§ 2.53 p.m.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government which Government Department is responsible to Parliament for the activities of the B.B.C. and to whom questions relating to specific programmes should be addressed.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, on the first part of the question, the 1952 White Paper which dealt with the Memorandum on the Report of the Broadcasting Committee said this:
The Government agree that there should be no Minister for Broadcasting as such. The Postmaster General will continue to be responsible for the exercise of the Government's powers under the general authority and direction of the Prime Minister.That is still the position. On the second part of the question, it has been the policy of successive Governments to give the B.B.C. independence in the conduct of its day-to-day affairs, including its programmes, and questions on specific programmes should therefore be addressed to the Corporation.
§ LORD TEVIOTI thank my noble friend for his clear answer to the question. I wonder whether the noble Lord saw an announcement within the last ten days that a certain officer, whom I will not name, was going to broadcast and the Admiralty stepped in and stopped it. That seems to have been not quite the type of procedure that the noble Lord gives me to understand is operating at the moment.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I scarcely think that that is a question which arises from the noble Lord's original Question. So far as serving officers are concerned I understand it has always been the practice to obtain suitable sanction when they propose to broadcast.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, could the noble Lord inform the House which Minister is responsible for answering for the Independent Television Authority, bearing in mind that that is subsidised from public funds?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the responsibility of the Government. The Independent Television Authority comes under very much the same rules of independence as does the B.B.C.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHHas the noble Lord lost sight of the fact that there is an Act of Parliament which specifically donates public funds, as such, to the I.T.A.? Surely the Government cannot now wash their hands of the responsibility for the proper usage of public money. If the noble Lord would like time to think about the answer, I will put down a Question at some date convenient to him.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord, before he answers, perhaps consider this and tell me whether it is correct. Is it not the fact that although the Act of Parliament authorises the Government to lend to the Independent Television Authority a very small amount of money, in comparison to what the B.B.C. takes, the Independent Television Authority has not had any of that money but has been operating on money provided for it by the different companies? Secondly, is it not also a fact that the B.B.C. receives something like £60 million or £70 million of the taxpayers' money? And if it is right that the B.B.C. should be independent should not the Independent—that is its title—Television Authority be equally independent?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, before the noble Lord answers my previous question, would he bear in mind that the I.T.A. has an authorisation of money up to £750,000 per annum, whereas the B.B.C. get their money not via the taxpayer but via the licence holders?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think, with due deference to the noble Lord and the noble Earl who asked me questions, that it is stretching things a bit far to elasticise a question on the B.B.C. into a discussion of the finances of the I.T.A. As 485 the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, correctly surmised, I think it would be better for us all if a suitable Question were put down at his convenience.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I am not quite clear yet what the situation is. I propose in due course to put down a Motion on this subject, and before I put down the Motion I want to know exactly to whom I am addressing it and who is likely to answer. I hope the noble Lord can give me some definite information on this subject, because the public are very much exercised at some of the programmes on the B.B.C.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, on that particular question, which I think does arise from the noble Lord's original Question, it is a little difficult for me to say to whom the Motion will be addressed, since I do not know the terms of the Motion that the noble Lord proposes to put down. Then he has asked me who I think will reply. That, again, depends on the terms of his Motion. I have a horrible feeling that it will probably be me. The position is this. If the noble Lord, or any other member of the public, has any representations to make on the subject of specific programmes of the B.B.C., they should be made to the B.B.C., I think that in the day-to-day organisation, there must be an ultimate authority for everything, and in the case of B.B.C. programmes, it is the B.B.C. This has been the agreed position for a long time. Her Majesty's Government agree, noble Lords opposite have in the past agreed—I think that we can probably take it that they still do—and your Lordships in all parts of the House have agreed, that the independence of the B.B.C., their objectivity and impartiality, form a great national asset and should be preserved. Therefore I cannot go any further than to say that such questions should be addressed to the B.B.C. I do not know in what terms the noble Lord wishes to put down his Motion, and therefore to whom he should address it. Presumably, he should address it to Her Majesty's Government. I have said this at some length—perhaps wearied you- Lordships—to make quite clear to the noble Lord what the position is, so that he can know exactly how to put down his Motion.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, I think that an important constitutional 486 point is involved here. As I understood the original Question of the noble Lord, it was: what Minister was responsible for the B.B.C.? To which the answer was returned that the B.B.C. was independent, subject to the general position of the Postmaster General answering for the Prime Minister. Then there was the question of some particular Minister or, as I understood it, some particular Department intervening, either to get the B.B.C. to do, or to refrain from doing, something. If a particular Government Department takes some action vis-á-vis the B.B.C., just as it might vis-á-vis any authority, then surely the question would properly be addressed to the Minister responsible for that Department in relation to the specific action he had taken.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I think that the situation as the noble Earl has expressed it is obviously right. Perhaps I might set my noble friend's mind at rest. If he will put down a Motion, my noble friend Lord Chesham will answer it. Obviously, he is fully competent to do so.