CHILDREN'S TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

HL Deb 03 February 1967 vol 279 cc1127-40

1.3 p.m.

LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the importance of children's television programmes, and the generally low level of such programmes at present, they will consider setting up an independent Children's Television Foundation which would have the responsibility of providing the children's programmes on both channels. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I should like to explain a little my reason for doing so. I should like to begin by saying that I do not pretend to be either an expert on children or on children's television. In this matter, I am in the same position as most adults, if not all of them. All we can do is to guess and grope in the dark about what really attracts children and how they will react to programmes. Nobody, not even the best expert on children's programmes and publications, can really know for sure. I think we all agree on the importance of this issue. We should all agree that television is a powerful medium, and that children (I am speaking largely of that section of the population aged 12 and under) are the most vulnerable and most important section of our community; and that therefore this is a question we cannot afford to ignore or to overlook.

My Question speaks of the low quality of children's television programmes. Because a Question has to be short, this is perhaps a little unfair. It is, I think, basically true in some areas, but in fairness I should like, first of all, to pay a tribute to the many good programmes and to the devoted producers behind those programmes. In particular, my Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the British Broadcasting Corporation which is so often knocked and denigrated in these days; and to Doreen Stephens, euphemistically called the Head of Family Programmes, though one never quite knows what that means: she is really responsible for children's programmes. I think Miss Stephens has succeeded in achieving for the B.B.C. a coherent contemporary policy for children. I can assure your Lordships that I do not think her department was responsible for the rather self-indulgent production of Alice in Wonderland, but she has some remarkably good programmes to her credit, notably "Play-school"; "Watch with Mother"; "Blue Peter"; "Crackerjack", and "Jackanory." There is another programme called "Pinky and Perky"—

LORD SHEPHERD

Hear, hear!

LORD WILLIS

—which I hasten to assure your Lordships is not the programme which took place last night between David Frost and George Brown. It is a Sunday afternoon programme which I personally dislike heartily and could do without, because it seems to me to have the worst ingredient of all children's programmes, that of condescension.

My main criticism to-day is directed against the Independent Television Authority and the commercial companies associated with it. With rare exceptions, they are just not doing their job in this particular area of television. Children's television in Independent Television is the orphan of the ratings. All the "protein" goes to the other programmes, and the children's departments are dying; or, if they are not dying, they are suffering very badly from malnutrition. The basic difference of approach between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. may be seen from the fact that one single B.B.C. children's programme has more people working on it than many departments of some of the big Independent Television contractors—more people on one programme than are employed on the whole of the children's work in some of our big companies.

In this respect it is only fair to say that I.T.A. is at a disadvantage because of the fragmentation of its network into various companies, with the result that they all produce bits and pieces. There is no overall policy, and as a result the children suffer. Over 25 per cent. of the programmes for children on Independent Television are imported films. They are not all bad, but some, my Lords, are woeful. They are cheap and nasty shadow versions of adult series, and the reason for this is clearly financial: it is cheaper to buy foreign films than to make your own programmes. A 30-minute episode of an imported film series can be bought for showing in a region for the sum of £300, and you cannot get near making your own series for that. It is cheaper, and it is easier. There have been no new film series—by that I mean specifically those made on film—since "William Tell", which was a long time ago. I believe that this is false economy, and it ought to be altered.

Apart from these imported films, we have a rag-bag of shows, many of them mere time-fillers, and most of them produced on half-a-shoestring. It says much for the ingenuity of producers that some are effective. Oddly enough, the best record in this field is that of a small company, Southern Television, which has produced a splendid series, "Children of the New Forest", and one or two very good programmes called "How". At the other extreme, you have a big company like Grenada which really ought to know better. This company does not recognize the existence of anybody in our population under the age of five, it does not transmit anything in its area for people under five, and it produces very little in the way of children's television generally. They produce "Junior Criss-Cross Quiz" and "Zoo Time". Both programmes seem to have been running for ever and both are beginning to look like it.

The situation is much better with the other big companies. Rediffusion's "Playtime" was a break-through. It was excellent, but for some inexplicable reason it was replaced by a much poorer programme. A.T.V.'s "Wonderland" is another good example of excellence and, so, in its own way (though not to my taste), is "Thunderbirds". The remarkable thing about "Thunderbirds" is that, with every new series, they get nearer and nearer to making these puppets behave and speak like human beings, and we are eventually going to reach the day when the producers have the great idea of deciding to use living actors as a "gimmick". "Thunderbirds" occupies a slightly different territory. It is rather like "Batman". It is a sort of "grown-down" programme. It is not for grownups and certainly not for those who are growing up. It occupies a territory in between, a kind of neutral territory, in the hope that it will appeal both to children and to adults.

There are two things lacking in my view—first, an overall policy, and, secondly, money. There is an I.T.A. committee, I understand, to co-ordinate the work of children's programmes departments, but this has no teeth and no positive lead has come from the I.T.A. The result is that the children's departments of the various companies are at the bottom of the barrel. I am not referring to the personnel, but to the fact that they get less attention and less money. If they want a film camera or any money, they go to the bottom of the queue, and no one is really interested.

My Lords, no one can be proud of children's television on the I.T.A. network. It could be used to enrich and widen the imagination and experience of hundreds of thousands of children. Instead, it is a fumbling, negative, cynical, confused mess. I.T.N. have proved what a central organisation can do for news. And that is what is really behind my Question. Why cannot we recognise that children's television is at least as important as news, and set up some kind of central children's television foundation, financed by both organisations—I.T.A. and B.B.C.—which can afford to centralise resources and bring in the finest talent we have in this country to make the best possible programmes for children, on the basis of research among children, so that we get the right programmes with the right approach? That is what is behind my Question. It may seem a long way from the discussion we had just now on the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, but I do not think that it is all that far away. We cannot afford to be negative about this important area of programming, and that is why I ask this Question of the Government.

1.12 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, the importance of the effect of television on children and the young is immense and at present incalculable, and that is why we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having raised this question today. Like him, I claim to be no expert on children's television. Like him, I fully recognise that, so far as children's reactions are concerned, all of us grown-ups are guessing and groping in the dark. I have at the moment but little qualification to speak from family experience, because my youngest child is 22 and in Nigeria, and my first grandchild is 1¾ I feel that as a grandfather I may gain in experience as the years go on.

I am not going to join with the noble Lord in his attack on the independent companies, because though he is perfectly entitled to express what views he likes, it struck me as slightly inconsistent with his original profession of modesty that he was later so certain about what was happening in one part of the field. I should like to associate myself with him in what he said about the excellent work done by the B.B.C. in some of its children's television programmes.

Perhaps my principal reason for rising is to ask the Government whether they can tell your Lordships' House anything more about the progress of the work that is being done by a research committee which was set up when I was Home Secretary. At that time, through the agency of the I.T.A., a considerable sum of money was made available for long-term research, and as Home Secretary I was asked to take the initiative in setting up the committee. This committee, commonly known at that time as the Committee on the Impact of Television on the Young, was established under the excellent chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University. Since then it has, I think, published two working papers and a progress report. But nearly four years have passed since May, 1963, when I announced to Parliament its appointment, and though I certainly always envisaged it as engaged in long-term research I had hoped that within four years we should be seeing results that could be made of practical value to the broadcasting authorities and others.

I am certainly not one who is going to underrate the importance of research in depth. Indeed, one of the dangers in this field is that almost any individual thinks he can speak with authority on what effect particular programmes have on the young. What we all need to learn is that no single individual can speak with certainty about this, and it is a wholly appropriate field for research by the finest minds. But I have some fear, in reading the working papers of this committee—and I have the latest, entitled Attitude Formation and Change in my hand that the research on which it is engaged is becoming more and more extensive so that the time may never come when it is able to focus its findings in forms that will be of practical value to those who are responsible for television programmes.

Again I do not deprecate the stretching out of this research extensively. One clearly must not rule out any aspect of research that may be relevant. But my anxiety is that this committee should produce work of practical importance to the television authorities before television itself has been supplanted by some other form of communication. I submit that there is a need now for specific findings from this committee as quickly as possible, in order that the television authorities and everybody may take them into account.

I hope that I shall not be taken as saying anything derogatory about the members of this committee, or about the practical work it has done so far. Indeed, if anything has gone wrong, I must certainly share the responsibility, because I set up the committee and invited certain people to take part in it. But I hope that your Lordships will join with me in feeling that, though research of this kind must be long-term, nevertheless it must not be infinitely long-term, and that at a certain point it should be focused back sharply on the subject so that all of us can learn lessons from it.

I hope that what I am saying in no way cuts across the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in asking this Question, but I feel that whereas he expressed pungently his personal opinions about some of the programmes, it is also necessary that objective research of this kind should be pursued, and pursued vigorously, and then eventually brought into practical focus. I must apologise to the noble Lord in that in a sense I have widened the field of the debate, because I realise that his Question relates only to children's television programmes, whereas this Television Research Committee obviously has to include within its purview programmes that may be watched by children, though in fact they are primarily intended for adults. But I think that what was in the forefront of the noble Lord's mind was the effect on children of the television programmes they watch, and perhaps in that case he will excuse me for having broadened the field of debate on his Question.

1.21 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, it is usual when rising to speak on any subject to have some experience of the matter under discussion. I am afraid that, along with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I cannot claim that I am getting experience in the television field, and particularly children's television, through grandchildren. I am afraid that I have not yet reached that stage, because my grandchildren are still too young to be affected by what appears on a television screen. However, I have had some experience of taking part in children's television programmes, having had a small series in that field. I entered the field very starry-eyed, having had no experience of television; but the stars faded at a fairly steady pace, and soon went out completely. There was a whole number of things wrong with the field, including those which my noble friend Lord Willis has mentioned. I had not intended to speak today, but in view of what my noble friend said, I felt that I ought to intervene.

There were a number of other things wrong, quite apart from the lack of cash and the lack of importance from which this branch of television suffers. There was an enormous inefficiency throughout the whole machinery of Independent Television which caused a number of quite unnecessary troubles. For example, it was impossible to film anything if it was more than about an hour and a half away from television headquarters; and even then one could film only something which was capable of being filmed by a large team of people. In my field, of inland waterways and boats, to carry a television team of the sort which was deemed necessary by A.T.V. one would have needed a whole flotilla; and one could certainly never have made the films one wanted to make.

LORD WILLIS

My Lords, if I may interrupt, in fairness to the Independent Television companies, I think I ought to remind my noble friend that it is not so much the companies who insist on carrying large crews but the unions.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

That may be so; and it may be that this is another case for setting up what we have recently set up with regard to the Press. Nevertheless, it considerably reduced the quality of what one wanted to film. If one had anything which, because of its very nature, one wanted to film with a small team, one could not do it. For example, I do not know how one would have adequately filmed bird-watching, or have taken films from a glider, and such things which have to be done by one person with a camera in his hand. Even with items which could be done with a team, and which were better done with a big team, one could never get the team very far from London because of the time intervals. By the time they had been taken to wherever they were wanted, and had been got back, a large part of the day had passed. I found the business frustrating in the extreme. And even when we got into the studios, the proper use of the material seemed to be difficult to arrange.

I think it is time that somebody looked into this whole field, and, quite apart from my own comments on the matter, I wish strongly to support my noble friend Lord Willis.

1.25 p.m.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, first of all, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Willis that I yield to no one in my admiration for him, both as a writer and a speaker in this House; and, as always, he has put his Question with that wonderful use of language and great clarity that we have come to expect. I only hope that I am never on the wrong end of his comments or questions, because I should hate to be described as "a fumbling, negative, confused mess". I feel that he has shown, as he always does, that he can tell us many facts pungently and clearly.

I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we are glad that he raised the question of the Committee on Research. I remember having the pleasure of hearing one of the members of that Committee speak, and being most impressed by what they were doing. The noble Lord will appreciate that, as I am speaking largely on a brief from another Department, I cannot give him the answer for which he asked. However, I hope that he will put down either a Starred Question or an Unstarred Question, so that we can discuss this matter. We are grateful to him for reminding us that we are concerned not only with children's programmes, in particular, but with all that children look at on television and the effect it may have upon them.

I can tell my noble friend Lord Willis that I had some discussion with members of the B.B.C. whom I happen to know, but I was a little diffident about mentioning this as it may appear to discriminate against I.T.A. Therefore, I am delighted that he has paid tribute to the section of the B.B.C.'s programmes that I should probably have mentioned.

None of us, I imagine, would dissent from the first part of the Question that we are discussing: that children's television programmes are important. Children, and especially very young children, lack experience and discrimination; their attitudes of mind, tastes and interests, are largely unformed. The uses that television makes of its power to contribute to the development of those attitudes, tastes and interests, is self-evidently of great importance. On the second of my noble friend's two premises—the statement that the level of children's programmes is generally low at present—one is bound to have considerable reservations. To my noble friend it is obviously a point of deep conviction, because he is reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that he thinks the standards of children's television are scandalous, and that the programmes are starved of money and talent; and he has developed his views here this afternoon. How widely these views are shared is, of course, another matter.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I recall the constitutional basis on which the broadcasting services in the country are founded. They are entrusted to two public corporations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Each is under a duty to provide them as public services for disseminating information, education and entertainment. Each is to ensure that its programmes maintain a high general standard in all respects, and a proper balance and wide range in the subject matter. Within this necessarily very general prescription of the purposes their services are to serve, each has full responsibility for the content of its programmes.

My Lords, it is also fundamental to our concept of broadcasting as a public service that it is independent of Government and Parliament. The Government do not intervene. My reply to the criticism of children's programmes must be, therefore, that it is not for me, as the spokesman for her Majesty's Government, to justify or to defend. It is against this general constitutional background that we have to set the proposal contained in the Question of my noble friend. We have established these two public Corporations to provide the broadcasting services, under the distinguished chairmanship, if I may say so, of two Members of your Lordships' house, both of whom, I think, are in their places. Since full responsibility is required, they must also be accorded full authority, and I am quite sure my noble friend would agree with this wholeheartedly. You cannot say to them: "This is your business and you must answer for it; on the other hand, we in the Government will intervene." Responsibility and authority must go together.

In practical terms the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. must retain the editorial responsibility for what they transmit in children's programmes, as in any other. The principle underlying the proposal is really that some other bodies should assume this editorial responsibility in respect of children's programmes, and that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. should simply provide the means of transmission. I know your Lordships will all appreciate that such a change would carry the most far-reaching implications. It would point the way to the establishment of a number of separate trusts and organisations, each responsible for a particular class of programme, while the B.B.C. and I.T.A. would simply serve as the transmission authorities.

There is a view that children's programmes are a class apart, and that they could quite exceptionally be made the responsibility of a specialist trust. But I doubt very much whether, the principle of special responsibility having been conceded, it would be possible in the longer run to confine its application to one class of programme. And even if we could, I should still doubt the wisdom of such a course. It seems to me that there is everything to be said for what I might call the comprehensive view, the view which sees the service of television as a whole.

The responsibility which the B.B.C. and I.T.A. bear for children's programmes is part of their general responsibility, and it is not altogether a different kind of responsibility, because we should remember that children do not look only at children's programmes. Alice in Wonderland has been mentioned. I am sure my noble friend would agree that there has even been at some stages doubt whether Alice was even written for children; but certainly the television programme was not at any time suggested as having been screened for children. Children look at all kinds of programmes, many intended primarily for adult audiences.

I believe it is of great importance that there should be an informed understanding of the nature of the wider responsibility that the broadcasting services have to children as part of the general audience. The fact that there are in these two organisations people working, on both the production and the administrative sides, on programmes for children, must contribute materially to such an understanding. The question seems to be this. If there really is room for dissatisfaction with children's programmes, then it follows that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. do not attach much importance to them. Whether my noble friend's evaluation of children's programmes is widely shared is probably open to question, but my information is that the public response to children's programmes, as it makes itself felt to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., suggests that the programmes are generally well received. But, whatever one's opinion of the programmes, there can be no doubt of the importance that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. attach to them. The B.B.C. are on record as saying they have a responsibility to use the expensive and powerful medium of television to enlarge and enrich the total experience of children who watch their programmes. The I.T.A.'s Annual Reports for 1964–65 and 1965–66 refer to the efforts being made to improve Independent Television's output for children.

LORD WILLIS

My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I do not see how it is possible to say that the I.T.A. in particular recognise the importance of television for children's television programmes. They may well do it in words, but the fact of the matter is that all the children's departments in the companies are starved of money and personnel.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I would not presume to question the noble Lord's superior knowledge on this subject. My knowledge of children is in a slightly different field, but I have always found it difficult to equate the best productions of any kind, even the best schools, if I may say so, necessarily with money.

I believe that some of the best films in the general field have been made on small budgets, so perhaps we must not too closely ally this to money. Naturally, we can only assume that the integrity of the I.T.A. is such that when they make this statement in their Annual Report they are endeavouring to carry out these things. I do not doubt that both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are acutely aware of the importance of children's programmes and of the need to ensure that they get their fair share of the resources. One would hope that this debate to-day would make some of the independent programme companies think whether they are, in fact, carrying out some of the recommendations which both television programmes have laid upon them.

I would sum up as follows. My noble friend Lord Willis, whose contribution to the art of television is widely recognised, has told us that in his opinion children's programmes are on a generally low level, and his opinion is one that we are bound to respect, though not necessarily completely to accept or follow. It is not for me to express the view of the Government on the level of these programmes. It would be less than fair if I did not put on record, however, that the public's response to children's programmes, as it makes itself felt to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. in general, is—I think this is the safest phrase we can use—that they are well received. I have here a letter, selected at random, on one of the programmes referred to by the noble Lord—he could say this is not answering his point—congratulating the B.B.C. on Play School. It comes from a teacher, and contains this rather significant comment: I only wish a programme of this ilk was available for school viewing. It seems perhaps also to give room for some thought in another field.

If the noble Lord is unable to share the general view—in other words, that both Corporations consider their programmes generally well received—it does not necessarily follow that it would be right to set up the kind of machinery he proposes in his Question. The principle he introduces would be inconsistent with those on which our broadcasting services are conducted. The right course would be to impress upon the responsible authorities, the B.B.C. and I.T.A., the importance of making children's programmes fine and worthwhile productions. I do not doubt that they are both acutely aware of the need to do so, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord's Question and the discussion it has prompted will reinforce that.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before two o'clock.