HL Deb 12 May 1960 vol 223 cc820-49

6.58 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint a permanent authority, or panel, to consider the advisability or otherwise of permitting members of the staff of the B.B.C., especially on Panorama, who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government and Ministers of the Crown, apparently in order to influence public opinion; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who are going to take part in this debate for remaining here so long. This Motion has been down on the Paper for a very considerable time. I tried to get it on before Easter, but I could not manage that; and since then I have done my best to get it debated. I shall be as short as I can, but I am afraid that when you begin to go into the subject of my Motion you find it is impossible to deal with it in a limited and short way. I will cut out as much as I can, but I must get certain points over now, having put my hand to the plough, so to speak.

First let me say, my Lords, what this Motion does not do. I am making no personal attack. The B.B.C. is a model of courtesy in personal dealings. What the Motion does is to call into question the policy of the B.B.C. in their handling of political questions by persons without political responsibility, whatever their other merits may be. I do not suggest that that policy is due to any ambition in the B.B.C. or to a wish to give the appearance of being the "Portland Place Parliament". The airing of different views on matters that interest the public is, in general and in principle, quite right, though not, I imagine, unconditionally desirable. But when it comes to matters which it is the duty and the prerogative of Parliament to handle, the general rule does not always hold. It can be a political embarrassment to have a huge organisation like the B.B.C., with its enormously wide access to the public, maintaining a sort of standing forum. Such a forum, as we all know, can be made very seductive and attractive. It is an agreeable mixture of entertainment and education. It draws into itself, but only by switching interest from something else. The "something else" is Parliament, Westminster, which suffers a sort of diminution.

It may be that in some ways the B.B.C. advertise Parliament, but in my opinion this indirect advertisement, if it exists, falls very short of balancing the diminution of Parliament. I am well aware of a sort of co-operation that is going on between the Houses of Parliament and the B.B.C. Some legislators have a foot in both camps—and no doubt this is of advantage to them but this sort of pluralism seems to me of doubtful value to the State. Perhaps it is a prejudice, but my feeling is that things have come to this: that one should be either a Parliament man of Westminster or a man of the Portland Place Parliament, but should not mix them. That is not only my view, but also the view of many other people. The intervention of the standing forum at Portland Place disturbs the political peace by provoking a sort of malaise in the population, so far as it listens in.

The chosen experts and propagandists on the B.B.C., being irresponsible in the strict sense, talk to masses of people who, like themselves, have no direct or immediate political responsibility. The audiences listen in a mixture of interest, of amusement, of doubt, of frustration. This is the background to the inquiries and the decisions that the responsible leaders in office must make. Background has its uses, but it can be something of a trial for Members of Parliament, and especially for those who hold office. They are probably not the least tough of Britishers, but the question I bear in mind, and many other people are thinking about is: Are they tough enough? I hear that a noise abatement society has been started—a very necessary body. Like many of your Lordships I have suffered severely from noise. There are noises of different sorts. This new society might well set itself to secure more peace, more freedom from all the political background that is going on, for the men who have the conduct of the nation's affairs. That ends the first part of my remarks. I have not been long yet and I am not going to be any longer than I can help.

I am not interested in B.B.C. politics, but I am interested in the result of the General Election, the composition of the House of Commons, from which, together with the House of Lords, the Cabinet and the Government are selected to accept authority and responsibility of office as Ministers of the Crown. The great bulk of our people are also interested in this. I am aware of the up-to-date Royal Charter of the B.B.C. I do not believe that the B.B.C. were intended to operate as they are now doing. I find that great numbers of our people are getting the strong opinion that the B.B.C. are arrogating to themselves the functions of Government and instructing their employees to air opinions and views which should be given publicity to our people only through the Westminster Parliament, which embraces the Cabinet, the Government and those elected by our people, and not through the Portland Place Parliament. In fact, only those who are in these responsible positions can know, through information to which only they have access, what the real situation is in regard to our home affairs and our connections with our Foreign Embassies, Allies and foreign countries.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, is nobody else to be allowed to address the public except those who are in authority over us and who therefore know?

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, there is no indication here that that is so. I think that I shall come to that in a minute. I did not mention the noble Lord's name, but I know that he is implicated in some of the things I have said. What the public generally are disturbed about is the type of the persons who are interviewed, who in many cases are definitely anti-British and in opposition to those trying to help the country in these difficult days. I feel confident that Ministers must be bothered and worried by these B.B.C. activities. In reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, just said in his interruption, I would say that there is no question here of endeavouring to interfere with the expression of opinion by any citizen of this country in a private capacity. But you cannot say that the B.B.C. is in a private capacity; it is in a public capacity and has all the advantages that publicity can possibly give.

Many of your Lordships will remember that at the time of the Nyasaland trouble one representative, in particular, came over here and was permitted by the B.B.C. television to accuse the then Secretary of State, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, of being a liar. I was viewing television and I saw him do it. Is that a proper thing for any organisation such as the B.B.C. to permit? With regard to censorship of all theatres and public entertainments, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Chesham on February 9. I can see no reason why something of this nature should not apply to the B.B.C.'s activities. There is any amount of information about which we all want to hear which is perfectly proper subject for the B.B.C. I could mention them at great length—sport, entertainments generally, ceremonial, theatres, music, athletics, cricket, football, polo and many others. We want to limit, as far as possible, the publicity given to murders, to brutality and to crime generally.

My Lords, the Malayan Prime Minister was on television last Monday, and he was interrogated. He was asked many, as I thought (and one of the chief members of the Opposition was there, and he objected very much indeed) embarrassing questions, but, being a perfect gentleman, he practically told his interrogator that every question he had been asked he could not possibly answer. I was glad that he took that line, and it enhanced my opinion of him.

I ask your Lordships whether, in view of the general activities of the B.B.C., you are satisfied with the management. It is the Government at Westminster and Parliament who are responsible for determining the broad outlines of policy. The Press can criticise; but, of course, they can be answered. Finally, my Lords, I refer to my noble friend who is going to reply to the debate, and I wonder whether he is still of the opinion he expressed in his final reply to my question on February 9. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 220 (No. 35), col. 1024.] I shall no doubt have an opportunity after the debate of referring to certain questions that will arise. I beg to move for Papers.

7.15 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I hope that I may lay claim to being a "man of Parliament", although certainly I cannot lay claim to being a "man of Portland Place", because I have never had the opportunity. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will accept what I say in that matter as being said with complete impartiality. The noble Lord always endears himself to us when he speaks, and he always speaks engagingly; though sometimes, in fact very often, he expresses a somewhat novel and unusual point of view. But I am sure he would agree with me that I should be extremely discourteous if I did not take everything that he said quite seriously.

I want to deal, as briefly as possible, both with what he has said and with the terms of his Motion, to which he did not adhere very strictly. The noble Lord said that he objected to the B.B.C. providing what he called a standard forum which might be regarded as seductive, and said that it provided entertainment by switching interest from Westminster. I think that is absolutely wrong. In my view, the discussion programmes on television and on broadcasting do not switch interest from Westminster but to Westminster, and greatly add to the knowledge in the public mind of the things we do. It would be regrettable in the extreme, in my view, if anything happened to end those programmes. The noble Lord said that the B.B.C. was arrogating to itself the functions of Government and was trying to impose its opinions on the public mind. But in my experience of listening to broadcast programmes and television programmes I have never on any single occasion heard the B.B.C. express an opinion. As such, the B.B.C. has no opinion, and ever since it began it has been sedulously, carefully and strictly avoiding expressing anything like an opinion.

I wonder if the noble Lord saw the leader in The Times to-day, regretting, in a sense, as I take it, the decision that the Nine o'clock News is soon to be no more. Referring to the Nine o'clock News it said: It was of even more powerful influence in Europe. Men and women in occupied countries, whose peoples refused to be enslaved, risked their lives—and on occasions lost them—surreptitiously to listen to the nine o'clock news. Then comes the important part: They came to trust all the B.B.C.'s news services, but in a curious, psychological way they felt the news which the British people themselves were hearing had a final authority. You cannot possibly get a reputation of that kind unless you act with continuing integrity, and resolutely oppose any attempt by any member of the staff to express anything like a personal opinion.

Looking at the Motion, I feel that it is deplorable that to-day, only three months after the Soviet Government ceased to jam B.B.C. broadcasts to the Russian people, the British Parliament should be discussing a proposal to jam B.B.C. broadcasts to the British people. What an advertisement it would be for democracy if Her Majesty's Government were to accept the noble Lord's suggestion! Just think of the questions that Mr. Khrushchev could ask Mr. Macmillan at the Summit Conference—"Why have you closed your Window on the World?" "Is Panorama too revealing?" "Are you afraid of the consequences of putting the facts before the people and letting them form their own judgment?" It will be a sorry day when we cannot give a firm and decisive "No" to all those questions.

Only a few months ago we all welcomed the decision to increase foreign-language broadcasts and to increase the Government money spent on providing cheap books for sale abroad in order that we could tell a more complete story of British democracy and our way of life. We all deplore the sound curtain which has been so firmly clamped down round the Soviet satellites, so that the B.B.C. transmissions in Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Roumanian and German are still being jammed. We all believe that it would be a step towards peace if the B.B.C. could talk without interference to the peoples of those countries in their own tongues. What chance shall we have of ever persuading them to lift the sound curtain if we make it so painfully clear that we are afraid to let the B.B.C. talk to our own people?

For all the noble Lord's careful explanations, and for all his assurances that he meant no personal attack on any member of the B.B.C.—which, of course, we expect: we know that anything else would be impossible from him—what I have said is precisely what his Motion would mean. As he said, he asks for a permanent panel to decide whether the B.B.C. should be allowed to discuss matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government. But surely any matter which concerns the Government concerns the people. They have a right to be told the facts. I am not talking of censorship on grounds of security, but of questions which are public property, and which are the only questions that Panorama ever discusses. Imagine the outcry the newspapers would make if they had to go to a standing panel to ask for permission to discuss any topic of the day! That does not bear thinking about.

The noble Lord's proposal in his Motion is, in fact, a far greater restriction than the old Fourteen-day Rule of unhappy memory, with its absurdities and humiliations. All of us who took part in such programmes as Any Questions will know that matters of current or pending discussion in Parliament were precisely the things about which the questioners wanted to ask the panel. Fortunately, of course, the questions were not known in advance, and all the answers had to be "off the cuff". I personally cannot remember a single programme in which I took part, or to which I listened, in which the Fourteen-Day Rule was not well and truly violated. Of course, we could do that, taking part in this programme.

The B.B.C., however, were not nearly so fortunate. In order to avoid public irritation and frustration they had to move with the greatest caution, if last-minute cancellations of planned and published programmes were to be avoided. That meant planning always with one eye on the possibility that a debate might be arranged in Parliament. They had to plan their programmes well ahead of transmission, and they were published only a few days before the Parliamentary business was known. Consequently, they had often to shelve important subjects because of the possibility that there might be a debate on them, and they could not deal with them until after Parliament had either debated them or decided not to have a debate. Despite that care, sometimes they had, under the Fourteen-Day Rule, to cancel programmes. The contributors were sent home and the listeners were treated to chamber music. If anyone thinks no harm was done by that I disagree, because every cancellation of that kind was, in my view, harmful and humiliating to Parliament. You do not preserve the reputation of Parliament in that way.

Eventually the Government recognised this, and they abolished the rule. In its place, they accepted an undertaking from the B.B.C. to act in a way which does not detract from the primacy of Parliament as a forum for debating the affairs of the nation. This undertaking, in my view, has been faithfully carried out, and unquestionably Parliament and democracy have been the gainers. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke of the Prime Minister of Malaya being questioned on television the other evening. I did not personally see the programme but I heard several accounts of it, all of which tallied with the noble Lord's. I would submit that the remedy for that does not lie in suppressing the B.B.C.—it lies in making protests of the kind that he has made. Then perhaps the interviewer will get more sense or better manners. Or the B.B.C. might get other interviewers who would not ask such foolish questions and embarrass important visitors to the country by asking questions which they well know in advance cannot be answered. I agree with the noble Lord that that kind of cheap journalism, which is unworthy of a good journalist, and which in fact good journalists never practise, is always a blot. But it does not mean that we must have censorship of B.B.C. programmes simply because one or two interviewers do not know their job and manners.

A select Committee on Broadcasting (Anticipation of Debates) has recognised: The development of radio and television in Britain and the broadcast discussion of public affairs which has followed it, have done much to encourage an intelligent interest in the work of Parliament. That is the direct opposite to what the noble Lord thinks. I am quite sure the Select Committee were right. Surely an intelligent interest in what we do is precisely what we want. We should be thankful when the facts are given objectively on the air and in the Press, and criticise only when the facts are suppressed or distorted. If the facts are unpalatable or discreditable, the fault does not lie with the B.B.C. or with the reporters, but with ourselves.

I hope your Lordships will agree that there are only two factors which should determine the choice of a subject to be televised or broadcast. First, is it a matter of concern to the public? And, secondly, are the people justified in looking to the B.B.C. for information about it? Certainly the Panorama programmes that I have seen fully satisfied those criteria. Certainly they influence public opinion—of course they do—but only in one way. They influence public opinion towards enlightenment, and so far as humanly possible they put the pros and cons of every case before the viewers and leave them to make up their own minds. Inevitably, each of us individually regards the presentation as just or partial according to his preconceived notions, or according to his way of looking at things. Inevitably, there are charges of bias. But every public inquiry following these allegations has exonerated the B.B.C. from any intention of bias. Of course we all know that complete impartiality or an exact balance is not always possible. But there can be no doubt that their constant aim is to inform the public.

It is not enough just to give information of world events through the medium of news bulletins. A responsible democracy needs to hear various opinions about the facts, and television makes it possible to see those who hold different opinions and to watch them stating their views and answering questions about them. I think The Times leader again made that perfectly clear to-day, when the writer insisted that it was an important requirement to keep news and comment absolutely distinct. I think that is right. But it emphasises the point that, in addition to straight news, there must be comment and discussion. We all know that television in general, and Panorama in particular, presents opposing views to a mass audience which is not presently possible in any other medium in quite the same way. There is no doubt that since the war public opinion has increasingly endorsed and welcomed the greater freedom which broadcasting has exercised in these matters.

Some years ago, when I saw one of the first Panorama programmes (it was in company with the present Director of Television for the B.B.C.), I felt that from the viewpoint of democracy it was the most exciting and important event in television. I still hold that view. It is a view which I am glad to know the public increasingly share. During the first three months of this year, on an average day some 17,300,000 people watched at least one B.B.C. television programme. That is two million more than a year ago. Panorama has an average viewing audience of 7 million. That compares with viewing audiences for similar programmes of 3 million for Who Goes Home?, 3½ million for Press Conference, and an average of 7½ million for the Tonight programme. These figures emphasise that there is an important audience for these programmes and, of course, for some similar programmes produced by I.T.V., to which, if I may say so, the Motion, astonishingly, makes no reference. I am quite sure the noble Lord is aware that we have commercial television, but perhaps he thinks that their programmes are sufficiently cleaned up by the detergent advertisements which precede and follow each programme. But commercial television does in fact carry a number of political discussion programmes—Free Speech, for example, of which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was a prominent exponent.

LORD TEVIOT

Dr. Banda—

LORD STONHAM

I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said, though I heard him say Dr. Banda. But during his speech he made reference to Mr. Lennox-Boyd, and something about Nasser. I should have thought it was Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Foreign Secretary who was to do with the Suez Canal.

LORD TEVIOT

I never mentioned the Suez Canal. The particular gentleman who made this remark on the television (I heard it myself) was referring to Nyasaland, which is under the Colonial Office.

LORD STONHAM

That may well be so, but the particular gentleman to whom the noble Lord was referring was not a member of the staff of the B.B.C.

LORD TEVIOT

I am sorry, but I never said he was. But what I want to see is that people such as that man should not be allowed to perform among the activities of the B.B.C.

LORD BOOTHBY

Why?

LORD TEVIOT

I do not believe they want it, but some further investigation should be made at the time.

LORD BOOTHBY

Cannot you call a man a liar?

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord's Motion which we are discussing is: … to consider the advisability or otherwise of permitting members of the staff of the B.B.C. … who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and responsibility of the Government … If a politician, Commonwealth or foreign or Dominion politician, comes over here as a visitor, and is invited to take part in a television programme and refers to one of Her Majesty's Ministers as a liar, I think that is very bad taste, something he should not do, whatever he feels. But what is absolutely certain is that you cannot hold the B.B.C. responsible; and therefore it is no part of this Motion.

We have these "free-speech" programmes, these democratic programmes, on all television channels, and I think we should welcome that fact. My own opinion, quite firmly and clearly, is that if a politician, Minister or Back-Bencher, is not prepared to take part in a programme where he has the chance of answering questions put to him, providing that his replies go out uncut, he should retire from politics. Indeed, I think these discussion programmes of this kind are much fairer than interviews for newsreels, because such interviews are often pre-recorded and cut afterwards; and the cutting, being at the discretion of the editor, often gives, as it does in newspapers, a false impression of what has been said. I expect we have all suffered from that kind of thing. My Party always has suffered, and probably always will, from the fact that the Press is mainly Tory-owned. Most political news, therefore, either by suppression or distortion, is slanted against us. That is why our prospects usually improve during an Election campaign, when wireless and television programmes are more sought after and evenly balanced.

We on this side of your Lordships' House have a vested interest in truth and in any media of public information which attempts to tell the truth, but in the long run it is in the interests of us all that the facts should be known, and I believe that is the constant aim of the B.B.C. and of Panorama. For that reason I trust that we shall completely reject the Motion now before the House and in so doing give a clear directive to the B.B.C. to go on telling the truth to the people.

7.36 p.m.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships very long. Reference has been made, both in the noble Lord's Motion and by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to the Panorama programme, and I should like to say a word or two about a particular Panorama programme shown last January, simply on the ground that I think it would be wrong for me to let the occasion of the debate go by default by saying nothing about a matter which, to us in the City, was a quite notable incident. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I think knows that I am not prepared, as it were, to go the whole way with him. Part of the reason for that is that I was received shortly after the programme by the Chairman of the B.B.C. with the greatest possible courtesy and friendliness, and for that reason among others I should not wish to take any arguments too far. Further, I must admit to being fundamentally opposed to any form of censorship. I am very much against any kind of control or interference, but I do feel that it is a good thing that this subject should be aired in your Lordships' House and I have great sympathy with what I believe are the thoughts which lie behind the idea of this Motion.

What in fact occurred? On January 18, a Monday, there was a programme which was broadcast about the stock markets. Admittedly three days later, on the Thursday, the bank rate was raised, but on the Tuesday, the day immediately following this broadcast, there was quite clear evidence of fairly heavy selling of stocks and shares, almost entirely by small investors. It could quite clearly be attributed to the influence of the programme the night before. This was an episode which caused us considerable concern. I am particularly anxious not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted about the point that I am coming to. I want to make it abundantly clear that it is not for one moment the duty, the function or any part of the job of those of us who administer the Stock Exchange to complain or make a fuss when prices go up or go down. The Stock Exchange is a market place which reflects the activities of investors. The rise or fall of prices in that market is nothing to do with the Stock Exchange governing body. But this particular instance caused us considerable concern.

I am not saying for a moment that suitable warnings to investors, both large and small, are undesirable. Far from it. But the effect of a programme of this kind was clearly to stimulate sales, even to frighten the less well informed members of the public into foolish action. The use of the powerful media of radio and television could very well bring about a considerable scare. I hope that I shall not be thought to be carrying the argument too far if I suggest that it could create a scare in just the same sort of way as it could create a scare on a matter of health.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Would he at the same time deal with the position if an exactly similar state of affairs is brought about by popular newspapers, who give a tip to buy certain shares or even a hint to sell certain other shares? I do not want to name the newspapers. The noble Lord must be aware that they are in the same position, and that it happens virtually every week.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I quite agree with the noble Lord, but I think he has given us a figure of 17 million who look at Panorama.

LORD STONHAM

There are 17,300,000 people looking at some B.B.C. television programmes every day; 7 million look at Panorama.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I do not think any daily paper has a circulation of 7 million.

LORD STONHAM

Many of them claim a readership of more than 7 million.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I still think that the effect of the visual programme is much stronger than reading something in the paper. Furthermore, of those 7 million who may read the paper, I wonder how small a proportion of them ever look at the financial page. I was saying that I think the programmes could be used—I do not suggest that they would be, but they could be—to bring about a scare on a matter connected with health. I am sure we all agree that it would be highly undesirable and would never be done, that such a programme on a matter of health would take place without experts being invited to take part and to give their considered views. But here comes my point. On the programme to which I refer such experts were not invited to take part.

May I make one further point on that, and an even more serious one? We on the Council of the Stock Exchange take every possible step against the manipulation of prices. For example, before we grant a quotation to a company for their shares, we insist that they shall agree to issue early information on their affairs and how they are doing. We in the Stock Exchange are conscious perhaps of a lack of information between ourselves and the public, but quite a lot has been done lately—we have now a public gallery, and we have a film which indeed has been shown on the B.B.C. But there remains one great danger—I am not suggesting for one moment that it occurred on this occasion—that a programme of that kind could be deliberately used to raise or to depress the markets. I would go so far as to say that I believe that if the effect of that programme could have been anticipated beforehand, I greatly doubt whether the script would have been allowed to stand. We welcome programmes on the Stock Exchange, but we think that they should be carefully prepared. Given any kind of reasonable notice, we are always prepared to assist and co-operate whenever we can.

I have deliberately tried to speak with some moderation, but I should like to say that the impact of that particular programme was probably much more violent than had been anticipated. Further, I think that anyone reading the script of that programme now would be surprised at the effect it had. The last thing I want to do is to make any personal criticism of anybody who took part in it or of the organisers of it. The Stock Exchange is in some debt to Mr. Dimbleby. I think we all are after last Friday. Before I sit down I want just to reiterate how courteously and graciously I was received at the B.B.C.. and I think that the outcome of that interview will be that such programmes, on the subject of the Stock Exchange, at any rate, will in future probably be more carefully vetted and considered before being shown.

7.45 p.m.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to say that I, too, do not think that the charm with which my noble friend Lord Teviot moved his Motion should be allowed to conceal the extreme danger of its wording. I should like, first of all, to correct him on two small points. He talked about the "Portland Place Parliament". Actually, it is in Shepherds Bush, some distance away. He should in future describe it as the "Lime Grove Parliament". Shortly, it will be at the White City. But it has nothing to do with Portland Place so far as Panorama is concerned.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why it was that when I went to see the Director-General of the B.B.C. some time ago on a most important matter with regard to the people of this country, I was told to go to Portland Place, and was shown into a sumptuous room wherein I was received most kindly by the Director-General? I took that to be the Head Office.

LORD BOOTHBY

The Director-General does, in fact, inhabit Portland Place in considerable comfort, but he has little to do with television. He exercises only a general, distant, supervising authority.

That brings me to my next point, that we should not attempt to interfere with the detail of the programmes. The second point I should like to make is this. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, refers in his Motion to members of the staff of the B.B.C., as taking part in the Panorama programme. Technically, that is not correct. Those who take part in Panorama—the interviewers and the interviewees—are not members of the staff of the B.B.C., nor are they in any circumstances directed by anybody as to what they are to say or do in these particular programmes. If a general line is thought to be undesirable, they are, of course, under the supervision of the controllers of the television programmes, as is a free-lance correspondent under the ultimate supervision of the editor of a newspaper. But there is no more to it than that. To suggest, as did the noble Lord, that the B.B.C. in those matters has a policy—a kind of rather nefarious policy, a doubtful, dubious policy, a sinister policy, which they direct their minions on the Panorama programme and other similar programmes to carry out—is, I suggest to your Lordships, a travesty of the truth.

As the noble Lord admitted, I have taken part in a number of television programmes both on Independent Television and on B.B.C. television, and I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that never at any time have I received any direction as to what I am going to say, even if I would have accepted it, nor have I ever known a case in which anybody has ever received an instruction as to what he should or should not say.

Now I come to the actual terms of the Motion itself, which complains of those who have no authority or responsibility, investigating and discussing matters which are the concern and the responsibility of the Government and Ministers of the Crown, apparently in order to influence public opinion, With all due respect to the noble Lord—I claim his friendship if he does not claim mine, and I admire him greatly—those are the most dangerous words I have ever seen on an Order Paper of either House of Parliament, because, summed up, they amount to what I regard as the negation of democracy. Ultimate power is vested, quite properly, in another place, in the sense that the House of Commons can sustain or dismiss any Government. But to deny to any free citizen of this free country the right to attempt to influence public opinion and, by implication, to reserve that right to those who are Ministers of the Crown, seems to me to be an absolutely monstrous suggestion.

The noble Lord on another occasion suggested that it was an insult to important figures arriving from abroad into this country, or to important Ministers of the Crown arriving at London Airport, to be interviewed on television. My answer to that is that they trip over each other in their hurry to get in front of the cameras. There is absolutely no reason for them to be interviewed if they do not want to be interviewed: and when they are interviewed, there is no reason for them to say anything that they do not want to say. I gather that the other day the Prime Minister of Malaya was careful to say, "No" quite often. But there is no obligation upon those people to be interviewed, and I have found, by and large, that people—even high and responsible Ministers of the Crown—are very anxious to get in front of the cameras if they can possibly do so, in order to air their opinions. They like airing their opinions, especially to a very large audence. I am not blaming them, merely suggesting that they should not be pitied for this. Because, to tell the truth to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, they rather enjoy it.

I now turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I see it. I believe that that particular programme was a great pity—especially as I had bought a very few shares only the day before, and it caused me the usual small but unpayable loss that I always sustain whenever I buy any shares. I believe that the whole thing was unnecessary and I feel that it was perhaps a pity they did not have more expert financiers. I happened to hear the programme, and I thought it was great nonsense from start to finish. But I do suggest to the noble Lord that there is not much distinction to be drawn here between the B.B.C. or Independent Television and the Press. I also suggest to him that there are a very large number of followers of the financial journalists, particularly those who write for some of our more popular Sunday newspapers, who are influenced to a far greater extent than anyone could be by a second-rate, generalised programme on the B.B.C. Because those writers actually tip the specific shares that ought to be bought or sold. The B.B.C. gave just a general moan, or should I say groan, about the prospects for the market and for the future of this country?

Without saying anything to embarrass the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate I would suggest that even in this respect the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a far greater offender than the B.B.C. ever was, because what he said in the Budget debate—

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the proper person to give such warnings.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, he may be the proper person, but his warnings were just as foolish as those of the B.B.C. And it was those vague threats he made in his Budget—the noble Lord cannot deny it—which hung over the Stock Exchange, over which the noble Lord so ably presides, for a month and made the Stock Exchange talk themselves into a totally unnecessary bear market. That is a fact no one can deny. As I said only yesterday, it was because he went droning on about the dangers of inflation without saying exactly what he was going to do, saying only, "If this goes on we shall take you upstairs and wallop you"—which is something that the business community cannot understand. I told Sir Simon Marks yesterday that he, almost single-handed, by the results he had produced a day or two ago, had stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer from talking this country into a depression. If we are to compare the B.B.C. with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it comes to being a Jonah I believe it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wins every time; and I have good reason to hope that, after all the things that have been said about him in the last few days, he will now stop.

I have only one thing to say, in conclusion. There is, of course, a declining interest in this country in purely Party politics. I am not going into causes, for I do not want to offend my noble friends on those Benches; but that is so. I suggest that there is not a declining interest in Parliament, and for that, I believe, television and sound radio are largely responsible, because they have stimulated public interest in the kind of questions we discuss. I do not say that the public hang breathlessly upon our every word. I do not think they will read with avidity the debate we have had this afternoon about building societies. I frankly confess that I had moments of boredom myself, and I believe that the public may have moments of boredom on that particular issue. But they are interested to an increasing extent in what I would call the broad questions of the day and the hour. That is as it should be in a democracy, and I believe that television and broadcasting generally have done more than any other single thing to stimulate that interest which is the essence of democracy.

We are sometimes apt to deride the democracy of the United States of America, and to laugh at it. But it is very genuine and very real. The United States is a democracy, and a democracy conducted very largely through the instrument of the Press conference—the Presidential Press Conference for one—and television, and the endless discussions they have. No one can say that the influence of Mr. Edward Murrow in the United States has been anything but beneficial. That is a democracy conducted to a very large extent by the Press, by columnists of the highest distinction and by television and radio; and that is part and parcel of modern democracy.

I do not think it detracts from the interest in the proceedings of the Congress of the United States, any more than the development of such a democracy here will detract from the interest in politics. Do not let us become mealy-mouthed. It surprised me that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke in terms of hushed horror about the fact that somebody had called Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd a liar. Why not, if he thought he was a liar? Our Victorian ancestors never stopped calling each other liars: and when the Irish were in the House of Commons the term "liar" was about the nicest and kindest expression they ever used. We are becoming terribly polite and well mannered in this country. A little more robustness, a little more rough language, is going to stimulate interest in democracy still further.

Before I sit down may I say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that censorship of any kind is murder to a democracy. That is really what the whole argument of the modern world is about. Once we start even touching censorship—and this is what the noble Lord's Motion really does: it imposes a kind of censorship—we tar and soil our hands. We are fighting this great public battle against Communism over that single issue. It cuts right down to the deepest issues, the issues of freedom or of slavery. And one of the conditions of freedom is freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom to say to your neighbour what you believe. That is what I think television is encouraging, and that is what I feel it should be encouraged to do.

7.58 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby has given us on this occasion the stirring opinions that we expected from him, and I think we ought not to allow ourselves to be deceived by the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, into thinking that he does not have the most violent views on this subject. I do not want to quote what he said in an earlier debate, but he did except the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, from those who were "tinpot persons". My only regret is that Panorama has not yet invited the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to express his opinions. These things are valuable, stimulating and exciting, and they add to the enjoyment of life.

I am feeling a certain difficulty because the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has objected to Parliamentarians who appear on television. I suspect that recently I have been dropped from The Brains Trust, so I can speak with a clearer conscience; and I would ask the noble Lord to realise that we fully sympathise with his views. Irresponsibility, whether or not it is of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee referred—anything which is harmful—is something to be deplored. It is a question of the price we pay for preventing it. In this issue of freedom to which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred we have also to face the very great danger of democracy, which is the danger of triviality; and television is more prone to that danger than practically any other form of public entertainment, activity, or source of information.

I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Boothby on his point about the influence of Mr. Edward Murrow. American television is extremely trivial and the tragedy is that Mr. Murrow is being continually pushed away and his programme may very soon go off the air entirely.

LORD BOOTHBY

I am glad to say that he is back. He called the chairman of his company inept and after that was immediately reinstated.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords I am delighted to hear it. But I only hope that this battle will not be fought in this country and that there will be no question of Lord Boothby or Lord Teviot not being freely able to appear, to inform us and to entertain us. I am sure that Lord Boothby agrees that triviality is a danger. I do not want to go into the question of I.T.V. but there is the particular triviality of some of their programmes; and some of those on the B.B.C. The great credit to the B.B.C. in putting on Panorama is due to the fact that they have had the courage to put it on at a peak listening time, in competition with Wagon Train. They have only one channel to play with, thanks to disastrous action taken by the Government at an earlier date, but they have still gone on and got their 7 million or 8 million listeners. The listeners are not just "eggheads", as I think they are called, or intellectuals like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. They are ordinary people who are interested and who are stimulated and turn away from the ever-firing guns of Wagon Train. This is something on which the B.B.C. really ought to be congratulated.

Of course there is a danger in unscripted stuff; there is danger in skilful presentation and showmanship. But this programme would not be playing its valuable part, like other programmes of information of this kind, at peak periods if the B.B.C. were not given a free hand to get people for it, whether they are the Dimblebys or the Kennedys or Kees, or any of them; and if they did not give them a reasonably free hand to show their skills and ability and to draw out of people ideas and interest. Now and again they make a terrible hash of it, and we get the sort of disaster to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred, although not everyone accepts his version that this was responsible for the slide in share prices. However, we do not want to start arguing now. It has been suggested that it is a little of a post hoc, propter hoc argument. None the less, there is general agreement that it was not a very good or wise programme. But this is a small price to pay. The alternative is that we have to accept the rule of mandarins in this field; and if we want to live under mandarins then probably we ought to go to live in South Korea or South Africa, or wherever it is. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not want to do it.

I believe it would be a national disaster if we were to attempt to limit in any way the excellent job that is done in trying to produce an educated democracy. Since we have universal suffrage (and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not regret it, even if he is unable to vote) the great majority of people are able to vote; and the more information we can give them, and the more integrity that is brought to bear by independent commentators being given a free hand, not only by the B.B.C.—or "Auntie B.B.C.", as this bold, forward-looking, courageous organisation has been called—the stronger will our Western civilisation grow. It is an important challenge. If we do believe in its value then we have to take some risks and chances. I am sure that on this issue there is no difference between us on any side of this House. We are quite convinced that the maximum freedom should be given. And, so far from supporting this appalling proposal for censorship—it is really appalling—we should, with the determination of all the good democrats that we have in the House of Lords, turn it down, with ignominy, if the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is thinking of taking it to a vote.

8.5 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, as for the second time in two weeks I look round the Benches of your Lordships' House at about this time of the evening, I have a future vision of a shambling figure mumbling its way along the pavement and of people saying, "There goes poor old Chesham, talking to himself again." Your Lordships will know where I learnt the habit. I should like, first of all, in replying, to say how glad we are this time that ill health did not prevent the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, from discussing this subject; and, whether or not we agree with him—and I, for one, do not—we certainly cannot fail to recognise his personal sincerity and persistence in the matter. So far, everyone in this debate, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Teviot, has said the same thing. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I must plead guilty to being a form of gramophone, but I shall make no apology for referring to what I have said more than once in your Lordships' House on the question of the attitude of the Government towards programmes and towards broadcasting organisations.

First the B.B.C. The 1952 White Paper—this is the extract I find the quickest; there are longer ones—says this: The Government accept the broadcasting committe's recommendation … that the Corporation's current independence in making programmes and in general administration should be continued. This only endorsed the policy which had been that of successive Governments for a long period of years; and I want to make clear that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I hope it will continue to be, and in that I am very glad to have support from the Benches opposite that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The position, of course, is similar so far as the I.T.A. are concerned. Although it does not enter into my noble friend's Motion, I rather share the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it did not do so.

My noble friend Lord Teviot was chiefly concerned with the handling of matters of a controversial nature and has suggested that there was some desire on the part of the B.B.C. to influence public opinion. Apart from the fact that, I suppose, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, explained to us, there may be on occasion unwittingly an effect which was not anticipated or intended, it is extremely unlikely that the B.B.C., or any other broadcasting organisation, should aspire to influence public opinion, because both broadcasting organisations have specific obligations put upon them by Parliament to be impartial in dealing with such matters and it certainly is not in their interests to try to perpetrate their own views on the public. There are, in fact, safeguards to prevent them from doing so.

So far as the B.B.C. is concerned the prescribing letter to the Corporation says: … the Postmaster General relies upon the Corporation to carry on its existing policy of treating controversial subjects with complete impartiality. I think I might continue to mention the I.T.A. The Act puts a duty on them to ensure that—it is in these words— Due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. There is also a requirement in the Act that news must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality; and on the B.B.C. side again its principle as regards news is: A fair selection of items impartially presented. I think that deals with that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, indicated the type of programmes, and he picked on Panorama in particular, which he dislikes. He told us that he thought that in some ways documentary and current affairs programmes, and even certain news reporting, interfere with the activities of and embarrass Government Ministers and indeed Parliament as a whole. But, my Lords, surely the objective and, indeed, the legitimate function of the broadcasting organisations is to present to their audiences the background to topics of the day as well as the current facts about them. The B.B.C. themselves describe these programmes as being complementary to the news, and they aim at giving a comprehensive picture of affairs and trying to help towards an understanding of them.

No one, I feel, could seriously question this objective and the concept that it is the function of the broadcasting organisations that they should inform and should educate, as well as entertain. In doing this, they include many personalities of the day—and quite rightly so, in my opinion—however objectionable or however sympathetic or statesmanlike the activities of those personalities may be. For the first time in history, it is possible for the ordinary citizens of this country to get some inkling of what the world figures are like as they come and go; and whether they say something stupid or something intelligent does not much matter—it helps to inform the public. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, whether or not they do anything about it is entirely optional. I was interested to hear that so many people enjoyed it so greatly—and, of course, he would know.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, gave us some very interesting views, and I do not attempt in any way to deny the gravity of this matter, as he put it; but the thing that I was particularly glad he said was that he went to see the B.B.C. about it and was received seriously, and also courteously. That, of course, is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do in this case: it is the right thing to do in any other case when any of your Lordships—or, indeed, anybody else—thinks there is something wrong with the programme. It is a matter for the B.B.C., and I think we are very right to keep it that way. That is the way to do it; and I am perfectly sure that what the noble Lord said to them will have been very carefully considered. It helps to build up the feeling that they will be more and more responsible and more and more careful, and that such things are perhaps not likely to happen again. It is perfectly true, as several noble Lords have said, that these programmes are popular in the homes of this country and are listened to by many people. The figure of 8 million for Panorama is, I think, right; and the I.T.A. say that their programme called This Week, which is rather the same sort of thing, probably attracts about 10 million when shown from all their stations.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Lord? This Week gets only about 2 million, according to the T.A.M. rating.

LORD CHESHAM

I am not going to argue about that, my Lords.

LORD STONHAM

If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think nobody knows, because my information is that the figure is 4 million.

LORD CHESHAM

That is even more reason for not arguing about it. I can never understand how they manage to assess it at all; but there is no doubt that a great many people listen to these programmes, however many the actual number of the millions may be, and there is no doubt that there is a public desire to see these programmes and an appreciation of them, even if my noble friend Lord Teviot does not share that appreciation.

I should like to quote from something that the Daily Mail said in February when talking about this type of programme. They said: All these programmes in their different degrees seek to provoke answers to questions of the day. You are not expected to accept what anybody says on them, but at least they leave you with a tingle of disturbance—even of conscience—at having a challenging idea thrown at you". I think that most of your Lordships will agree that there is a great deal in that which is basically sound. We hear a great deal these days about tele-morons and tele-maniacs, and of the dangers of television stifling initiative, particularly mental initiative and thought; and, without necessarily accepting and agreeing with that view, if there is anything in it surely this type of programme must be an antidote to that sort of effect.

My Lords, is it really true—can it be true—that the independence of the broadcasting organisations to put on these programmes in any way impedes or embarrasses the Government or Ministers? Is it really possible to contemplate that the vital issues that are raised in everyday life are for the concern only of the Government, and not of the man in the street? With the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I should hesitate to predict what might be the future of what we think of as our democratic way of life if we accepted that view. I should hate to have the job of examining our claim to a really democratic Parliamentary Government. I am glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, claims a vested interest in truth, but he must realise that, though his interest may be vested, it certainly is no monopoly. As far as Parliament is concerned, we have got that assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of—the one that was given at the time the Fourteen-day Rule was suspended. The words, I would remind your Lordships, are that they, the broadcasting organisations, would continue to act in a way which did not derogate from the primacy of Parliament as the forum for debating the affairs of the nation. I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that they have not tackled that in a most responsible way.

Now a word about the restrictions which I understand the noble Lord would like to impose. If I have got it right, he thinks that important issues should be handled only by those in authority or by experts; that there should be a permanent body of officials who would act as a board of censors to these programmes; and that news interviews with controversial personalities should in fact be banned. My Lords, this, in my view—and I think in the view of most of your Lordships—would be a repellent suggestion, and quite unacceptable. Not only that, but it would in certain circumstances, which are not very hard to imagine, open a very easily-opened door to a political censorship, which would be a far greater risk than anything else—and in this country that would be quite unthinkable. I think the noble Lord is trying to turn the clock back. It is 32 years since March, 1928, when the Government of the day decided that the ban on broadcasts of controversial matter should be entirely withdrawn. Now the noble Lord wants it back on again. He wants to control, not only programme content but the type of person who shall speak on the air. I agree with other noble Lords: why should he stop there? Why does he not carry it to its logical conclusion and apply the same muzzle to the Press? His arguments would apply, as I see it, in just the same way—and, indeed, they would apply also to sound radio. But, in point of fact, so far as I cart see, he wishes to apply this particular brake only to the B.B.C.; and not even, as I have said, to the I.T.A.

What we have to consider is whether actual experience, other than the noble Lord's personal distaste, offers any justification for drastic restrictions of the sort the noble Lord has proposed. My Lords, the Government do not think that it does. I think it is recognised that the development of radio and television in this country, and the broadcast discussion of public affairs which has followed it, have done a great deal to encourage an intelligent interest in the work of Parliament—and I mean the Parliament at Westminster, and not any other form of Parliament in Portland Place. Lime Grove, or anywhere dawn the suburban line. These programmes stimulate interest—there is no doubt about it. They do not take it away.

The question was raised of the desirability of allowing certain people with known views or who hypothetically may have been pressed to take a B.B.C. line, to take part in these programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, explained it clearly and concisely. But the real test is whether they would carry their own or any other imposed political slant into programmes in which they are concerned. The Corporation is there to watch that, and I am sure that they do. I would suggest to your Lordships that anyone knowing that what he has to say on a controversial issue is going to be watched with suspicious eyes, will, in fact, lean over backward to be as impartial as he can.

LORD STONHAM

It may be inadvertently but the noble Lord appeared to say, "if somebody takes a B.B.C. line". Is it not the case that there is no such thing as a B.B.C. line?

LORD CHESHAM

I was dealing with the hypothetical suggestion that the B.B.C. thought to influence public opinion. I do not believe for a moment that it does so, but if it did, the temptation would be to try to conceal it and not make it blatant.

I think we ought to be happy that we live in a country in which expression of opinion is given a free rein and responsible expression of opinion is carefully cultivated. Broadcasting, so long as it is intelligently and impartially handled, and that is how the organisations seek to do it—indeed, they have a duty to do it—plays a good part in informing and educating public opinion. We want informed and educated public opinion. The more there is, the better our work can be done. May I leave one final point with my noble friend Lord Teviot? The essence of what he has urged is that there should be a body of responsible men appointed to vet B.B.C. programmes when they deal with controversial topics. I would suggest that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that this has already been done ages ago. The Government appoint Governors of the B.B.C. who have the responsibility of watching over these programmes. I think that we can safely leave the broadcasting authorities to carry out their trust with full regard to the important responsibilities which that trust lays upon them.

8.26 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Stonharn. I never mentioned anything about books or about the news. Of course they can say what they like about books, provided they are the proper sort of books, and broadcasting the news is a very proper function of the B.B.C. But there are these questions which have come before Panorama. I am all in favour of Panorama, but I want to see that some of the things that Panorama have done, one of two which I have mentioned, should not recur. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee has shown the sort of thing that might happen.

The noble Lord said something about millions of people. That takes me back to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in regard to some of the programmes put on by the B.B.C. He said, "If only we could know how many people immediately switch off their instruments when this or that comes on!" Of course we cannot tell. There is one thing about which I am extremely distressed. It appears that there is going to be no supervision. This is the same answer. I did not mention the word "censorship". It seems to have got into the minds of some people that censorship is a terrible thing, but we have it with regard to the theatre. Perhaps something like the Lord Chamberlain's office might supervise certain programmes which, in my view, should not be put on the television at all, or even mentioned by the B.B.C.

With regard to my noble friend Lord Boothby, no doubt he had in his mind something I said about Members who had feet in both camps. Of course, we are bound to get that. However, that, is his business and not mine. I am hoping that something I was told yesterday is going to happen, and then we shall see what your Lordships do not seem to appreciate: that there is a tremendous body of people in this country who want something done with regard to these programmes. Every day I have letters and everybody I have asked about this, except for one or two noble Lords, say how delighted they are that I am doing this. One old professor said to me, "If we do not look out we are going to be ruled by Dimbleby and the B.B.C." That is what is going to happen, and I warn your Lordships that if what I call irresponsible management goes on in this sphere of our lives, it will be a great danger. I hope that what I was talking about yesterday is going to come off and then we shall see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.