§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
§ 10.3 pm
§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)Love them or loathe them, party political broadcasts are part of the British way of life. They substitute for the American practice where political commercials are bought on radio and television, and the richer the candidate, the more commercials he can buy. That, I believe, creates a gross distortion of democracy. In this country, the Head of Government need not be a multi-millionaire.
A distortion exists in this country as well. I welcome the opportunity this evening to draw the House's attention to a significant denial of access for exposure of important political argument on national radio. That iniquitous omission has not received attention until now, and as a result we have acquiesced in permitting unequal obligations to be placed upon national commercial radio and the publicly funded broadcasters—the BBC—in respect of party political and election broadcasts. Extraordinary as it may seem, it is the BBC, and not independent national radio, that is failing to deliver across all the national networks.
I am addressing the matter now because we have seen from recent press reports that the Radio Authority—which is responsible for the three national commercial radio channels, as well as independent local radio—has announced a requirement that each of those carry party political broadcasts.
The broadcasting legislation requires the authority to include a suitable licence condition for those national licensees and, as a result of extensive recent discussions, the Radio Authority has put in place a structure to ensure that Talk Radio UK, Classic FM and Virgin Radio carry party political broadcasts for the main parties. That will mean that party election broadcasts will be carried on those channels, representing a real step forward in the opening up of the political process to important audiences.
Of course the commercial companies have greeted that with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I believe that one of those companies thinks that such broadcasts might encourage listeners to turn off. Surely that cannot be true. Generally, it has been encouraging to see the way in which the commercial companies have adopted the Radio Authority's ruling and got on with making proper arrangements. The first party political broadcasts on commercial radio were heard on Talk Radio UK and Classic FM while some of us were at Bournemouth and were otherwise occupied.
I received a letter today by courier from Paul Robinson, who is the general manager of Talk Radio UK. He points out in his letter that
Talk Radio is the only national speech competitor to the BBC…We believe that our role is to offer 'Democracy Direct'"—as he puts it. Mr. Robinson continues:Our audience is currently just under two and a half million and growing…***On Parliamentary Broadcasts our view is to welcome them. We regard these broadcasts as part of the democratic process, of which we are a key component, and believe that they stimulate debate and discussion in the country. The only issue for Talk Radio is the inequity of the situation in which the BBC's national stations are not all obliged to carry PPBs, unlike independent national radio.189 It will probably be assumed that that means that all the national radio services are now playing their proper part in promoting our parliamentary democracy. I had assumed so, but I find that I am wrong. Only two out of the five BBC national radio channels carry party political broadcasts, or will carry party election broadcasts. Radio 1 does not do so, Radio 3 does not do so, and even Radio 5 Live—set up with a fanfare to be a demotic news and speech network—makes no provision for that type of broadcast.Why must Virgin Radio carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 1 does not? Why must Classic FM carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 3 does not? Why must Talk Radio UK carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 5 Live does not? The BBC claims to be the defender of public service broadcasting and often belittles commercial radio. I think that the BBC has a case to answer.
There is obviously something wrong. I can see no justification for Radio 5 failing to carry PPBs. As my right hon. Friend—I say that advisedly—the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would probably remind us, what goes out on Radio 3 is all too often a mystery to everyone, but the exclusion of party political broadcasts and party election broadcasts from BBC Radio 1 is particularly anti-democratic.
Radio 1 is the BBC network that most appeals to young people; indeed, according to audience research, it is virtually the only BBC radio channel—national or local—that primarily attracts listeners of my age, your age, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and younger! The education of young people in the political process is a key factor in the continuance of our parliamentary democracy.
The BBC makes great play about the social responsibility of Radio 1—or at least it did at the time of the charter renewal—and it deserves genuine praise for programmes such as "Newsbeat", which I had the honour of working on many years ago when it was first broadcast. However, when it comes to reflecting the political process to its 11 million listeners through party broadcasts—particularly party election broadcasts—the BBC is suddenly less forthcoming.
How can it be right that the main television channels carry PPBs, that national commercial radio stations such as Virgin Radio carry PPBs, but the BBC shuts the door to Radio 1, Radio 3 and Radio 5 in such an arbitrary manner? In these days of soundbite politics—much beloved of the Labour party—does it not seem surprising that that unique opportunity to explore issues in more depth is not seized by all BBC networks, as it will be in the 21 broadcasts to be aired by their commercial counterparts? If I may digress for a moment, was it not revealing that, while Virgin and Capital FM observed the two-minute silence on Armistice day, Radio 1 did not? The BBC must recognise that it has significantly more than the lion's share of the available national frequencies. In particular, it enjoys the resources for four FM networks while the commercial side has only one. Despite that fact, commercial radio now attracts more listeners than the BBC. It has not been easy for the independent sector to reflect the full colour of the political spectrum on national services whose transmission arrangements do not lend themselves to more localised opting out.
Whereas the BBC may allocate broadcasts on its Scottish and Welsh national regional services to parties contesting constituencies in those regions alone, 190 independent national radio has had to make scarce time available on its United Kingdom-wide services for those nationalist party broadcasts. As a result, my constituents in Staffordshire and others elsewhere will have to feast their ears on the intricacies of internal Welsh and Scottish issues. We can only hope that the party political broadcasts by Plaid Cymru, transmitted throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Classic FM, Virgin Radio and Talk Radio UK, will at least be broadcast in English rather than Welsh—although, on second thoughts, perhaps Welsh would be better.
If the corporation is to continue to justify having a four to one share of national FM channels, it will need to provide more convincing evidence that it is meeting its much vaunted public service remit. That remit cannot be validated only where the BBC chooses. In the case of party political broadcasts, it is not enough for the corporation to move them to the older and less populist preserves of Radio 4 and Radio 2 purely because that is the way it was in the days of the Home Service and the light programme. Time has marched on and, since 1967, it has been BBC Radio by numbers—although it seems that someone at the BBC still cannot count from one to five.
The political process is entitled to the broad exposure that the deliberately popular services of Radio 1 and Radio 5 Live would provide. Why should the Radio 1 audience be deprived of the same level of political education that is compulsorily available to Virgin Radio listeners? If Classic FM can carry party political broadcasts, why not Radio 3? After all, in classical music programming, the commercial station has more than given the BBC a run for its money—or should I say our money, as it is the licence payers' funds? Great things are at stake at the next election—employment, mortgage rates and the very sovereignty of our nation. All that could be thrown away if there is a change of Government.
I believe that Parliament would be right to insist that the BBC look again at its arrangements for party political broadcasts on radio. In the past year, the House has granted the BBC a renewal of its charter—which I know that some of my hon. Friends did not welcome. In the debates about that renewal, and in much discussion and presentation outside this House, we have heard about the BBC's role in preserving the nation's heritage. It is right that we should have that in mind, and right that we should look to the BBC to be a stalwart defender of that heritage.
The electoral process is surely at least as much a central part of the British heritage as the broadcast of live coverage of the cup final. With the fate of our nation hanging on an electoral thread, the BBC cannot have it both ways, and the Government should be pressing the corporation to ensure that there is proper access right across the board—right across all five networks.
If the BBC thinks it right to broadcast party political broadcasts on Radios 2 and 4, why does it think that it is not right to broadcast them on Radios, 1, 3 and 5? It must make up its mind. That inconsistency must be addressed.
In any event, I believe that we shall have to look at the rules again. It costs £1,000 to put up one candidate, so under the rules only £50,000 would buy time on BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Virgin Radio, Classic FM, Talk Radio UK and—currently—BBC Radios 2 and 4. Where can one buy five minutes of national television time for just £50,000—let alone on all networks?
191 What if Cadbury were to put up 50 chocolate party candidates, or, more worryingly, what if the pro-abortion or anti-abortion lobbies were to put up candidates? What if a racist or similarly sinister party were to put up candidates? Either way, it is time for Government to revisit this issue.
§ The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. This is probably an opportune time to discuss such an issue, given that party political broadcasts will play an increasingly significant role for political parties, viewers and listeners as we approach the next general election. For many years, broadcasters have offered time for the main political parties to present their policies to the electorate, and I certainly share the view that the major political parties in the United Kingdom should have direct access to television and radio.
As Lord Annan's committee commented in its 1977 report on the future of broadcasting, political parties are there to provide the statesmen and policies to govern the country, and the country's media should provide them with an opportunity to address the people. Broadcasting has a crucial role to play, through its ability to reach almost every home in the United Kingdom, to inform the public debate.
My hon. Friend has voiced his concerns about the implications of party political broadcasts for national commercial radio stations. I know that he has discussed these with the Radio Authority in the light of the authority's press announcement of 12 September, which established the new arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio. That is significant, as it is the first time that the requirement to carry party political broadcasts, introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990, has been applied to national commercial radio stations.
I agree with the my hon. Friend's view that the arrangements represent a real step in opening up the political process to audiences, but I also recognise that this is a new situation and that, as broadcasting develops, especially with the introduction of digital channels and a greater abundance of channels, the regulators and Parliament will want to keep the arrangements under review.
My hon. Friend may be aware that it was only after some hesitation that matters of political controversy were allowed on the ether, then known as the wireless—from March 1928, in fact. In reviewing the success of that experiment, the Ullswater committee in 1936 set the ground rules for future arrangements for party political broadcasts, which were essentially that the allocation of time for such broadcasts should be agreed between the broadcaster—at that time, of course, only the BBC—and the political parties. As the committee recommended,
The BBC must, of course, continue to be the judge of the amount of political broadcasting which the programme will stand".With the advent of commercial television broadcasting, the arrangements for agreeing the allocation of time were replicated, with both the BBC and independent television authorities agreeing the allocation of time in close 192 co-operation with political parties. Crucial to the way in which those arrangements developed is that the Government did not seek to determine the allocation of airtime—not only for the reason Ullswater stated, but because it would be wrong for the Government to seek to interfere with broadcasters over a matter in which the Government would have a particular, politically partisan interest.The current framework for party political broadcasts on commercial channels was established by the Broadcasting Act 1990. In the Bill, as published, the Government sought to transfer directly into the new broadcasting regime the arrangements subsisting between the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the political parties—by granting discretion to the regulators to agree arrangements with the political parties. There was a lively debate about the merits of party political broadcasts and some support in the House for ending altogether PPBs on commercial television. Those were the days—fresh in the minds of some—of such great works as "Kinnock—The Movie".
In his reply to that debate, the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), emphasised that the presence of party political broadcasts on both the BBC and commercial broadcasters was not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising. That view has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
Hon. Members may be aware that provisions in the 1990 Act prohibit advertising inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature or which is directed towards any political end.
§ Mr. FabricantMy hon. Friend will be aware that Amnesty International is currently appealing, and suggesting that its advertising is not politically motivated. Does he agree that that would be contrary to the spirit of the decision taken by the House during the passage of the 1990 legislation?
§ Mr. SproatMy hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. I think that Amnesty International was specifically mentioned in the debate, and that that point was considered by the Committee. I should like to refresh myself on the Committee's exact words, but certainly my recollection is that the House of Commons, and therefore the Houses of Parliament, decided that it did not want a body such as Amnesty—as marvellous and splendid as it is in many ways—to be allowed to advertise. I do not know the details of the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I should be very surprised if a court of law, on appeal or in any other circumstances, sought to overturn a clear decision expressed in a specific debate of a Committee of the House, which was then endorsed by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. It is such an interesting point that I should like to examine it later in more detail.
The aim of the provisions is to protect viewers and listeners from intrusive political or politically motivated and campaigning advertising, and to avoid broadcast advertising becoming part of the political process. I believe that the American model of political advertising is decidedly not something that we want to witness in the United Kingdom, given its risk of diluting the quality of political debate.
193 When the 1990 legislation was considered in Committee, it appeared that the new relationship to be established between the new broadcasting regulatory bodies—the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—and the licensed broadcasters, within a clear statutory framework, risked doing away with the established practice of providing party political broadcasts on commercial channels. Parliament decided that the discretion that the old Independent Broadcasting Authority had possessed should become a duty in respect of Channels 3 and 4 and the national commercial radio services.
When moving Government amendments to give expression to the will of the Standing Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney explained:
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".—[Official Report, 9 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 203.]The same principle was applied to radio.The constitutional position of the BBC was not changed, and I have noted my hon. Friend's comments that there is no specific requirement on the BBC to carry party political broadcasts on each of its five national radio stations. I understand that, at present, only BBC Radio 2 and Radio 4 carry them. The Radio Authority drew attention to that when it announced its arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio on 12 September.
The number of party political broadcasts to be broadcast on national commercial radio is equivalent to the number broadcast on BBC Radio 2—up to two PPBs for the Conservative party and the Labour party and one for the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, with the scheduling being determined by the broadcasters within certain parameters. That is not, I believe, an onerous obligation. For the BBC, however, Radio 2's output of party political broadcasts would, under current arrangements, be augmented by a further 18 party political broadcasts on Radio 4, divided between the main political parties in the United Kingdom. This, to me, does not suggest that the BBC is neglecting its public service responsibilities in respect of party political broadcasting; rather, it shows that the corporation is committed to providing a range of party political programming that caters for the interests of the parties and the public.
Furthermore, the BBC has wide-ranging public service obligations, including a specific obligation to broadcast an impartial account of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, and to ensure that political matters are widely and seriously considered in programmes across all its services.
That said, I acknowledge that the arrangements for specifically party political broadcasts on the BBC differ from those for national commercial radio stations. That is partly a function of the different arrangements under which the broadcasters are constituted. The BBC is one broadcaster operating a range of channels, while the national radio licensees operate only one channel under each licence. The BBC's arrangements have been agreed in the light of discussions with the political parties. As far as I am aware, the main political parties have been 194 broadly satisfied with the arrangements for party political broadcasts on BBC Radio, although some smaller parties would prefer to increase their allocations. In general, for many decades the BBC has held a difficult ring. It is open to the parties to put forward alternative proposals if they wish.
I remain of the view that this is not an area in which Government should be prescriptive. It must remain for the BBC, the ITC and the Radio Authority to agree the appropriate allocation of time for party political broadcasts in close co-operation with the political parties. Parliament determined that the national commercial licensees should be required to carry PPBs and it is for the regulators to ensure that the particular obligations are fair and reasonable, making different provision for different cases or circumstances, as provided by the Act.
The arrangements for PPBs are an important contribution to the political process. I do not believe that the allocations of time agreed currently could reasonably be considered to blunt the competitive edge of our commercial broadcasters. If those slots are taken up by the political parties, it will clearly be in their interests to make their broadcasts as attractive as possible.
Decisions about the provision of airtime for party political broadcasts, including the scheduling arrangements, are properly matters for the broadcasters and the regulatory authorities. We do not seek to intervene in the decisions and have no plans to impose a requirement specifying how or when the BBC or other broadcasters should carry party political broadcasts. That is a matter that an independent BBC must negotiate with the political parties.
I believe that the arrangements for party political broadcasts work satisfactorily in the United Kingdom. They provide for the main political parties a vehicle on commercial and public service television and radio by which to communicate directly with the public. That is carried out within a framework that correctly leaves with the broadcasters the responsibility for maintaining a proper balance between different points of view and the maintenance of editorial standards.
The openness of our broadcasting media to the democratic process is one of the strengths of our system and reflects the independence of our media from Government control. It is a luxury denied to many other countries. The presence of party political broadcasts on terrestrial television and radio saves us from the perils of expensive and intrusive political advertising.
There is no doubt that the position between BBC Radio and the national commercial channels differs: it is never possible to make things exactly the same between competing channels, but the structure that has been established provides a proper forum for determining a fair spread of PPBs. In a fast-changing broadcasting world, we and the regulators will want to keep the formal arrangements under review. I do not accept, however, that the current arrangements demonstrate any manifest failure of the BBC's public service remit. The arrangements in place have been established through a process of consensus and negotiation. Any changes may be agreed between the key players—the broadcasters, the broadcasting regulatory authorities and the main political parties. That is democracy in action.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.