§ 3.12 p.m.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the interrogations by a B.B.C. interviewer of Sir Roy Welensky and of Dr. Banda in "Panorama" last Monday, and, if so, whether they approve thereof, in view of the conference to take place next week at which both these gentlemen are delegates.]
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I would remind my noble friend that programme content is a matter for the B.B.C. and the approval of Her Majesty's Government to particular programmes is not asked for or required.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this means that questions which aresub judicecan now be raised in this House and elsewhere?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am bound to say that I do not think the Question has anything to do with matters that aresub judice. The noble Lord's Question refers to a programme in which two politicians were interviewed. There was no question of their deliberations beingsub judicein any sense.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who put the Question on the Paper perhaps had in mind something that some of my colleagues have been talking to me about, and that is the developing practice of interviews of this character taking a line as if the people being interviewed are prisoners in the dock and considered to be guilty before any trial. Surely, it is a matter of importance and great public interest, and of some danger, that interviews of this sort should be conducted in this kind of spirit, especially if it is conducted by a British corporate body.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that in this particular programme questions were asked of a tendentious nature and replies received from certainly one of the gentlemen concerned, which might be embarrassing to him and to others later on?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, however true these criticisms may be, my noble friend has already pointed out that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the programmes concerned.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, while fully appreciating that, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that on all sides of the House there would be a great deal of support for the opinion which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has expressed?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I am sure that there would be a great deal of support, but it would be expressed in order on a substantive Motion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, I quite understand that the legal position has been followed in regard to this public Corporation. But, surely, in a matter affecting the thinking on the whole future of this country and constituent countries of the Commonwealth, and matters of that kind, if these interviews are not conducted fairly it may affect the actual conference we are going into. Surely it is not outside the bounds of possibility that the Government should, in the best interests of the public, make representations to the people concerned.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I still think that the constitutional position was correctly put by my noble friend.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that the Government are responsible for the Charter under which the B.B.C. operate? If we reach a stage where their conduct is inimical to the interests of the Commonwealth, could we not discuss that?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, it might be, but it is not; and the noble Lord can put down a substantive Motion and discuss anything he likes in this House.
LORD H ENDERSONMy Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to send to both television authorities a copy of to-day'sHansard, with the passages marked?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMLords, I am sure that many kind friends of both Corporations read every word of what transpires here.