible that there should be this period when these matters are sensibly discussed before the House is asked to take a decision on the statutory consequences. When we frame our proposals for legislation, we shall take account of the progress that has been made in the discussions between those bodies.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

If obscenity is in the groin of the beholder, what possible qualification does Sir William Rees-Mogg have to act as the nation's groin? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of the high Tory sheriff of Somerset sitting in a darkened room with a copy of The Times in his lap and watching French movies will rapidly become as big a figure of national ridicule as the Lord Chancellor once was? In the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's formerly liberal reputation, will he retreat from this nonsense, which is a censorious and dangerous path?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman misses the point, which is that this body will act as a focus for public concern on these matters—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman, in the intervals of his sniggering, believes that no parent in his constituency is seriously worried about the portrayal of violence on television and does not want a better way than exists at present for expressing concern, he is grievously out of touch.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will the criterion of decency include the responsibility of programme makers in respect of legal proceedings?

Mr. Hurd

My hon. Friend is tempting the new council down a dangerous path. I would much rather it concentrated on matters where public concern was greatest, and the discussions will concern those aspects.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Although there may well be justifiable concern about the standards of certain television programmes, bearing in mind the expressed view of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the believed views of the Prime Minister, does the Home Secretary agree that this is not the way to tackle the matter? Surely it must be tackled by cross-party and cross-House agreement. Are there not different issues with regard to videos? Will the council have physical or legal control over what might appear via satellite?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. Gentleman confuses two things. It is perfectly reasonable for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), as chairman of the Conservative Party, or for Ministers or shadow Ministers, to express strong views about particular broadcasts. There is nothing reprehensible about that. Broadcasters and journalists throughout the media express strong views about us. There is no reason why that should not be a two-way business. That process, which occurs all the time, has nothing to do with the Broadcasting Standards Council.

I have dealt already with the point about videos. There is nothing in the proposal that will alter the "Bright Act"—the Video Recordings Act 1984—on the control of video. Given the amount of time that viewers spend watching video, as opposed to broadcasting, the new Broadcasting Standards Council must be able to take account of the content and standards of video when making its report or conducting its research, and that will happen.

The hon. Gentleman raised another question, which I have forgotten—

Mr. Spearing

Satellite.

Mr. Hurd

I have mentioned the international dimension. We are negotiating in Strasbourg and discussing in Brussels the possibilities of a Council of Europe treaty and a Community directive to deal with these matters in so far as they originated in Europe, and that is very important. In my statement, I dealt with the relationship between that process and the new council.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I again remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall call two hon. Members from each side and then the Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman; then we must move on. There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

I reassure my hon. Friend that the great majority of ordinary households will warmly welcome his decision, not as an attack on freedom of expression but as a check on over-mighty broadcasters, in the hope that the council can hold broadcasters to their self-professed standards. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government intend to bring broadcasters within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act 1959?

Mr. Hurd

I entirely agree with the phrasing of my hon. Friend's first point. The answer to his second point is yes—that is another manifesto commitment which we shall fulfil.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

Whose idea was it to appoint Sir William Rees-Mogg? Was the job advertised, or did his name just emerge?

Mr. Hurd

It occurred to me as a good one, and I am glad that it has found general favour.

Mr. Chris Butler (Warrington, South)

My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is one cable channel that broadcasts several hours of pornography every day. Will the new council correct that and, if so, over what period?

Mr. Hurd

I am not quite sure—is my hon. Friend referring to Channel 4? [Laughter.]

Mr. Butler

Cable.

Mr. Hurd

Cable. Some of my hon. Friends have extreme views about Channel 4. Cable will certainly come within the council's remit. We have discussed the consequences of that with the Cable Authority, and Sir William Rees-Mogg will consider it further.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The Home Secretary said that parents could be affected by these programmes. As a parent, has he been affected? Has any member of the Tory Cabinet been affected? The right hon. Gentleman must answer that question as a parent. It is no use blaming all these others. Will he answer that question? How does this restriction of liberty fit in with the Tories' oft-proclaimed arguments about freedom of choice?

Mr. Hurd

I have answered the second question already. We shall lay before the House, certainly during this Parliament, a massive broadcasting Bill to enlarge freedom of choice. At the same time, we want to preserve and increase standards. The Broadcasting Standards Council will address itself to the second of those objectives.

Most of our children draw a perfectly good frontier in their minds between what they view and the reality of the outside world, but some children find that difficult or impossible, and their actions outside are affected by what they view. Even if they are relatively few, it can be a desperate business. We must strengthen our fortifications at this point.

Mr. Hattersley

Is the Home Secretary aware that his protestations that there is no desire to have any political influence over the BBC is totally undermined by the identical answers that he gave his hon. Friends? Twice he was asked whether he would extend the authority's powers to interfere in matters of politics and current affairs and he answered, "There will be plenty of time to discuss those suggestions in the future." I have no doubt that there will be, and that the Tory party will want them discussed. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will capitulate to those influences as he has capitulated to them in the past.

Mr. Hurd

I was being courteous to my hon. Friends and pointing out that there will be plenty of parliamentary time to discuss these matters. I went on to say, as the right hon. Gentleman would have known if he had not been scribbling at the time, that I did not believe that that political path was one down which the new council should go. Handling accusations of political bias is essentially a matter for the broadcasting authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to stir up a storm in a teacup. Certainly, the waters of the relationship between the Government and broadcasters are a bit choppy at present. I hope and believe that they will now subside to a more normal level and that, as that happens, the Broadcasting Standards Council will be able to work out sensible arrangements for co-operation.