GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS

HC Deb 09 May 1990 vol 172 cc195-204 3.38 pm

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 729, in page 4, line 32, at end insert— 'Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Commission to require any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel or 5 to include any conditions requiring the licence holders to include party political broadcasts in the licensed service.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

With this, we shall discuss the following: Government amendment No. 491.

Amendment No. 730, in page 29, line 4, leave out clause 33.

Government amendments Nos. 670 to 672, 540, 471 and 543.

Mr. Raison

Coupled with amendment No. 729 is amendment No. 730, to leave out clause 33. That clause contains the power for independent television commissioners to require party political broadcasts.

My objective is to abolish any statutorily based requirements to carry party political broadcasts or independent television. I should like to see the end of party political broadcasts on independent television. If anyone is prepared to consider the matter from an objective point of view, he is bound to concede that I am putting forward an overwhelming case.

I am dubious about party political broadcasts on any channel. I do not want to see them at all and I do not think that anyone could possibly defend them on the ground of popularity. I have yet to meet anyone who said that he liked to see political broadcasts as part of hi regular fare. I am sure that all hon. Members know from anecdotal evidence that that is the case. It is difficult to establish a scientific basis for what I say. It is well known that regular research is carried out on party political broadcasts by the BBC. They look into the number of viewers for each broadcast and find out what people think of them. I believe that political parties also carry out research on such broadcasts and how they go down, but I have discovered that there is a notable lack of willingness on all sides to reveal the results of all that research. I wonder why.

Most of us suspect that if we got the results they would not look very impressive. I am told by one authority that one reason why research is not published is that there is an enormous variation between one broadcast and another and that publishing varying figures would give a misleading impression. I do not think that that is a persuasive argument. Results of research on any other type of programme would be published, and if they showed a variation one would say that it was rather useful research.

There are many popular legends about what happens when party political broadcasts come on. I shall not give details but none of the legends is based on the supposition that people want to stay glued to their sets.

Party political broadcasts have become slicker during the past few years. They are technically better managed than they used to be. I cannot help recalling the time in the mid-1970s, when I was shadow Minister for the Environment, and once or twice I was commissioned by Conservative central office to make a party political broadcast. It consisted of marching on to College green or St Stephen's green on a day when there was a howling gale and the wind was blowing about us—I am sure hon. Members today are familiar with this—to utter a few, well-chosen platitudes.

It is one of the more futile forms of broadcasting by any standards, but to try to do a party political broadcast against the background of a howling gale was not easy. It was not that I was not promoting a good cause. I was promoting the sale of council houses, which is one of the great achievements of our time. Somehow I could never bring myself to believe that the popular response to that cause had anything to do with what I said on St Stephen's green in a howling gale during a party political broadcast. It is perhaps relevant that shortly afterwards my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would be rather better than I at standing on St Stephen's green in a howling gale to promote the cause and I retreated to the Back Benches.

Party political broadcasts have never been one of the highest art forms, although they have certainly become more skilful. I gather that the policy in such broadcasts now is to relegate the politicians and to bring in actors, who resemble what is deemed to be the common man.

Sometimes such broadcasts are skilfully done. I saw a Conservative broadcast last week about the community charge which was technically rather good. I suppose that it is possible that it was good enough to persuade some people how to cast their vote, but I doubt it. I do not believe that what changes people's minds about their voting behaviour has anything to do with party political broadcasts.

As a matter of principle, I do not believe that that is the way in which we should be putting our policies before the electorate. It is not the way in which we should be presenting our arguments, and it is not in accord with our notion of adult democracy. I should prefer the time allocated to party political broadcasts to be used for broadcasting the House of Commons. I looked into the possibility of inserting a provision to the effect that the time saved by not having party political broadcasts on ITV could be transferred to broadcasting the House. The trouble is that the Bill implements a decision by Parliament operating through an Act of Parliament, whereas the decisions about broadcasting the House are taken by resolutions of the House and it was rather difficult technically to incorporate such a measure.

3.45 pm

In general, I am sceptical about party political broadcasts, but if we must have them, and if there really is a need and a demand for them, why on earth should we have to have them on four, and now five different channels? Surely one or perhaps two transmissions of any party political broadcast must be quite enough. Surely it is quite reasonable to confine them to the BBC, as I propose. After all, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has said time and again, the Bill is about choice and diversity. To transmit the same party political broadcast on five different channels in any one week cannot be said to have much to do with choice or anything to do with diversity. Even the FA cup final and the Derby are not broadcast on every channel, so why on earth should party political broadcasts be so broadcast? I really cannot believe that we as politicians require to bind to ourselves a semi-captive audience.

Having put the case, which, considered objectively, must be conceded to be a powerful one, may I say that what amazes me about the Bill is that my hon. and learned Friend, in amendment No. 670, proposes to make the powers in the Bill stronger and to insist more firmly on the provision of party political broadcasts on independent television. His amendment changes the provision in clause 33, which states that a licence for Channel 3, 4 or 5 "may" include a requirement for party political broadcasts, to say that it "shall" include such a requirement. It introduces compulsion.

According to an article by Mr. Alan Boyle, entitled, Political Broadcasting, Fairness and Administrative Law", the present position is that Neither the BBC nor the IBA is obliged to carry party political broadcasts, but they have in practice always done so Until now there has been no legislative requirement for party political broadcasts, but amendment No. 670 proposes to change the "may" provision into a "shall" provision. It would be a regressive step to impose party political broadcasts so that all viewers of independent television were bound to be faced with them sooner or later.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think again that the Government will relent in their view and, will let us all off what by any standards would be an unloved imposition.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The issue of party political broadcasts arose in Committee almost inadvertently, because it appeared that the Bill as drafted might by a side wind have done away with the established practice of providing party political broad-casts, which, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said, is not rooted in the law.

It is important to consider why we have party political broadcasts and do not rely on other communications media to get across the message of different political parties.

Democracy depends very much on the direct communication of the messages of the parties that the public must evaluate in deciding how to vote. Other methods of communicating with the public at large depend on a filtering process, a process of editorialising and a process of comment. Although that is necessary and desirable, it is not sufficient. Political parties should be able to convey their message to the public by the most modern means of communication available—broadcasting—unadorned by the intervention of editorial comment.

The right hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that more parliamentary coverage might suffice, but that argument cannot be sustained for a minute. In deciding what images from this place to portray on the television screen, we are properly seeing the editorial process at work, but we are not seeing the direct communication of a message. Those who view the proceedings of this place —no doubt it is a powerful image and a clear message —form their own judgment. The case for maintaining party political broadcasts is strong.

It is not entirely surprising that a Conservative Member is attempting to do away with party political broadcasts, because, by and large, the Conservative party commands the ownership of the written media of communication, and the editorial policy of most of the newspapers is extremely sympathetic to it. A predominance of coverage of the Government flows from that. It is clear from the studies that have been carried out, including that recently published by the Hansard Society, that the Government of the day overwhelmingly dominate the broadcast proceedings of the House. Inevitably, a bias in favour of the Government is built into the system, because, through their announcements and comments on what is happening, they make the news. It is important to have another source of political opinion—that of the parties.

The right hon. Member for Aylesbury rather frivolously suggested that the party political broadcast is an art form. Few people would subscribe to that view. It is widely recognised to be the deadliest of boring topics, but that does not mean that it is not worthy of being seen.

The right hon. Gentleman recognised that the party to which I have the honour to belong produced one of the most informative party political broadcasts on the virtues of fair voting and proportional representation. It was entertainingly and memorably presented by John Cleese. It was extremely effective in showing that it is not necessary to be dull to convey a message. It is right that the format of the broadcasts in which the right hon. Gentleman participated more than a decade ago was different from that which has become common under Mr. Peter Mandelson and other skilled performers.

Any attempt to curtail the direct communication of political parties with the public by the most modern medium of communication, which has the greatest coverage, would be a retrograde step and not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, a progressive one.

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

Compared with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), all hon. Members are irredeemably frivolous.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) deserves the gratitude of the nation. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that our great party—perhaps I might even say, "my" great party—is not well loved at the present time. I need only remind the House of the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, the public opinion polls and the local election results, although I confess that in certain parts of the country there were lights at the ends of all sorts of tunnels. None the less, at the moment the Conservative party is not particularly popular.

Many of my colleagues in the Conservative party and in the 1922 Committee are worried about their fates. What would they do if they were to lose their seats? Newspaper advertisers from California and Phoenix, Arizona are looking for footmen and butlers. Who better than a Conservative Member of Parliament to take red wine out of the fridge and who better than his wife to do the gardens for them? The only other possible option for a defeated Conservative Member is to read the weather on British television. How splendid it would be if we Conservative Members who must have a publicity fix every morning it order to function could end our days as weathermen or BBC1.

Mr. Maclennan

rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Here is a frivolous intervention.

Mr. Critchley

In that case, I will give way.

Mr. Maclennan

Regardless of what other career might be suitable for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), he would fail at broadcasting the weather if he did not have a Scottish accent.

Mr. Critchley

I confess that I would be comprehensible. My message to the country each day would be to wrap up warmly. Having done that before the 9 am news I would be my old self.

I have a suggestion or two for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House which, if they were to be adopted, might bring about a remarkable revival in the fortunes of the Conservative party. First, the British sausage must be defended at all costs against the Common Market. There is every sign that, on the issue of the British sausage, our great leader stands firmly in her place.

The second practice that the Conservative Party might adopt to recapture the affection of the electorate is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, to do away with the party political broadcast. Having had high tea at 5.30 pm, we all know that the British wish for nothing more than to slump in front of the set from 6.30 pm until 11.30 pm, rising only for calls of nature or to switch channels halfway through a programme.

However, as soon as the news dawns on them that a much-loved politician of any party is about to embark on a five-minute broadcast of mendacity, assertion and amplification, up they get. They go into the kitchen; switch on the stove and brew a hot milky drink. They take no notice of the pleas of our political masters, whether they be in Smith square or in Walworth road.

At the moment, the Tory party has earned the gratitude of the manufacturers of Ovaltine. Let us set our sights higher. Let us look for the resumption of our natural popularity. Put the British sausage first and with the cancellation of party political broadcasts, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may even get a fifth term of office.

4 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is persuasive on many issues, but not on this one. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) presented the more accurate face of the Conservative party. I was not surprised, but I was concerned, by the way in which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury was anxious to move towards a free market in the dissemination of news to the electorate from political parties.

I should regard the abolition of party political broadcasts as a step backwards. For all their faults of production and presentation, they are an established means of communication and the best means we know of mass communication with large sections of the electorate. They reach more people than any other method could achieve. I should find it worrying if we moved towards ever greater deregulation of the way in which political parties can communicate with the electorate.

There is already an astonishing paradox in our electoral laws. There are the strictest controls over what candidates can spend in their constituencies, but no controls whatever over the amount of money that can be spent at national level on advertising by the various political parties.

I am not surprised that far and away the richest party —the Conservative party—is basically in favour of a free market. The one area of news coverage and communication where there is some regulation, where party political broadcasts have been developed over the years, and where news coverage is required to he fair and impartial is BBC radio and television, and ITV. In that area, the Government are moving towards greater deregulation. Although it is not spelt out in the Bill, I fear that, before long, some Conservative Members may argue that parties should be allowed to pay for commercials on television in the horrendous fashion that we see in other countries.

The great advantage of the party political broadcast is that it enables political parties to reach the maximum possible audience fairly and in a regulated way. The practice has developed over a long period and it is a part of our democratic process. It may be a part which one can deride in some respects—I acknowledge that some of the party political broadcasts are dreadfully bad—but it is a part of our democratic process which has been worked on over the years. It is worrying to notice the ease with which hon. Members can recommend in apparently innocuous amendments to a Bill that an important part of our democratic process should be discarded.

What is particularly worrying about the whole Bill is that, if the philosophy behind it is allowed to develop—I shall do all I can to see that it does not—and a less regulated system is created, the method by which our people receive news information will become less and less reliable. Some of that information is gained from the admittedly partisan means of party political broadcasts. Information will come from more and more channels with smaller audiences and there will be fewer requirements for fairness and impartiality.

The general election that we are approaching could be the last in which we can be fairly certain that the vast majority of the electorate receive at least an attempt at a fair exposition of the news, governed by regulations on balance between the parties. Again, the party political broadcasts are a manifestation of that

I fear that we shall have a system with numerous channels, many without any news programmes or without news programmes in prime time, and with no guaranteed means by which people can obtain political information. I am profoundly relieved, and impartial and fair Members of Parliament should be relieved too, that all the opinion polls show us that most people in Britain are more likely to trust the broadcast media than the press for their information about politics. Thank heaven for that. The press is not subject to any requirements for fairness and impartiality.

If we accept the amendment, we shall be in danger in a few years of leaving only one area of competition between the parties that is strictly regulated for fairness. That will be the area of expenditure by individual candidates in constituencies—a regulation which everyone regards as absolutely essential to the democratic process. After the abolition of party political broadcasts, everything else— national expenditure by the parties, advertising, access to the news media—will be deregulated apart from that one, relatively unimportant, area of competition.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

Given the hon. Gentleman's curiously old-fashioned view about the wonderful nature of party political broadcasts, he has failed to note one important change. He argues that strict impartiality is the key. Now that the House is broadcast and Mr. Speaker maintains a strict impartiality over all of us, those broadcasts are a far better way in which to transmit political messages fairly than any party political broadcast.

Mr. Grocott

Hon. Members may enjoy their own speeches, and I am sure that most of the demand for cassettes are from Members wanting a record of their speeches—I am sure that there is little demand from the public. A properly presented party political broadcast is a much more effective way in which to present the views of a party to the electorate than a random selection of speeches from individual hon. Members.

We all know that the party political broadcast is open to fun and jest, but if we slung that part of our democracy aside, we would be abandoning the best established means of communication, bearing in mind the millions that television can reach. We would abandon such broadcasts in favour of a free market view of competition between the parties, and we would never achieve fairness and impartiality. I hope that we throw the amendment out.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I have always believed that the allocation of time for party political broadcasts on television and radio is at least an attempt at fairness that is never matched by the daily national press. Arangements for allocating as fair an amount of space in the press would be an important development and would ensure some degree of equality between the political parties. However, we know that most of the daily press, national and provincial, tends to support the Conservative party and therefore there have been no efforts to introduce even a shadow of fairness and equality into the press.

The party political broadcast is a fair target for criticism and mockery. Although the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has set his target on the party political broadcast he has not evidenced any criticism of the interruptions to programmes from advertisements. Such advertisements are far more mendacious than party political broadcasts and the advertisers unscrupulously abuse every human emotion on which they can lay their hands in order to sell products. Any criticism should be levelled against such advertisers rather than against party political broadcasts.

Mr. Critchley

Is the hon. Member aware that all the evidence shows that commercials are far more popular than any of the programmes?

Mr. Cryer

I have seen no such research and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury did not adduce any research about party political broadcasts. He merely said that there was an absence of such research and that, therefore, such broadcasts must be unpopular. Whatever people may think of advertisements must involve an element of masochism on their part because most adverts tend to abuse every decent human emotion.

Mr. Raison

A lot of research is carried out, but the interesting feature about it is the great reluctance to publish the outcome of it.

Mr. Cryer

What I am saying amounts to the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to invoke that research because of a lack of publication.

Party political broadcasts invoke a certain degree of fairness. I accept that the level of quality varies greatly. The Labour party is extremely short of money and often it must use the most limited means to produce a party political broadcast.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the objections to party political broadcasts arose only once the Labour party started to turn out some extremely good ones?

Mr. Cryer

I was about to say that occasionally the Labour party has scaled the heights of stimulating public interest in television broadcasting. In the early 1980s there was a growing problem of racism in our society and the Labour party produced a broadcast about the association of racism, the far right fascist political parties and football supporters in such a way that it stimulated discussion virtually nationwide.

I can also recall when the Labour party took its courage in its hands and produced a party political broadcast about unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know that that is not the sort of thing that is much talked of in the Labour party these days, but it was a stimulating broadcast which challenged ideas. On occasions, those five-minute slots can produce debate, dissent and challenge in an entertaining way so that the ideologies capture the viewer's imagination. It is worth retaining that opportunity and the degree of fairness rather than discarding party political broadcasts and leaving them to what would inevitably be the free marketplace.

I share the suspicion of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that this is a precursor to giving political parties the opportunity to buy advertising space on television channels. That would mean that we would revert to the American system where the cost of elections is massive because the limitations on advertising costs in television and other media are extremely sloppy. We do not want to see that. I recognise the difficulties of producing party political broadcasts, but I certainly wish them to continue. I should like to extend the principle of fairness to our newspaper industry, but that seems a long way off.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

It strikes me that this short debate is like having a party political broadcast in the middle of prime time evening viewing. We are between major debates on matters that are quite clearly of concern to people inside and outside the House. I make no criticism of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) because the matter was raised in Committee.

I do not join in the eulogies for party political broadcasts that we have heard this afternoon. I am ambivalent about them. I do not know whether they are effective, and I suppose that it is not for us to judge, as we tend to be cynical about broadcasts produced by our opponents and by our own parties. However, they do have an effect and have moved on from the days when a grey man addressed the camera and told the audience what a wonderful thing his party was doing to mini films, such a; Mr. Mandelson's magnum opus, "Kinnock—the movie." There was a memorable occasion during the elections last year when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes was filmed clutching a baby rabbit. I often wonder what happened to the rabbit: perhaps it went the same way as the mould breakers.

I do not know whether party political broadcasts work but I believe that on balance we should keep them. They provide an opportunity for parties, especially at election time, to make their pitch, whether good or bad. Until someone persuades me that the disadvantages of showing them outweigh the advantages, I think that they should be shown, even if it means a boost for the Ovaltine industry

I commend the Government for bringing forward the amendment promised in Committee to make it clear that if party political broadcasts are shown anywhere, they must be shown everywhere. It would not be right to force the BBC to carry them and to let other channels off, as has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury

I was concerned about the provision in the Bill that it might be possible for Granada Television to carry party political broadcasts and the neighbouring television franchise, Central Television, not to do so. Everyone muse be favoured or cursed with the same thing, or no one at all or there will be great inconsistencies. We welcome the Government's amendments and should not delay the House much more before pressing on to matters that, on any view, are of greater moment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor)

Party political broadcasts, like the British weather or English cricket, are a target for mockery. I could contemplate living in a world without party political broadcasts, but that day has not dawned. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has been kind enough to make clear, the Bill reflects agreement between the parties on arrangements for the showing of party political broadcasts.

It is important that parties should have direct access to television. The extent of the direct access is fairly limited. It is not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising on television, which otherwise would have to come about; nor is it too high a price for the viewer to pay for the privilege of living in a democracy in which he has the luxury of choice, a luxury denied to well over 100 member nations of the United Nations. If part of the price that we pay for democracy is the party political broadcast, I cannot help feeling, when we look at the human misery in countries which have to suffer the broadcasts of one party incessantly, that we make a modest imposition on our broadcasters and fellow citizens.

4.15 pm

The reason for the Government amendments is to take account of the fact that the IBA was the broadcaster and could therefore direct the various constituent companies of the ITV network to show party political broadcasts. The ITC will not be the broadcaster. Therefore, we require a statutory framework.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was right in saying that the amendments make a requirement for all channels to show party political broadcasts but that they allow some regions to show different ones. Obviously the political position in Scotland is different from that in England. The political message of a party may not be sc relevant in Land's End as it is in John o'Groats. For that reason flexibility is allowed.

I hope that my right hon. Friend, having aired this interesting topic, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Raison

With the leave of the House, may I reply to the debate?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that he felt ambivalent about party political broadcasts. That has been the keynote of the debate. We have had some rum contributions. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) admitted that party political broadcasts could be dreadfully bad but somehow he saw them as a pillar of the constitution. I thought that speech was a hymn to regulation. He seemed to be terrified of anything other than the orderly provision by central authority of information on politics. I assure him that I am not a Tory stalking horse on this or any other matter. I was not put up by the Government to air a change. Indeed, the Government and I take different views.

I thought it strange that the hon. Gentleman should praise party political broadcasts for fairness and impartiality. The idea that they are models of impartiality is an altogether new twist to the argument which I did not expect to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer; seemed to be afraid of competition in the expression of opinions. I am not sure whether he was talking about commercial competition or whether he could not bring himself to bear the idea that people should express their views in different ways, without recourse to the mechanism that we are discussing.

I was not particularly persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward. No doubt the issue will rise again another day. As the House wants to get on to other business, I am happy not to press the amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.