§ 2.37 p.m.
§ LORD BROWNMy 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 to request the British Broadcasting Corporation to publish a list of Members of both Houses, excluding Ministers and shadow Ministers, who have taken part in radio or television programmes on more than three occasions in the last twelve months; and to state against each such Member the subject, the length of programme and the number of occasions on which each has taken part.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government consider that such matters are best left to the judgment of the B.B.C., who bear the responsibility for all their programmes, including those in which Members of Parliament take part.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is really suggesting that it falls outside the ambit of the Government to make even a request to the B.B.C. to publish information that is available and is of consequence to the public?
§ LORD DENHAMNo, my Lords. It is quite possible for Her Majesty's Government to request the B.B.C. to publish such information if they consider that the request is justified.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the Government themselves have a responsibility for achieving a proper balance, and that this is rightly a matter of concern to Parliament? Would the noble Lord consider giving a reply that is a little more helpful to people interested in this matter?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I would say to the noble Lord the Leader of the 651 Opposition that I did not mean to give a non-helpful reply. Certainly the Government have responsibility in this matter if they consider that the B.B.C. are not doing their job. But the Government consider that the B.B.C. do take care to make sure that the right balance is achieved. The Government think that a list such as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has in mind, If published, would not be helpful but would give a slightly wrong idea of the position.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, since a number of people appear with unceasing regularity on the B.B.C. and I.T.V., do the Government not think that they ought to be taken before the Monopolies Commission?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord concerned that certain Members of another place and of this House are getting an unfair crack of the whip—in fact are appearing too much on television for their own sake—or is he worried that there is an unfair balance? There are these two points to be taken into consideration. When it is a question of balance, I understand that the B.B.C. consult all three Whips' Offices in another place to ensure that there is not too much exposure of an individual Member of Parliament.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would welcome reduced intervention on the part of Government in the affairs of the B.B.C.?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. Noble Lords must also bear in mind that many of the Members of this House and of another place speak on matters which are not political.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, the noble Lord states that consultation takes place with the Whips of the three political Parties in regard to Members of Parliament who may appear on television. Is this applicable to all Members of another place or of this House who appear on television, or is it confined to the Party broadcasts?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, consultation takes place with the Whips' Office 652 to see that there is no unfair representation from the Party point of view.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, is the Minister not aware that the repeated appearance on many occasions of a tiny minority of Members of Parliament who are given to the most sensational utterances is causing concern to the public, and leading to a misrepresentation of the true nature of Members of Parliament?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I have no doubt that the B.B.C. will read what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said. However, at the moment my honourable friend sees no reason to give any advice to the B.B.C.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the reply he has given to the Question on the Order Paper will be received by many people who are interested in broadcasting, especially on a political basis, in view of the bias that seemed to emanate from Members of his own Party who were very antagonistic to the B.B.C. because of the way they were seeking to operate on the political side, saying that it was all for one side—and that was for the Labour Party?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I am sorry: I am not quite clear about the question the noble Lord is asking.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, I am sorry. At one time the criticism directed against the B.B.C., according to Members of Parliament. was to the effect that the bias was in favour of the Labour Party and that the Labour Party was receiving more consideration from the B.B.C. than the Tory Party when they were in Opposition.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I think this is the very reason why the B.B.C. now take care to consult with the three Whips' Offices in another place.
§ LORD ROBBINSMy Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to explain to one who is not taking part in this matter at all why quantitative information on this matter must necessarily be misleading?
§ LORD DENHAMYes, my Lords, I will explain to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. In the case of your Lordships' House, quite a number of your Lordships speak fairly frequently on the 653 B.B.C. but do not come very much to this House. Therefore they speak not as politicians but as members of the public. Secondly, there are quite a number of Members of both Houses who speak on subjects which are not political. Therefore if they were included in the list of political speakers, this would be misleading. Thirdly, there are occasions when subjects are discussed on B.B.C. programmes on which various views are held irrespective of Party—cross-Party matters. When that happens it might he misleading if you put a member of one Party on one side of the argument and a member of another Party on the other side of the argument. This could give the impression that one Party supported one argument and the other Party the other argument. In such cases it might be better for the B.B.C. to put two members of one particular Party together. To give another example, where there are matters of internal dispute within a Party obviously two members of the same Party would discuss these on the B.B.C. It must be remembered, of course, that the B.B.C. are much more concerned to get people who are good broadcasters speaking on the B.B.C. rather than being absolutely fair about the number of Members of this House or of another place who appeal.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I hesitate to come between two noble Lords in your Lordships' House, but I think we are in danger—and perhaps my noble friend contributed partly towards this—of slightly debating this subject. I know this is an absorbing matter, but perhaps your Lordships will feel that it is now time to pass on to the no less absorbing subject of baboons.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, in supporting the Leader of the House, may I say that he is implying a rebuke, which I am sure was not offensively intended, on that exceedingly lengthy reply which threw up so many more debatable issues and perhaps has not helped to lead to a speedy end of Question period.