THE INFORMATION MEDIA

HL Deb 23 January 1974 vol 348 cc1475-525

4.38 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the power of the information media; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, that the media influence public opinion by presenting information to a literate and tolerably educated society in this country can, I think, be taken for granted. That such power exists is not in dispute and I will not take up your Lordships' time by dwelling on it at the beginning of a short debate.

The questions seem to me to be: how great and how beneficial is that power? Is it exercised wisely? If not, should an effort be made to circumscribe or direct it? If so, how? The power of the Press, the Fourth Estate of the Realm, is great but, as bearing on public opinion, it has been and is being increasingly overtaken by the broadcast in radio and television. It is the enormous expansion of the latter as the central channel of the nation's nervous system which seems to me to call for some reappraisal by society. Since I put down this Motion early in November, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge and our experience of the last few weeks—indeed of the last few days—has emphasised the power of the broadcast. During the last 48 hours three things have happened to make me recast most of my speech. First, yesterday's Times carried two letters—and I imagine most of your Lordships have seen them—which, taken together, cover most of the ground that I had and have in mind. Secondly, 12 Peers have added their names to mine to speak to-day and I must therefore be very brief, hoping to mention any points which other noble Lords do not mention when I come to wind up, if there is time. Thirdly, and most important of all, the Report the Future of Broadcasting by the Social Morality Council was published over the weekend. I found it very interesting, as others may well do. It interested me in one respect, in that in some 93 pages there is hardly any reference to the need for a link between Parliament and the broadcast and vice-versa; no reference to the radio programme, "To-day in Parliament" which is just about the best thing the B.B.C. do; no direct reference to the B.B.C.'s specific obligation to do that programme; no reference to the influence or existence of your Lordships' House; no reference to the televising of proceedings in Parliament, or to the painstaking and, if I remember rightly, pain-giving three-day experiment which we carried out in this House.

I shall later therefore make this omission a prominent feature of the closing part of my speech, and I shall do so because I am convinced—and I do not believe I am alone in so being—that if our Parliamentary system of democracy is to be sustained some means must be found to convey to the people as a whole the fact that the place of Parliament under the Monarchy is paramount. Before I leave this Report, I extract one item which was mentioned in another place on May 3 last year; namely, it is estimated in the U.S.A. that a person of 18, who would now be eligible to vote in this country, will have spent 20.000 hours viewing television compared with 10,800 hours at school. On page 22 the Report goes on to say: The figures for Great Britain must be roughly comparable and no stronger motive could be proposed for continually assessing the effects of television and setting goals which will enrich and not impoverish the public for whose benefit broadcasting services are provided".

To return for a moment to the Press and the changing pattern of its influence, it is well to remember that the sheer cost to the individual, to people like your Lordships and myself, including postage and delivery if you live in the country, has turned the newspapers into a comparatively expensive item in anyone's budget. In any case, the daily papers give but little coverage to Parliament and its affairs, with the exception of the "heavies", and my view at the moment is that The Times is the best of the lot. Again, in addition to their cost, the influence of the once powerful weeklies is being dimmed by the Sunday newspapers with their weekly reviews and illustrated supplements. The need for advertising and other financial pressures means that less and less space is available for the straightforward reporting of factual news, unless there is something sensational. Even the editors of the news services wield their blue pencils with great vigour, as we see from the "ticker tape".

The radio has its place in the service of information and, at certain times of the day, has the monopoly of the air. However, to the bulk of the public the television services stand supreme. This is not a Party matter. This problem faces democracy, and in doing so it is inevitable that by tone of voice or facial expression, by the lifting of an eyebrow, the potent pause, a broadcaster can slant almost any item. It can be accepted that in the B.B.C. we have the finest broadcasting system in the world, warts and all. By the way, I believe that their overseas services should receive more financial assistance from the State, but that is another matter. I will not take up valuable time to expatiate upon the marvellous technical achievements of television and the ramifications of its service. Looking back as I do over a good many years, to my father's time, what we see to-day as commonplace is in fact a miracle. Here and now we must take it for granted and face up to its enormous capacity for good—educationally, artistically, socially and politically—and alas! also its capacity for evil. We must face up to its sheer power to inform or mislead, or to calm or excite, to comfort or alarm, to soothe or enrage or otherwise to excite the emotions. One important fact is that both radio and television have a compulsive nature about their attraction which has a bearing on the subject. This leads to the eye and the ear being assailed by a great deal of repetition which in turn leads to inevitable almost subliminal impression.

This brings me to the "processing" as I like to call it—of current affairs. I do not include the straight news (unless this includes selective extracts from speeches) because my impression is that news editors and news readers on radio and television, whether on B.B.C. or I.T.N., are ordinarily meticulous in their presentations. It is the "processed stuff" which worries people. That feeling is widespread. As I have said, broadcast items can be distorted or interviews corrupted by such phrases as "but surely" and "but, would you not agree", to which we are so often treated in a broadcast. The only real measure of control seems to be the quality of the broadcaster. I should like to read an extract from a leader sent by a correspondent. I do not know from which paper it has been extracted, but in it these words appear: The trouble is that, by and large, the profession itself seems to be attracted mainly to people of a trendy-Left cast of mind, which is not to say that Left-wing people as such are incapable of being fair and objective. After suggesting that some broadcasters simply do not realise that they are being biased when they are, it goes on: They often seem to confuse their own personal views with objective reality, which is a dangerous state of affairs in such an important medium of communication.

My Lords, I turn now to two recent examples of the influence of power. In early November the B.B.C. must have decided that petrol rationing was inevitable and the "World at One" proceeded, day after day, to make our flesh creep, despite repeated denials from the Minister concerned. Though admittedly they broadcast his statements, they seemed to brush them aside. The result was the main cause of the stupid scramble which took place for petrol before Christmas. Then came the threat of an Election. On and on went the "World at One", interview after interview, and the usual gang of clowns came tumbling into the ring, as it were. That some control should be exercised by a broadcasting council, or the like, is not favoured by the B.B.C., the I.B.A., by the Social Morality Council or by the Government, all on the same ground; namely, that it would lend itself too readily to political or other forms of censorship. Indeed many hands are raised in horror at the very mention of the word "censorship". To me the media's expressions of alarm ring rather hollow when one realises that the media, Press and all, exercise their own censorship. It is they who decide what is to be published; it is they who decide whose views are to be sought or relayed; it is they who reserve the right, at their absolute discretion, to cut a taped interview. In other words, their responsibility is great. The difficulties and the complexities of the task of the Chairman and Governors are so obvious that I need not dwell on them and take up your Lordships' time.

There is another point. I have reason to believe that there is a security risk here. "Reds under the beds", you say? Well, call it what you like, but let us face the fact that many of them have come out from under the bed and make no secret of their views. Further, we must remember that a part of the Marxist creed is the infiltration of the media; that is an accepted policy of international communism. "Security risk", you say? What security? Shall we answer, "That of the national interest"? But, as the Chairman of the B.B.C. has said in his recent penetrating Paper to the Royal Society of Arts, "What is the national interest, and how does one determine it?" I am not going to try.

Tactless interviews can impair foreign relations. I think, in particular, of recent ones about Persia and India. As for the national interest abroad, your Lordships will forgive me if I mention again (I have mentioned this time and again in your Lordships' House) the reckless stupidity of series such as the "British Empire" series which do indescribable harm. Then there is the problem of morals, of decency, of marital fidelity, and of violence. I have in mind a clip from a film shown on S.T.V (in a review programme admittedly, and after eleven o'clock as well) with a revolting close-up of a hoodlum raping a screaming girl. It should never have been shown, but it was. But worse, the camera panned adjoining rooms showing other hoodlums going on with their eating or drinking, or reading or card playing, and the like, utterly indifferent to and apparently unmoved by the poor girl's bitter cries.

I feel exactly as this report in quoting from Mr. Milton Shulman. The report says, more broadly, that television is accused of promoting anti-social values. To quote Mr. Shulman, Only a tiny segment of television encourages the young to be socially aware, to be co-operative and responsible, to be community conscious, to value the truth, to despise cruelty, to cultivate a sense of duty, to be charitable, to be selfless, to be kind. Most of it is indifferent or neutral about social values, inculcates little sense of communal duty or responsibility promotes the acquisition of goods as a criterion of success, glamorises the trivial and superficial, justifies violence as a means to moral and legal ends, encourages an escapist approach to reality and concern, builds up false expectations, stimulates an undue craving for material rewards. Broadcasters do not transmit these values deliberately or callously; they are the accidental by-product of the system.

My Lords, I am taking much of your time, but I am trying to sketch in a background to our debate, to which I look forward with great interest. Incidentally, it is a great regret to me that Lord Maybray-King has been unable to take part. I know he wanted to do so, and he has authorised me to say so.

You may say, "All right. What do you suggest should be done about it?" Much has got to be done. The Social Morality Council suggests a National Centre for Broadcasting. Frankly, I do not quite understand what they are getting at; but that may be my fault because I have not had time to digest the report, though I have read it from cover to cover. However, they recommend that a fourth channel should be reserved as an educational channel—perhaps that might include reports on Parliament! I, with many others, regret that the Government resisted a Select Committee's recommendation that they should set up "a full ranging inquiry at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976." However, both Houses will have to debate the legislation which will need to be tabled before the franchises are extended. One advantage of a five-year extension will be that we, the public and everybody else, will have more time to chew the matter over.

In conclusion, my Lords, and to hark back to what I said before, let the B.B.C. now fulfil the spirit, as well as the letter, of their obligation under Clause 13(2) of the licence. As you know, it reads: The Corporation shall broadcast an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings of both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament". Surely that is not meant to be tucked away, as it is on the radio, in slots which are so far from the peak that the ordinary people simply cannot listen to it. As it is, only a limited range of listeners compulsively hear those broadcasts. I believe that the only way to comply fully with that obligation is for a programme like "To-day in Parliament"—a "talking head", as it were, of the proceedings of Parliament—to be "on the box" at an hour when it is possible for most people to see it. Until the B.B.C do this, in my view they bear a heavy blame for the current trend (which everybody seems calmly to accept) to scorn the place of Parliament in the conduct of the nation's affairs. This chicanery, as I see it, is a black spot in their conduct of affairs. How can the people be other than mystified with what goes on in Westminster? "The Week in Westminster", at 10.15 on Saturday morning, is when most people are out. "From the Grass Roots", on Sunday at 11.0, is when some people are at church and others are washing their cars. "Westminster", on BB.C.2, at 6.45 on Saturday evenings, starts at the same time as "Dixon of Dock Green" with a rating of 8 million listeners.

My Lords, I may be quite wrong, but I am persuaded that here our Parliamentary system of democracy has a blockage in its central nervous system. By the way, I denied myself "Dixon" last Saturday to watch "Westminster" It was an excellent programme (so good, indeed, that in my view it might well be repeated, as it is placed, as I have said, where the ratings are absolutely minimal) concerning the administration of the new voters roll. It was most interesting.

Further, my Lords, I would make it obligatory for broadcasters, and perhaps camera and lighting crews, engaged in current affairs to submit to a security check such as the Civil Service requires. I could enlarge on this but there is not time. I would ask the television authorities also to overhaul the practice of showing snap scenes of happenings in the street—the tired traveller or negotiator held up by floodlights, and with a microphone thrust in his face; or, worse still, the "chipping" of somebody going in before a meeting and trying to draw him as to what he is going to do or say. And why those shots of demonstrations, perhaps struggles with police, but no shot of the ordinary citizens whose goings and comings about their business have been dislocated? May we have some of these views? I am sure that other noble Lords who have been kind enough to put their names down on the list of speakers will conjure up other suggestions. I have no doubt about that. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.1 p.m.

LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE

My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this important subject, but at the end of this short debate those of us who have participated will all feel a little as we feel when we appear on television or radio and are limited in time. We feel afterwards that there were many things that we ought to have said but which we did not say. So the treatment of this important subject in a short debate will essentially be inadequate. I want right away to declare an interest: I am a director of a television company. In the few remarks I make I shall be dealing with television, but I trust that my judgments will remain reasonably objective.

Perhaps all of us who have thought about this theme share a common dislike of the media; all of us may wish to use this kind of debate to express our individual grievances about the media. Who is there among us who has not appeared on television and at the end of the performance blamed the producer for his own inadequacies? Who is there among us who has not sat quietly at the television screen and felt that the point of view which we hold strongly has been inadequately presented on the programme witnessed? Who is there among us who has not been somewhat infuriated at seeing a point of view adequately presented with which we profoundly disagree? We tend as a result to develop an attitude to television somewhat hostile to the whole idea.

Right away, in expressing our dissatisfaction with certain aspects of television, let us at the same time pay tribute to the considerable achievements of the media, and try to be balanced about the matter. Let us recognise that when they make mistakes they are sometimes operating in conditions of the pressure of day-to-day journalism and events which sometimes make reasoned judgments difficult, although we are able to make reasoned judgments after the event. While saying this, we must right away agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that the television exercises a considerable power and influence in our society. I know many people minimise this, but the mere fact that advertisers saw fit last year to spend £160 million on television advertising is at least reflection of a belief that it influences attitudes. So this afternoon we are discussing a powerful influence in our democracy.

Television in our society should reflect the fact that we are a democracy, and consequently it should provide for the presentation of a broad range of views. At the same time, television, because of the power and influence which it exercises, should use that influence with a deep sense of responsibility because it is such a powerful instrument in a democratic society. It should, of course, present minority views. It should present the Communist view. But it should be careful to avoid its becoming an instrument of Communist propaganda. If I may pay some tribute to establishing balance in this very sensitive field, I would compliment Independent Television on their excellent documentary on ballot rigging in "This Week" which was presented last Friday evening. There is a belief that militants as such—and it is a difficult area of judgment—are news. I live on Clyde-side and I witnessed the treatment by television of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding's "sit-in". The leading figure was elevated to become a folk hero and then invited to participate in all kinds of programmes in which he was not necessarily an authority. The net result of all this activity on the part of the media was to elevate the man to become Rector of Glasgow University. There is a danger here, because militancy is exciting, and news, and therefore it affects the ratings to over-emphasise or give undue prominence to this particular view. I am not suggesting that the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Broadcasting Authority are the victims of a Communist conspiracy at all, but in our determination to get high ratings we perhaps go for what is exciting and extraordinary, and accordingly upset the balance which is important in exercising our responsibilities.

Let me give your Lordships one particular instance of the influence of television. At one time in my career I was associated with the Co-operative movement. The shares of the Cooperative Movement are held by millions of working people in this country and are immediately withdrawable. The "Nationwide" programme of the B.B.C. discovered that there was a small co-operative society in a town in Yorkshire which had suffered from the closedown of the local steelworks and accordingly there was a withdrawal of capital. The local board decided that they would freeze the capital meantime because of immediate difficulties. This news apparently found its way to the B.B.C. "Nationwide" programme, who immediately took cameras up there and did a programme on "Nationwide".

They interviewed a young lady who had been an employee of the co-operative society, and who had been successfully prosecuted. She was one of the witnesses. The young lady said that she wanted to get married but could not get her money out of the society. Her total funds in the co-operative society were £15 —and she owed an even greater sum, so she had really no assets in the society. This seems like a long story, but let me tell your Lordships that, following that "Nationwide" programme, between £6 million and £7 million of capital was withdrawn from co-operative societies in this country. This was simply an isolated case because the Co-operative Movement is financially strong; but it is an indication of where power and influence is used without responsibility. I know that this matter has been the subject of correspondence with the B.B.C., and a subsequent programe was produced, but the damage had been done. I mention it because I say that people who are exercising this duty in television should feel a deep sense of responsibility.

This will be particularly true in the period ahead when we are going to have serious problems of industrial relations. Here again, I suggest that recent experience has been that there is a tendency to trap people into committed statements which make situations more and more difficult. In fact, if a militant is seen regularly on television—and it is a very heady kind of thing to be seen regularly on the television—he builds a national image for himself and tends to become a prisoner of that image.

Not long ago I was engaged in a large industry where we had invited the trade unions to come to see us to make a last-minute appeal to avoid a strike which would have had consequences of a very important character nationally. The chairman was about to appeal to the trade union leader to hold off the strike, and to see what we could do to solve the situation. Unfortunately, on his way from his office to the headquarters of this large industry the trade union leader had been caught up by television and had already given his statement that he was going to stand firm and come out on strike, and that statement would appear on the 6 o'clock news that evening. It is a very serious thing when people become prisoners of the statements they make on television, and this makes subsequent industrial negotiations very difficult. The Prime Minister recently invited the miners' leaders to meet him, but the weekend before the meeting television cameras went off to certain people who were to appear at that meeting and got them to commit themselves to say that the meeting would be a waste of time. My Lords, that is an abuse of power, and television should try to exercise its responsibilities in a more sensible way.

There is a leading trade unionist in this country. His name is John Boyd: a chief official of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. John Boyd has consistently refused to appear on television during any industrial dispute because, he said, "Anything I might say on television might exacerbate the situation." Unfortunately, as a result of this act John Boyd's ratings in the Amalgamated Engineering Union suffered and he was not elected to the major post for which he was a candidate recently. That again is the danger: that a man can feel that when he appears on television regularly his ratings may go up in the union elections. I suggest to Independent Television and to the B.B.C., particularly in the difficult period that we are now going through in this country, that there should be some monitoring within their organisations to consider whether the steps they had taken the previous night, or the night before, or the night before that, were making the situation more difficult or were contributing anything to better community and industrial relations. That question ought to be asked.

5.13 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

My Lords, as by profession we on these Benches have been engaged in the pro- pagation of news—sometimes called "good news"—for longer than most other professions represented by your Lordships, it seemed right to attempt to make some contribution to this debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.

For me, the power of the medium of broadcasting is vividly and concisely illustrated by a short statement of fact; namely, that when on radio or T.V.I or any other person says, "Goodnight", or when each morning this week on television I say "Good morning", more people hear my voice than I shall address personally in the whole of my ministry, and, more awe-inspiring still, my voice will be heard by more people than Christ even addressed in the whole of his life.

As has been stated, the possession of a wireless or television set is one of the new facts of our time. Many noble Lords will remember the wireless when we were in our 'teens or just out of them. I remember that my father triumphantly brought home a little box about six inches long, called a distributor. Into it we plugged six pairs of earphones, and, after adjusting our cat's whisker, with great difficulty we were able to sit and listen to King George V's first broad cast. Now, not many more years later, 12.5 million people have a black and white television set; 4.7 million people have a colour television set; an aggregate of 500 million people can watch a Royal Wedding; and, my Lords, in order to count the number of radio sets you must look by your wife's bed, in your children's rooms, in the garage, and if you have the decorators in each painter has one by his side. What this means in terms of men, women and children in families may be judged when a speaker says, "I'm so glad to be able to come into your home to-night". He seems to be doing just that. If you teach in a school, run a youth club, visit a hospital or have children you will have abundant evidence of what I mean. I can only declare the interest that I have four hobbies: ski-ing, avoiding committees, radio and television.

The media are the advertising channel in every home; not only in commercial spots but more effectively in the life-styles that are taken for granted in ordinary programming. What do stylised ordinary people say, do and look like to-day? "Coronation Street", "The Archers" and, yes. "Dixon", my Lords, give a partial answer. What gets people "worked up" to-day? The news gives a partial answer. What is being joked about to-day? I suppose "Gas and Gaiters", although I should be sorry to think, as some do, that the lifestyle of any Bishops on these Benches even faintly corresponded to that splendid Trollopian caricature.

Much current discussion of the place and power of the media in society hinges around the question which the noble Lord has just been dealing with, of whether they create trends or accentuate existing movements or fashions. I venture to suggest to noble Lords that there is evidence to support the view that mass communications of all kinds are more effective in reinforcing existing values, attitudes and ideas than in changing them. Most of us seem to be conservatives with a small "c". Most of us, most of the time, exercise our freedom of choice in fending off the unfamiliar. Note how we stick to the same newspaper. I do not know how often the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, reads the Daily Mirror. I saw him nod and say, "Never". I read certain papers to see what the Devil is doing.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I do read it when I can get it free, as in the Library here.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I notice the noble Lord's generous instincts. Most of us, I suggest, ward off the unfamiliar and stick to the same channel according to our age group. I wonder whether grandiloquent claims about the power of the media to change society are not suspect. Similarly, I suggest that it is the provocative which is remembered and not necessarily the profound: the Malcolm Muggeridge rather than the Michael Ramsey; the Bernard Levin rather than the Bernard Lovell. Though the provocative—say a speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Robin Day—may tickle the ears momentarily, it is doubtful whether it has much lasting effect on the mind or is likely to change an attitude.

My Lords, turning especially to the propagating of news through journalism, whether written or broadcast, I wonder whether critics—and I rather thought at one time that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was coming under this judgment—too easily forget that in responsible journalism facts are sacred. Of course, there is a place for sensational journalism, for scoops—a scoop like climbing Everest, a scoop like reaching the moon—but never may facts be sacrificed to sensationalism. Accuracy matters, too. The B.B.C.'s first Director-General, Lord Reith, set a splendid example. One day, in 1926 I think, he was reading the news himself. That sounds odd now. In the middle of the bulletin, an agency message reporting the end of the General Strike was pushed in front of him. Without pausing in his reading he scribbled on it, "Check with 10 Downing Street". The Prime Minister confirmed the news. Then, and only then, was it broadcast to the nation.

Whatever the risks—and I acknowledge, my Lords, that there are risks—news must be as complete, as swiftly promulgated and as reasonable as possible. The present Director-General, Sir Charles Curran, said: You do not exclude things because they ought not to be heard. That is an argument which I have had to deploy many times in the last three years when people have talked to me about our reporting in Northern Ireland. If men are dead we have to say so. If men are alive, the time to say so is when people expect them to be dead. Responsible people have told me that we choose the news because it is sensational. What they mean is 'unusual'. And we do report the unusual because it is interesting to people". I submit that he is right. Life is people meeting people, and I am bound to disagree with my noble predecessor in speaking that if we live in a world of television and we are attempting to represent the public, whether as a Member of Parliament, a bishop or a public official, surely we must come to terms with the facts of life and master it, whether it is radio or television, with totally different techniques. I blush to recollect how often my fellow clergy criticise this media but how few of them are prepared to master it, although I am happy to say that now all members of theological colleges of all denominations are trained in the use of this media. If it is news it must be reported by the media, as I say, accurately and at once, for to-morrow, to-day will be yesterday.

I hope your Lordships will allow me to pay tribute to the way in which not only the straightforward newscaster like Robert Dougall has enhanced the art of spoken English with an indefinable courtesy of personal communication, but also how informed and experienced journalists like William Hardcastle in his "World at One" have forced middle aged and elderly bishops, and possibly some of your Lordships, to take an increasing interest in national and international events by clothing blunt news flashes with informed comment and rational debate, however short.

It is difficult to assess the effect of one part of the media—religious broadcasting—on the nation. Your Lordships will know, of course, that half a million, mainly "shut-ins", listen to the "Daily Service"; 2 million to 3 million to the "Thought for the Day"; 2 million to the "People's Service" on radio on Sunday, even though they may be cooking or doing something else and 2 million, approximately, look at this programme on Sunday television. Suffice it to say that to some of these programmes more people listen or view than attend all the places of worship of all denominations. The "shut-ins", as I say, are cared for. We know that. The minority who are worshipers in this denomination or that are catered for. We know that. But what we tend to forget—and especially, I am sorry to say, the so-called Church people—is the very large number of people who would claim no special denominational allegiance, who readily admit to listening to or viewing programmes which treat with the problems of human situations not only by giving an ethical answer but also by bringing on to the scene something supernatural that alters the whole human perspective and enables the whole problem of living to be tackled from a new angle; that is, a religious one. As a Christian I warmly welcome that. Nor do I do anything but welcome honest doubt and constructive discussion disseminated through the media, though, like other noble Lords who have spoken, one would like to throw a stone or a boot at the television because one so totally disagreed with what is said.

I try to remember two things—and I venture to suggest that we would all do well to remember them. First, that those engaged in this media are men of imagination, of intense concentration, who have to react quickly to the news of life, sometimes at very short notice. Most of them, although there are exceptions as there are among bishops and other groups of men, are men of high integrity who care for the public weal. That I remember. The other thing, which Milton asked me to remember, is, Where there is much desire to learn, of necessity there will be much arguing, many opinions, for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. So, my Lords, in spite of all the evidence of tremendous risks, of which we have heard, of the power of the modern media, I beg leave to judge that all will be well if we remember that, though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Or to put it more shortly, as good Pope John did: We are here on earth not to guard a museum, but to cultivate a garden flourishing with life and promised to a glorious future.

5.26 p.m.

LORD ORR-EWING

My Lords, the subject of the information media is a very wide one and in the interests of those who are going to follow me I will concentrate on a very small area—television. I do this because I joined the B.B.C. Television Service in 1937; I was Director of Outside Broadcasting for four years immediately after the war, and I have retained my interest in this exciting media ever since.

My Lords, I am concerned about three things: first, that the balance of views is not always perfect—far from it! Secondly, there tends to be a triviality and a lack of depth in dealing with so many subjects which are of such concern to our nation; and, thirdly, so many people who are invited to appear on television, whether they be Parliamentarians, Members of your Lordships' House or from another place; whether they be representatives of the trade unions, representatives of the professions, of the City or of industry, are so seldom typical of the profession or calling from which they come.

The B.B.C.'s Charter says that the Corporation are there "To inform, to educate and to entertain". I do not know whether those duties were consciously put in that order, but I cannot help feeling that "inform" and "educate" now take second place to "entertain". I think this means that people are selected who may be good entertainment, who may create clashes, confrontations, and conflict, but do not tend to put the balanced view which I believe public service broadcasting particularly has an obligation to put. There is too little sense of responsibility, I think; they do not seem sometimes to provide adequate information, and they do not always give us the balanced facts. So my first anxiety, as I say, concerns lack of depth and excess triviality; the desire for clash and conflict, noise and movement. And the effect on ratings, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryffe, said, seems to have taken supreme place in too many television programmes.

People have praised the William Hard-castle programme. I listen to this, and I must say, as the right reverend Prelate said before me, that I am sometimes driven to distraction by what I believe to be lack of balance. But then all people on one side of the political views are annoyed by the views of the other. I sometimes wonder when I listen whether, after eight years, we might not have a change of bowling. The cult of the individual certainly becomes very strong and I wonder, however perfect the person and his team may be, whether he should continue ad infinitum to have such tremendous power over what is broadcast every day in "The World at One" and "P.M." at 5 p.m. This is a tremendous power to put in the hands of one person and one team, however good they may be.

Another programme in which I discerned continual distortion was the "Money Programme", on B.B.C.2. I could not help feeling that this was drawn up, or directed, by a dedicated anti-capitalist. Certainly everyone appearing on that programme tended to show that our industrialists—and heavens knows! it is they who have to create the wealth of our nation—were either crooks or charlatans and that all of them, almost without exception, had very strong sexual appetites. I could not understand why this was so, but that is the way they were depicted week after week.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, perhaps it is only the unacceptable face of capitalism?

LORD ORR-EWING

My Lords, if that is true, I am sure that the trade unions are no less virile and robust. Why do we not have a programme showing their habits in this connection? We have not had one, if the noble Baroness thinks they are less robust and more flabby then I am sure that she is wrong.

In regard to the choice of people who are not typical of their Party, I appeared recently in a David Frost show on a Sunday night—and an admirable show it was ! We were discussing the future of the Monarchy, and it was appropriately put on shortly before Princess Anne's wedding. Angus Maude and I represented the Conservative Party (and it is not for me to say whether that choice was right or wrong), but the two who were representing the Labour Party were people of very extreme Left Wing views. One was Norman Atkinson, whom I knew in another place and I believed to be well Left of centre; and the other was Denis Skinner, who is a dedicated republican who believes in the abolition of the Monarchy. This is not typical of the Labour view at all, but I have raised this subject because it typifies the way in which the rowdy person, who will shout and bellow and command the cameras and the microphone, will so often get a hearing where a balanced view will not get the same attention.

Overall I find it strange because, after all, we are living in a mixed economy where the industrial health of our nation is vital to our success in the world, that we have not had the Third Estate—the trade union side—given their share of attention. There has been a tremendous change over recent years and we all know just how important that is; but we have not had anything like the treatment—and I think it is worthy of serious treatment—of the trade union subject. If I were a moderate trade unionist I should be disheartened at the number of times the militants are given outstanding publicity. I have seen Mr. Daly, of the National Union of Mineworkers, who says that he is a dedicated Marxist (I am not putting words into his mouth), and McGahey, who says exactly the same from the North, and gets a great deal of publicity, as did Jimmy Reid in the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding dispute earlier. It is a shame that the moderates, who are so much more representative of the average trade unionist in this country, get so little publicity for their views on television.

I do not know whether some of your Lordships see Thames Television but the "Today" programme which comes on at 6 o'clock seems to be besotted with Kevin Halpern, who again is another dedicated Communist, and is constantly invited to air his views. This was a man who ran the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions and helped to organise the Communist-inspired strike against the Industrial Relations Act. I cannot see why a man of these extreme views should be regarded as representative and why the moderates should not be given a fair hearing.

I believe sincerely that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are trying to undertake their duties and to maintain balance. So I ask myself, in view of these illustrations, why they are not succeeding. I think the first fact is that of course we have had a tremendous expansion—three television networks and almost double the hours that we had a decade ago. This is the most hungry medium that was ever created for programmes, and therefore large numbers of young people have come in; and young people in their early twenties tend to be radical and to have extreme views. Secondly, many of these have now graduated into responsible positions as producers. I speak from experience: it is not the commentator one should blame for a viewpoint, it is the producer behind him, whose face the viewers never see. Do not think that the person you see, the front man or the link man, is representative. He would not be there unless the producer behind him worked well with him and knew that he was going to create the programme and put forward the views which that producer held. Then these producers, often in their middle twenties and commanding audiences of millions of people—and therefore considerable figures in their own right—obviously have favourite guests. They have friends whose telephone numbers they know, who they know will cooperate and will be available at short notice and will stimulate the programme to produce what the producers believe to be the essential results. I believe that is what has happened in recent years.

Here I wish to make a constructive suggestion. I cannot help feeling that the B.B.C. lacks any monitoring or research as to whether their programmes are properly balanced. The total income of the B.B.C. last year exceeded £125 million. They spend every year £80 million on television and £30 million on sound. Surely it is worth their while to spend some money to monitor the balance of their programmes and to see whether they are carrying out the terms of their Charter in regard to political balance. I believe that this comes back to lack of management control. With these sums of money, and these responsibilities, there is a need for careful management. It is a very big organisation. I am sure that a young reporter on a newspaper would have his copy carefully checked by people of more senior responsibility, but this is not so in television. A young man will put a programme on the air, will engage his artistes to appear—Parliamentarians or artistes of the theatre or the stage. No one will query his arrangements and the show will go on. This seems to indicate some lack of management control just at a time in our history when the authorities have to be very careful and very responsible in all that is broadcast.

I have felt for some time, my Lords, that democracy is severely at risk. I believe that those who have control over our television medium never have had to exercise greater power or greater responsibility. I believe that they should initiate a monitoring and research organisation. They do such wonderful research into their historical series, and one small part of the amount devoted to this spent on seeing whether they are carrying out their responsibilities as I have outlined them would pay for this service. I believe that is where, at this very crucial time, their task now lies.

5.38 p.m.

LORD HILL OF LUTON

My Lords, as this is the first occasion in more than 10 years that I have been able to speak in a debate which covers broadcasting I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for giving me this opportunity at this time, by means of this debate, to speak untroubled by responsibility and unimpeded by the Addison Rules. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, cast his net pretty widely, varying from a communist conspiracy to a determination of broadcasters to destroy the fabric of this country. But something he said has my warm approval. He suggested—and I think rightly—that one of the results of the growth of the strength and power of the media has been to endanger the esteem in which Parliament is held in this country. I have no doubt that is the case. It is a problem that concerns us all but I believe that the remedy is in the hands of Parliament. The public is entitled to have Parliament, in both its Houses, exposed to the people of this country by these media, as indeed by the printed word. Indeed, from my short stay in the other House and a shorter stay in this House, I am convinced that the esteem in which Parliament is held will grow greatly by the mere publication through the newer media of its actions and activities. Parliament is a very much better place in both its Houses than many members of the public appear to believe to-day.

My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord praise the news, as, indeed, I was to hear the right reverend Prelate make his remarks on the news and other aspects of broadcasting. But in effect, the noble Lord who opened this debate—and I paraphrase his words—said that too much time was given in broadcasting to the rebels, the destroyers and the divisions in society. I hope he will accept that as a brief summary of the line he took in his speech. That really does raise fundamental issues which I would put to the House in question form. Is it the duty of the broadcasters to provide a platform for all views seriously held by significant sections of the public? Should the broadcasters, whether the motive be patriotic or otherwise, prefer some views to others? Although it has not been said in this debate, should the broadcasters accept the argument used by some (to quote one of the broadcasting bodies, the B.B.C.) that being the British Broadcasting Corporation it should adopt a patriotic stance?—whatever that may mean.

I am reminded of the phase after Suez. In early 1957 I assumed some responsibility in the Macmillan Government for the co-ordination of information; and then, in the shock after Suez and with an eye on the overseas services, there was a determined attempt to control the external or overseas services because those services had presented both sides of the argument on the incidence of Suez. I am bound to say that the mood quite swiftly subsided, but it was there. It was an instance of the argument that the British Broadcasting Corporation, being British, should put one side, the so-called patriotic side, rather than both sides.

In my view, the role of the broadcasters, irrespective for the moment of whether they do it well or badly, is to present as best they can all sides of a problem. There is a problem that applies to us all, that we all tend to regard something that is slanted in our own direction as beautifully impartial. We tend as well to remember the view which we intensely dislike, and to forget the expression of a view which conforms with our own. Criticism is often levelled at the so-called bias of interviewers. Usually they do their job well, sometimes superbly well. I have in mind a recent interview by Robin Day of Enoch Powell. But there is a source of misunderstanding which creeps in. This arises because often an interviewer has to put a question that he believes the public wants to have answered, but he is in danger of having it regarded as an expression of his own view. Let it be admitted that sometimes interviewers appear discourteous. That is understandable enough when they are interviewing a wriggling politician. But it is inexcusable; the interviewer should base his work on careful preparation and consistent courtesy.

My Lords, there are one or two other associated points which I think it is fair to state. There are some who think it is bound to be a bonus for them, particularly if they have a constituency, to go on television. I am afraid that is not true. These people come with nothing to say; they duck the questions and from their point of view in fact the result is lamentable, as it is also from that of the broadcast. There are some, and this goes for public life generally, who cannot resist an invitation to the microphone or camera. It is a form of flattery which is irresistible. Everyone knows the old story of the Oxford don who, receiving a letter inviting him to broadcast and being told the fee was twenty guineas, replied saying that he would gladly broadcast, and enclosed his cheque for twenty guineas. There is still something of this to-day. It really is a nonsense for people to go to meet the interrogation without something important to say and, if I may add, a determination to say it. Then again, there are many figures in public life who, knowing that the final outcome is going to be a two-minute programme, speak for thirty minutes, and then every piece omitted in the twenty-eight minutes becomes the most precious part of the broadcast, and they are furious with the outcome. Lastly, and this is the advice of excellence, those who are interviewed need not be overawed as they are to-day. Increasingly, if people believe the interviewer to be unfair, they should say so and hit back at him, making better television in the process.

But on the main issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, the power of the information media, I do not dissent from the view that that power is great. I think we are hoodwinking ourselves if we claim, as some seekers after truth are apt to claim, that we do not know whether it has influence or not. Of course it has. It has changed the social habits of people even more than the internal combustion engine. I have one reservation to that general statement. I think that ordinary people are much more shrewd in their reaction to attempts to influence their attitudes and outlook than is commonly believed. There is a basic nous in people that tells them when they are being bamboozled by even the most impressive of politicians. The power of the information media has affected the lives of every one of us. And let this be said in case it is forgotten: the change that it has brought in the life of people is, by and large, one of enrichment, but that, I recognise, is not what we are talking about to-day. We are talking about broadcasting as an instrument of propaganda, as I think the noble Lord would agree. As is perfectly true, it can be an instrument of propaganda. The real question is whether the system as it is now is misusing that power. Obviously, the most extreme form of misuse is State control. The radio was so misused by Hitler; the television and radio are being so misused to-day in the Soviet Union, and no doubt in a good many other countries, not all of them dictatorships of the Left.

LORD BOOTHBY

France.

LORD HILL OF LUTON

Yes, France. I may be wrong, but I do not think we are going to see broadcasting in this country being misused quite in that way. For one thing, we have a massive safeguard, provided by the healthy state of uncertainty with which any British Government approaches a General Election. A Government that foresee or suspect or fear a period in Opposition are not going to tic the broadcasting authority too closely to their coat-tails. There is, of course, a tradition of independence, not to say cussedness, which has been fostered by the B.B.C. and Independent Television. But although direct State control is in my view no real danger, the broadcasting bodies need to be constantly on their guard against undue influence by politicians. I can say from my own experience that politicians of both Government and Opposition are constantly on the prowl around the camp of broadcasters trying to snatch away a freedom here and to club down an irreverence there. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are quite ready to sink their differences in order to draw up a list of rules for broadcasters. I recall a few such rules. No invitations to politicians who stray from the Party line, whatever the Party; that is one of them. Invitations to Members of Parliament to be shared out irrespective of whether they are any good at broadcasting or not; that is another. I remember the 14-day rule. Indeed I found it agreed between the major Parties when I became Postmaster General in 1955. At least I helped to prepare its burial.

But if broadcasting, as has been asserted here to-day and is often asserted outside this House, were in the hands of people intent on using their influence to propagate their own views, the danger would be real indeed. If this conspiracy theory were true, I should be appalled. But I am bound to say this, and I hope your Lordships will accept it. Perhaps as much as anyone in this House I have seen the system at work. I know how senior people are appointed. I know the responsibilities that the Authority and the Governors of the B.B.C. endeavour to assume. My experience lends no credence whatever to the conspiracy theory. But there is another interpretation of what happens in broadcasting, and I think this brings us a little nearer to the truth. The theory is this: broadcasting is an activity in which many important decisions have to be taken, in the nature of things, by men and women some distance down the hierarchy. The reporter, for example, conducting an interview at the airport, takes decisions which put his editor in something of a straitjacket. The producer of a live programme is in the gallery and the finger on the button is his, not that of his boss. The result is that vital decisions—and this must be faced—have to be taken by the young, and on the whole the young are sceptical of authority and sceptical of the status quo. Hence, we do get programmes in which a critical approach to existing institutions is more common than it would be if the programmes were mainly done by the older and more settled members of the community. So the question arises, are too many decisions left to be taken too low in the hierarchy of broadcasting?

I thought this was so when I first became associated with a broadcasting organisation. I should say to your Lordships that I changed my mind. I came to realise that the so-called system of upward reference, to quote the jargon of the B.B.C., the system under which the producer takes his own decisions, referring them upwards when he believes that to be necessary, lies at the source of live, imaginative development of television; and that it is worth the risk, and risk there is, of wrong decisions. I am convinced that this is one of the important elements in the success of the British broadcasting systems, something that is accepted throughout the world, and I would take the risk. It applies to all areas of broadcasting, current affairs, drama and the rest. To give this responsibility at that creative level is a very important factor, it seems to me, in the life and vigour and development of television. It is not a perfect system but it is a very good one. I do not know of a better system, and I have seen and heard broadcasting in most parts of the world. Of course, errors and mistakes occur and bricks are dropped, but they would be under any other system.

I welcome this debate. Broadcasting has enriched many lives. I know that it has enriched the life of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier; I know of his abiding interest, for there is a file of over one hundred letters from him to the B.B.C. He has the right to express his views in the way he has and a right to be vigilant. But we can be certain of one thing. Broadcasters have no chance of complacency under the daily dose of professional criticism in the newspapers, the telephone calls, the letters, and the informed and constructive comments of your Lordships as well as those of Members of another place. They cannot bury their mistakes; they work in a glare of publicity equalled only by the fierce light that beats upon politicians. Perhaps the politician who never made a mistake should cast the first stone.

Finally, only one noble Lord has raised the subject of independence by the mention of the word "censorship". May I conclude by saying that I deeply believe that the independence of the B.B.C. is not only a great source of its strength but it is something which the rest of the world would wish us to retain. In my period as Chairman of both bodies I travelled around the world a good deal. They knew, if it is not chauvinism to say so, that the broadcasting services in this country are by far the best in the world, and they also knew that an important element in that success was the independence of their organisations. Again and again, sometimes seriously, sometimes lightheartedly, members of overseas broadcasting services have said to me "Hang on to it for our sakes as well as your own". It really is a pearl of great price. Let there be criticism, as indeed there is, but let us remember that the independence of our broadcasting bodies in terms of the programme content, for all their flaws for all the "dangers" that may be dropped, is something very precious, and the secret of the success of British broadcasting.

5.57 p.m.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, it is a good thing to have a serious look at the media once in a while, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for this debate. I feel rather humble in following the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, with his vast experience both of the B.B.C. and of I.T.V. and his magnificent speech. It would be presumptions of me to say that I agree with it, but I found it really inspiring. In regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I agreed with some of the things he said, but I disagreed with one particular statement that he made, and it was a statement that is so often made by Conservatives; that the wealth of this country is created by business and capitalists. That is a really dreadful statement and I simply do not accept it. If the noble Lord thinks that the wealth of this country can be created without the trade unions, without the working people of this country, he is livng in Cloud Cuckoo-Land.

LORD ORR-EWING

My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. I did not mean to say that our wealth is created by business alone, but if there were not industrial concerns in this country we should not be exporting, and therefore we should not be feeding half our population with the fruit of those exports. If you do not have business you do not have any wealth. I can conceive that it is a combination of many other things as well.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, you will not have exports without having trade unionists. I simply do not accept the last statement of the noble Lord, either. However, we can leave that now and get on with the debate.

I am not going to attack the media at all. Both the Press and television are now part of our environment, almost one of the family, and in their case familiarity breeds tolerance, not contempt. It does not, however, rule out continuous grumbling and criticism, and we argue all the time about the interviewers, about the news, and about the opinions. The Press and television do a pretty good job in news, in entertainment, in broadening interest in life generally; and also, particularly, in broadening people's understanding of current events. I think that they could do an even better job. Personally, I do not feel paranoid about the power of the media, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, seems to be, because I believe that too much power, whether in the Government, the Stock Exchange, the Civil Service, the trade unions or the Army—too much power in any one of these organisations—can threaten the stability of our democracy. I also believe that there are in any society people who have destructive tendencies, whether in politics or in religion; and who are motivated by irrational prejudice, and that is a thing we have to recognise, and even accept and contain.

When, at the United Nations, the Communist bloc constantly bullied me because the United Kingdom did not ban the Fascist Party—they made no mention of the Communist Party—of course my arguments about free speech did not convince them, which showed a deep ingratitude for the fact that, as I said, the Communist Party in Great Britain was not banned. Ironically, free speech is sometimes the cross that every democratic country has to put up with. Of course there is a risk about freedom of speech and democracy; but if those of us who are dedicated to Parliamentary democracy are vigilant, we have to find ways of dealing with those who threaten it.

Why is it that sometimes Communists are left to expose workers' grievances and exploit their discontents? It is because they go about their politics more seriously. They turn up at meetings of trade unions, and cast their votes. We have to take a close look at the way they are elected and become the leaders of large trade unions. Recently, both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have thrown much light on their activities, and have exposed the scandals in the voting activities of some trade unions. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt was one of the first Labour Members of Parliament to draw attention to the malpractices in voting that went on in the then very extremist Electrical Trades Union—I think that was in 1956. He has not had sufficient recognition and acknowledgment of the work he did in reversing what had been a consistent, extreme Communist leadership and turning it towards a more moderate and representative one with, I believe, Les Cannon as General Secretary.

The extremists in the television trade unions have never forgiven him, and about two months ago they managed to persuade the I.T.V. channel to excise bits of a programme in which he appeared. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that ordinary trade union members were not aware of the political affiliations of the members who were nominated for official posts; they did not know that they were Communists. We now have not only this one-time exposure of ballot-rigging, but also on Friday, January 18, in the programme "This Week" I.T.V. were sensational in their exposure of ballot-rigging at the East Kilbride branch in Scotland of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Signatures and votes had been forged; a Communist was elected. But after this exposure he would not even stand. The officials responsible are still in office, however.

Here is a case where it seems to me that some kind of legislation should be enacted which deals with this kind of thing in this area, where democratic trade unionists ought to take their political role and prospects seriously. We would not tolerate such goings on in local government. How can we allow it to continue in the trade unions? If the Labour Party members of trade unions would fill their meetings, cast their votes, and publicise their democratic principles and objectives, we would not have this kind of thing, and there would be no calls for censorship from noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, or the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.

Recently, there has been too much talk about the forces working in our society to undermine and destroy it. The Prime Minister recently sent a letter to the Bulletin of (I think it is called), The Conservative Centre, in which he talked about, their relying on the false appeal to class loyalties, and relying on the silence of the majority". The media repeat such statements as if they were facts and not opinions. The implication is that there is some magic formula, or even force, which can be used to make people behave like good little citizens. My Lords, the media have a great role to play in educating the silent majority, and particularly during the bad times we are going through now, and may be going through for some time to come. They have a great role to play to show that grievances are not exploited only by Communists, and that they can be shown up by representatives of the silent majority and, as I say, to give this silent majority a really loud voice.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Arran, would forgive me for intervening before he starts. I think that it would be useful if I re- minded your Lordships that this is a short debate and must finish, no matter what, at 7.7 p.m. Standing Orders allow me a little time to wind up, and I think, by tradition, my noble friend Lord Ferrier is also allowed—

LORD SHACKLETON

One minute.

LORD DENHAM

—one minute at the end. Would your Lordships please bear in mind that there are six more speakers before the noble Baroness winds up?

6.9 p.m.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, I am going to gabble. I can do so very naturally anyway, but I shall gabble particularly to-day. Please do not think that I could not speak at greater length. I have been looking forward to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having it. It is high time we had it. I shall speak as a reporter, which is basically what I am. I think that your Lordships regard me as such. I shall certainly not speak as a politician, although I am proud to speak from these Benches.

It is time to speak because, day by day, damage is being done to this country by the mass media, particularly radio and television. As immediate proof of this I would cite the reports of the distinguished U.S. journalists who visited this country last week. The impression they had received was seemingly that we were down and out. They were amazed to find things going on more or less as usual. It was further reported in yesterday's Press that 50 Americans failed to turn up for a convention here in London. Why, my Lords?— "Because they thought they would starve over here and they would rather lose money than end their days in bombed-out, blacked-out London." Why do these Americans get this impression? Presumably they get it from their London representatives who, in turn, get their information from our newspapers, our radio and our television.

Let me take them in order, my Lords, and begin with the newspapers. Admittedly, our newspapers are prejudiced—which papers are not? They are partisan, and we know that they are partisan. For example, we know that when we buy the Daily Telegraph we are buying a high Tory newspaper; we know that when we buy the Morning Star we are buying a Communist broadsheet; we know that when we buy the Sun or the Mirror or the Observer or the Sunday Times we are buying left-wing papers.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

THE EARL OF ARRAN

Yes, my Lords, we do. Those who read the Sunday Times will realise that it is a left-wing paper. The point is that, on the whole, our newspapers put their goods in the shop window; they do not fly under false colours. Basically in need of circulation without which they could not survive, they none the less reflect the views of the political Party to which they are attached. We have an honest Press and I, for one, am proud to work for it.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I cannot go on when continually being interrupted. When it comes to radio and television, the story and the picture are very different. It is part of the Charters of both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. that in their programmes they should show objectivity. In fact, the B.B.C. are very far from achieving this. All credit to them for their technical documentaries and their plays, which are of the very highest standard and which do much to inform us of what is good, and also of what is bad. But I listen in and watch a lot, and I solemnly say to this House that the B.B.C. are showing a bias which I can only presume to stem from producer level and probably higher, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, knew just what was going on during his term of office but the results were disastrous. In the last ten years, the B.B.C. has received the nickname of the "anti-British Broadcasting Corporation", and it has deserved it.

A fortnight ago, I sent a telegram to the editors of the radio programme "World at One", which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I used to edit the programme for six months. I sent a copy of the telegram to the Chairman, Sir Michael Swann, and it read: To-day, New Year's Day 1974, I formally place on record that you editors and your team consistently throughout 1973 broadcast the most slanted, prejudiced, defeatist, anti-British programme of news and comment on any of the sound or television media. Every word I said I believe was true. Your Lordships will notice that the words I used about the programme were, "slanted, prejudiced, defeatist, anti-British". I did not accuse the editors of political bias. Personally, I dislike extremes, either left or right, and, as your Lordships may know, I hate Fascism even more than Communism. I accused the programme of selling Britain down the river, of emphasising our misfortunes, of taking a positive glee in what goes wrong in Britain and of denigrating what we stand for.

How is this done, my Lords? The distinguished editors and journalists of this House could tell you. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that wizard of black magic who is not here, could tell you how to take a straight forward series of factual news items and arrange them, twist them, transpose them, prominence the least important items, while ignoring what really matters. Among the noble Lord's vital jobs during the war was to transmit to the Germans from a radio station in Kent, via his German-speaking editors, purporting to come from occupied Calais, a programme called "Soldaten Sender Calais". I used to listen with awe, because I speak German.

While the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, was deceiving the enemy, I was trying to "persuade" the neutrals via the London Press Service—which I started—which went all over the world and which is still part of the Government information service. Naturally, I did not lower myself to the foul level of deceit to which the noble Lord descended and to which Mr. Dick Crossman contributed, but I told quite a few white lies, if only by omission. That is why I am well aware of having been "conned" by the B.B.C. over the last five years. I have been amazed by the skill which goes into B.B.C. news bulletins and commentaries. The news bulletins are the ones which particularly need examining. As C. P. Scott said, "News is sacred, but comment is free". I strongly suggest that the B.B.C. looks at its news rooms. Now for comment. One of the most successful techniques is to hold art impartial discussion. I think I am still within my limits.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Earl is two minutes over his allotted time.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

Shall I stop, my Lords? As I was saying, you invite a well-known M.P. and publicist and as a counter-balance, to stick within the rules, you invite another M.P. from the other side who is flattered to appear on television. Naturally, the ace makes a complete fool of his rival Parliamentary colleague, who is too dim-witted to realise that he has had the "mickey" taken out of him and thinks it will go down well with his constituents. This is one of the oldest tricks in the game, and, in the hands of experts, it out-Goebbels Goebbels.

Another trick is to "lead" an invited audience, so that the answers to the questions given to them give the impression of complete solidarity. Would anyone dare to tell me that the invited audiences are not hand-picked beforehand, that they are just Bill Bloggses taken at random out of a batch of individuals? That would be sheer nonsense, my Lords, and you know it. But this is only the detail of the main picture of which I happen to have a particular knowledge and experience. The picture itself is far more comprehensive; it covers the broad sweep of radio and television and, in my opinion, it needs urgent correction from the top.

So far I have covered radio, that formerly declining medium which is now becoming increasingly popular, and newspapers. I now turn to television—probably the most influential medium of them all. Here, again, it is a sorry story that one has to tell. I do not know about your Lordships' views and experiences. My own are that if I wish to listen to straight news—and I am essentially a hard news man—I watch the I.T.V. at ten and not B.B.C. at nine. The I.T.V. does a better job professionally and, in comparison, the B.B.C. is painfully amateurish. My criticisms about the B.B.C. "World at One" in regard to bias, prejudice, defeatism and doom apply even more strongly here, with the additional charge of incompetence. While, again, the emphasis is on a decaying Britain, even a dying Britain, the editors seem to take a fiendish delight in steadily undermining this country and its prospects.

It is not as though the B.B.C.'s programmes looked forward to Britain's prospects under Socialism. That I would understand. It could be right at that. What I object to is the steady whittling away of what we stand for, the negation of our ability to do anything right, from Concorde to Parliamentary democracy. To me there is nothing more ironic than playing "God Save the Queen" at the closing-down time of the B.B.C. Have I time to talk very briefly about the I.T.V.?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords. I do not know whether the noble Earl is asking me a question, but if one worked it out the ration was about six minutes when I made my short intervention. The noble Earl has now had ten minutes; but it is entirely a matter for your Lordships.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, in that case I must reluctantly withdraw. I think I have said all I really wanted to say. I hope I was not incoherent.

6.20 p.m.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, in the words of a great former statesman, "Time is not on my side", and there is no reason why it should be. But this is a very important debate, and it is a pity that time is unavoidably restricted. One of the great problems of the media is that so often grave situations—I will not use the word "crises", but grave situations—tend to crop up when Parliament is not sitting; and this in fact happened very recently, when for several days we had a number of people appearing on television and on radio giving views of a rather extreme nature which received great publicity but which should have been expressed either in Parliament or around the conference table. I do not necessarily condemn those who expressed those views—we have a free broadcasting system and we have a free Press—but it is a great pity that there is all too little reporting of those who should stand up to be counted, those of moderate views, although the word "moderate" can be interpreted in many different ways, rather than of extremists on either side.

My Lords, I suppose I have had less experience of television and broadcasting than any who have taken part in this debate. The only time I appeared live on television was 13,000 miles away, in New Zealand, two years ago, where I was accorded a very courteous interview. I was then asked whether I would be prepared to submit myself to an interview on the subject of the Common Market. I declined, not because I did not have views on the Common Market but because my right honourable friend Mr. Rippon, who was then in charge of negotiations, had only just returned, and I felt that it would be an embarrassment to the Government and to the Party opposite if I gave my views before the views expressed by the Minister had been digested by the host Government or by this Government. I suppose that in certain circumstances I could have been pressurised into doing this—there are certain interviewers who do tend to pressurise—but on this occasion my refusal was graciously accepted, much as I should have liked to express my views at that time.

We tend to be living in an era of "talk-ins" and "teach-ins". We now have broadcasting by telephone, with live telephone calls, and this often puts the person appearing on the programme "on the spot", particularly if a very controversial or awkward subject is being discussed. Of course, those who go on the air, whether on sound or on television, must inevitably have a certain amount of knowledge of their subject. They are expected to have this; but I think there is a very dangerous tendency now to get people into a studio, be it sound or television, and, live, without any prior notice, to ask questions which are definitely slanted. I believe this applies as much to trade unions as to employers, or to one political Party as to another.

But having said that, my Lords, what we in this House have to make up our minds about, I think, is: do we have an effective and efficient broadcasting and newspaper system in this country? Through the comparatively little travelling which I have done, and through the number of foreign newspapers and radio programmes which I have heard. I believe the answer is that we have. We have many faults in our newspapers. We have sensational headlines, and we have headlines which are often taken completely out of context; but at the same time I believe that we have more accurate reporting than many papers abroad—and more relevant reporting. I remember, in Los Angeles, seeing a copy of the Los Angeles Times two days before returning to England. It was at the time of the last G.L.C. elections, and the headlines were: Tories decimated". My Lords, Los Angeles is something like 7.000 miles from here. I rather wonder what would happen if our own newspapers, which have given some considerable coverage (much of it irrelevant, I think) to a certain affair surrounding a distinguished person in the United States, were to take a similar line. I do not believe our Press do this. I think our local newspapers, particularly, are of very great benefit; and I think the more that people in public life can keep in communication—and there is also a question of communication with their local newspapers—the better media we shall get visually and orally.

6.28 p.m.

LORD GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, I shall try to scramble through my remarks as fast as I can. I must pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion. He keeps us up to date in our discussions about the media, and this is a very valuable service. I should like to suggest that "influence" would have been a more accurate word to use in his Motion than "power", because I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that we are fortunate in having a public which devours newspapers and listens voraciously to television and then goes away and makes up its own mind.

My Lords, I have come here neither to carp nor to flatter, but I should first like to pay two compliments. The first is to correspondents as a race. If any of your Lordships had been engaged in public relations in the United States, as I was for some years, and had seen one evening in New York four world-famous correspondents standing in a porch, in snow, waiting in case a word of news should come out from upstairs, from where Sir Winston Churchill was staying, you would have some views on some more people who can talk with authority about anti-social hours. This is a profession of anti-social hours, and I am bound greatly to admire those who endure these and then produce work of the highest quality.

Your Lordships have made some allusions to particular matters, and perhaps I might take them up very briefly. May I re-award the Oscar I awarded a few years ago for reporting on external affairs to the B.B.C.'s "From Our Own Correspondent", which maintains its perpetually high standard? May I say, however, that there has been one change in B.B.C. practice which has weakened the understanding of the people here of international affairs. That is that for those of us who listened always to Tom Batman and Christopher Serpell there is now a great gap in the coverage, and there is no-one who sums up the world as a whole and gives a two-minute summing-up of it right in the middle. That has reduced the value and impact of the B.B.C. coverage of international affairs.

May I make one mention of "The World at One", to which so many noble Lords have referred? I have had the privilege of broadcasting with Mr. Hard-castle, and if you treat Mr. Hardcastle as an equal rather than as an ogre you get absolutely fair play and a very good short session on "The World at One". It is however true to say that before Mr. Hard-castle's time there was a period in which the programme could only be called, "The World all in Pieces". Given the atmosphere in which that programme is conducted, I should like to express my confidence in the present conductor, provided—and this was one of Lord Hill's most important points—that you go there knowing your stuff, and you say your piece. I reveal that as one who on one occasion (I am sorry to talk about myself) was asked by an interviewer, "So we in Britain have aroused the wrath of country X?" And I had, for once, the presence of mind to say, "No; country X has aroused our wrath." You can do that, my Lords, on television if, as I say, you know your stuff; and by and large, the people who interview you are basically fair-minded people. Of course there are exceptions, but I think we have passed from the age of interview persecution.

One rubric under which I always examine this matter is this: that any kind of free Press and free broadcasting is better than any kind of controlled broadcasting in a Communist or Fascist State. I believe that on this matter the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is fighting a battle that in this country has been won already, and will stay won. Of that I am confident.

Now, my Lords, if I may spend a minute on imperfections, the first imperfection, which I think is addressed to people rather than to Government or media, is this. The other day I heard a reporter say on a programme. "We report the facts and let the public judge." My Lords, that is naive nonsense. The master of the news that is seen in the newspaper is the person who selects what goes in and what stays out. Moreover, anyone who has had close contact with this kind of work knows quite well that there are occasions on which the correspondent is asked to write news with a certain slant. So we must realise that there are imperfections of fairness, imperfections in reporting, and this is a subject on which the only solution is for the public to educate itself.

Then I want to say a word on impartiality which is a great problem in broadcasting. If I may, my Lords, I am going to give one small specific instance. On a particular day when the rail situation was very bad a news reporter read a news bulletin which said, "Only 10 out of 20 trains from Bristol to London are running to-day." That intended to be impartial item of news fell straight into a trap, the easiest trap it is possible to fall into. A Pakistani lawyer once explained to me that, supposing you had a pint glass and that had in it half a pint of water, an optimist would say that the glass was half-full and a pessimist would say that it was half-empty. It was perfectly all right for the reporter to tell us that 10 trains out of 20 were running from Bristol to London, but when the little word, "only" was put in that prejudiced the item. It upset people who were thinking, "Well, it is jolly good that 10 trains are running from Bristol", and departed completely from impartiality. That, my Lords, occurs too often, partly because the person who composes the bulletin is in a hurry and partly because insufficient attention is paid to small words which, in the guise of impartiality, can produce a partial impression. In the tense state of our country at the moment, it is extremely important for the media to watch that aspect all the time, perhaps with more vigilance than hitherto.

This leads me on to my final comment on the situation. We have an atmosphere in our country (this is really the only reason why I joined in this debate) in which any promotion or exaggeration of tension is very dangerous. It is more than ordinarily incumbent on the media, particularly broadcasting, audio and visual, to bear that in mind all the time; not to insist on a patriotic note—that is not the point at all—but simply to watch all the time that nothing is said that makes things worse. This is a perpetual danger from which people can suffer in the somewhat nervous state in which we live. It is joined to a longer-term psychology of the country. As I have ventured to mention before in your Lordships' House, there has been over the last few years an intellectual fashion of defeatism; of saying that we are no good, and that we are going down hill. Then there are occasional flashes of totally inconsistent nationalism—about sporting events, shall we say?

My Lords, I feel that we should all be happier in our relations with the media if the media would occasionally give some overt and visible sign that they realise these things, and would review the situation and be a little careful about it. There is one very profound reason for this. In this country if you object to the media, or what they say, you can say so. But if anybody is going to hear or read what you say, how do they do it? Through the media Therefore the media have the responsibility of being not only the accused party but also the judge of whether the accusation should be heard at all.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, they are their own censors.

LORD GORE-BOOTH

Yes, my Lords; they are their own censors. I do not for a moment suggest that there should be any other kind of censorship. I have said that once and I say it again. I am sure that is right. But I think it imposes on the media an obligation to show that they are exercising self-discipline. And they must not just do it; they must show that they are responsive to criticisms such as come up in your Lordships' House; that they have the machinery and the will to look at themselves all the time. There was a story in Lord Beaverbrook's time that every morning there was a meeting at the Daily Express office (I do not know whether this is true) when the agenda was, "Why was yesterday's paper lousy?" That, of course, was from their point of view. But it does indicate a certain spirit—not, of course, of self-humiliation. We have splendid quality in all media and splendid people working in them but there is needed just a feeling by the public that the media recognise that there are fallibilities about their systems, and that where these stick out more than they should something is being done to correct it.

6.39 p.m.

LORD GRIDLEY

My Lords, before I begin my comments may I make one suggestion? If noble Lords speaking at the beginning of a two and a half hour debate would cut down the length of their speeches a little, it would leave a little more time for those of us who come in at the end of the debate to develop our views. It is customary to refer to some of the speeches which have been made. May I pay my sincere tribute to what I have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth He talked about the influence of the B.B.C. I think that the influence which it exerts is much more important than any power it may have. On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like to know what action is to be taken on the most important suggestion that he made, that B.B.C. television cameras should not picture on television people making the entrenched statements which happen to be made during industrial negotiations. I understand that the B.B.C. is free to take any action it likes on that suggestion. I imagine that nobody can ask it to take any action but I hope the very valuable contribution which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will be noted.

I should like to make a reference to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who drew the attention of your Lordships to an appearance on television of certain Members of the other House in a debate on the Monarchy. In the argument which I shall quickly deploy I feel that the people of this country have the capacity and the sophistication to judge what appears on television. If we try to curtail the efforts of too many of the characters who appear on television, we shall defeat the object which many of us might hold, of getting a more enlightened democracy in this country.

Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean: if people would only try to stop and think why they wish to criticise the B.B.C. for televising protests in this country, I wonder whether they would realise that quite often these pictures may well be counter-productive to the objectives of those who organise the protests. Take the case of ten million people who at any one moment may be sitting in their homes and viewing on their screens a demonstration or a march in London. Ten million people will probably see the marchers—apparently well clothed and well fed—and what does it convey? It may happen—indeed it has happened—that a policeman loses his helmet and that marbles are put under the hooves of horses; a girl typist, endeavouring to enter her office for work, is terrorised by militant strike pickets. All those events have occurred. But what about the reactions to those events? Thanks are due to the B.B.C. in this connection for the fact that ten million viewers can see these events as they happen, and public opinion and those who support law and order (as it happens, in this case, the police) are probably greatly reinforced.

I consider that the B.B.C. exercise their freedom responsibly, and we should not interfere with this. They have rendered a service to public opinion, and any criticism of the B.B.C. is completely unjustifiable in this connection. It is significant that the number of protest marches has decreased considerably. Could it not be said that, quite unwittingly (and to its credit) the B.B.C. has played a part in this? If the B.B.C. is to be accused of presenting politics as a political confrontation, is it not the politicians themselves who set the pace? The strident political tirades of one Party or another may be the stuff of which politics are made, but this is not, I think, what the public want to see on their screens. So if people to-day are disillusioned with politics and politicians, does not the fault lie with the politicians themselves? If the people of this country are becoming more intelligent and sophisticated, do they not switch off their sets when they hear a political tirade? I happen to know that this does occur, and it surely must be because in connection with all our problems people want to hear constructive arguments and not Party petulance. The B.B.C. has now carried all this far beyond the confines of Parliament, and I consider that they have made a contribution to moderation. I should like to suggest that it is the politician who should look at himself. It is my belief that the B.B.C., perhaps un- consciously, may be moving public opinion towards moderation, and we should be grateful for that.

Finally, I would submit a plea to your Lordships. It seems to me that the speeches which are made in your Lordships' House are not reported as widely as they might be in the Press. We in this House are not elected and therefore are not looking over our shoulders to see the effect of any speeches we make. We have no constituents and therefore we are not inhibited in that respect. There are many of your Lordships with great experience in Government, industry, farming, education and so on. Many great issues are debated in this House, and I cannot help feeling that it would be helpful to the country if views expressed here by your Lordships could be given more publicity. Many of the speeches which are made here are of a very high order, and the country is entitled to be made aware of them. My Lords, I trust the people over these issues, and over the issues of broadcasting and television.

6.45 p.m.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can and your Lordships will forgive me for not commenting on speeches which have been made, as I should have liked. When the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, put down his Motion I do not think he could possibly have known how timely it would turn out to be when we debated it, because there can rarely have been a time when the public have been so obsessed with news of every kind in all the media. The country has suffered almost a traumatic shock as disaster piles upon disaster. In some ways the media have tended to take a ghoulish delight in this situation and to wallow in the mud, without giving sufficient thought to the effect this might have abroad. To this extent I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Arran—though when the Editor of the Sunday Times reads what he has said he will probably come down and shoot him! I entirely agree about the visiting Americans; and a Conservative Member of Parliament the other day said that if we believed the media anyone would think that Britain was like one vast, empty Waterloo Station, with bombs going off everywhere in it as well. Yet, with some justice, I do not believe that the Press and T.V. are entirely to blame for what has been called "election hysteria". The Times told us on Monday that Mr. Heath was annoyed by the Press speculation and scare-mongering. If the Government had wanted to stop rumours about an Election, they could have done so at any moment—one might almost say "at a stroke".

One of the difficulties about the whole question of the power of the media is that freedom from censorship is essential; but so also is a sense of responsibility from the media, and this is often lacking. We on our side have always suffered especially from the power of the Press because we have always been a radical group of people suggesting reforms which any contemporary Establishment have always tried to distort and suppress; and nowadays of course it is more serious because 90 per cent. of the Press have aims and politics which are not our own. But the coming of T.V. and broadcasting in general has changed this position and made it more impartial. We are in fact in the middle of a revolution in communications, with all the new technical innovations that are happening all the time. I believe that eventually it may change the structure of society itself.

We do not know enough about this and there is no research to tell us about it. What is the impact of T.V. on so many things? For instance, does commercially oriented T.V. here and abroad tend to create the consumer society, with docile, dependable wage earners and wage spenders which the consumer interests want? What about the role of the mass media in social problems? Do they simply report events or do they actively create them? It is easy to imagine oneself a schoolboy in Belfast, seeing friends on the "telly", throwing stones at the soldiers, and conceiving an ambition to go and do the same. It is human and natural, but it is highly dangerous, not only for the situation by for the psychological impact on the boy himself. We do not know enough about those children in Northern Ireland who see themselves day after day engaged in lawlessness which is condoned by their society. What can be the effect on their future?

I should like to talk particularly about a subject which has been raised by many of your Lordships: interviewing. However, there is not time to do so at this juncture. I deeply regret the new flavour of hostility, and even contempt, that has come into being on both kinds of television. I have not time to illustrate that, though I should like very much to do so. There is one part of my speech that I cannot cut out because I have given notice of it to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, so I am sure that he has the answer ready. This is not a criticism of the B.B.C. or the I.T.V. but it is a question for the Government to answer. To-day there was to have been a Party political broadcast by the Labour Party on all three channels. Yesterday the journalists involved with the I.T.N. news protested because they were told that the news was going to be cut to ten minutes.

One of the things we all miss is the full half hour of I.T.N. news—the best programme of the day. The journalists asked if they could have 20 minutes, that is to say 10 minutes put back into the programme schedule, and this was put to Sir John Eden, the Minister. He had the power to extend the time so that there would be 20 minutes of news and 10 minutes of the previously agreed Party Political broadcast. The Government refused. This is entirely unreasonable. As a result, Mr. Wilson, who was giving the broadcast, is giving it only on B.B.C. 1 and 2 by his own choice, so as to restore to the country the news which we greatly value. This is grossly unfair to the journalists, to the Labour Party because we have nearly half our audience gone, and it is grossly unfair to the viewers on I.T.V. We should like to have an answer to that.

My Lords, I must gallop along, and I want to finish by saying that almost as much as partiality what I fear from the media is trivialisation, vulgarisation and sensationalism. The late right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham, whom we all miss very much, said, The problem of the use and misuse of the mass media in communication is basically a problem of conscience itself. My Lords, it is sometimes difficult to harness, or even try to attain, a corporate conscience, but this is exactly what the media have to do.

6.52 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I am in the position of somebody having to play a 33⅓ r.p.m. gramophone record at 78 r.p.m., so I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that. I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrier upon obtaining time in your Lordships' House for this debate on the media in general, and television in particular. My noble friend's track record is very impressive, since this is the fourth debate on broadcasting topics that he has initiated in your Lordships' House in the past 18 months. And, as he knows, the Government believe that it is right that the broadcasting authorities' activities should be debated, both in this House and in another place, since this is one of the chief means of keeping them sensitive to public opinion.

This debate will be remembered, if for no other reason, as the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, spoke first after being freed from the shackles of the Addison Rules, and after his great experience first as a broadcaster of immense popularity; secondly, as Postmaster General and successively as Chairman of the I.T.A. and B.B.C. I think your Lordships will agree that it was a notable and important speech that he made this afternoon. The Press and broadcasting are often linked together under the umbrella of that absolutely intolerable term, "the media." They are in fact very different, and comparisons and analogies between them are not always valid or helpful. Apart from a short piece about the Press by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, our debate today has been more concerned with broadcasting, and broadcasting cannot be conducted on the same basis as the Press.

Broadcasting, my Lords, depends on the availability of suitable frequencies, and these are in short supply. Moreover, they have to be allocated internationally and their use has to be subject to technical restraints so that broadcasters do not cause interference to other services in this country and abroad. This is why all broadcasting services have to be licensed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and it is not possible for someone to open a broadcasting station with the same freedom that he might publish a newspaper. In some countries broadcasting is run by those with the longest purse. In many others it is run by the Government in furtherance of its own policies. In this country, we have evolved the solution of trying to ensure that broadcasting services are run in the general public interest, by making broadcasting the responsibility of public authorities answerable to Parliament. Certain conditions are laid upon the B.B.C. and the I.B.A., and among those which are relevant to this debate are the requirements that they should be impartial in their treatment of controversial and political issues and that, so far as possible, programmes should not offend against good taste and decency.

It is the duty of the Governing Board of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.B.A. to ensure that these obligations are met. There is a very wide range of opinion across the country as a whole as to what is acceptable and what is not. This is revealed in any discussion about matters of this kind. But it is the task of the Governors and the Authority to interpret what the community as a whole would regard as acceptable. The Governors and the Authority are people of public stature, and of a wide range of outlook and experience, and they are fully capable of carrying out this difficult responsibility.

Concern has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that more radically the producer, rather than the Governing Board, sets the standards of what is broadcast. The producer will inevitably have a powerful influence on what is publicly broadcast—indeed, that is his job. However, ultimate responsibility for deciding what should or should not be broadcast rests with the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. This does not mean that they act as censors; indeed, much of their control has, of necessity, to be in the form of criticism of programmes which have been broadcast. It means that they lay down the broad guidelines and that the Governors are at the summit of the B.B.C.'s system of "reference up" to which my noble friend referred. The Authority are in a similar position in relation to the I.B.A.'s discussions with the companies about programmes.

Moreover, the broadcasting authorities are kept sensitive to public opinion in a number of ways. They receive letters from members of the public. They are advised by a number of advisory bodies. Their General Advisory Councils are composed of leading men and women drawn from all walks of life, who can be relied on to keep the broadcasters' programming policies under scrutiny. We know from Press reports that they do so. The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. carry out continual audience research designed to assess audience reactions to their programmes. They have permanent representative panels making regular returns, and undertake specific studies to discover the public's reaction to a particular programme and types of programme. And finally, of course, both the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are answerable to Parliament, as this debate shows. If there were a clear consensus in Parliament that the broadcasting authorities were not living up to their obligations, the Government, without making a judgment themselves, would convey Parliament's concern to the broadcasting authorities. In extreme circumstances the Government would have to consider the suitability of the Board or the Authority to remain in office. That is how the accountability of the broadcasters is made a meaningful reality.

In these circumstances, Governments have long taken the view that Ministers should not comment or make judgments on matters of programme content. It would be fairly easy to set a precedent for Government interference in programme content, and if that were to become the general practice it could pose a very serious threat to freedom of expression in this country. So noble Lords will not expect me to comment on particular points about programmes which have been raised to-night. Parliament has deliberately placed the responsibility for these on the Governing Boards of the B.B.C. and I.B.A. and I know that they will take careful note of what has been said.

Though I will not comment on individual programmes, I think it may help if I make some general comments on standards on television. At a time of changing standards, when opinion in society is divided on matters of taste, the broadcasters are bound to be criticised more than they were in the past, when there was a greater unity of view about what was or was not acceptable. The broadcasters try to reflect honestly the society they serve, but since society is widely divided about matters of this kind their task is now much harder.

The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are conscious of the fact that television comes directly into people's homes; that it is watched by different generations of a family together and that standards acceptable in the theatre or the cinema, where people have made an active choice to go to a performance, may not be acceptable for family viewing in the home. But the broadcasters must not ignore their other duties to provide the best of all forms of entertainment and to keep the public informed about controversial topics of current importance.

By far the largest individual subject of this debate has been the question of whether the broadcasting authorities are always as impartial as they ought to be. The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are obliged to preserve due impartiality in their programmes. The word "due" is important. It means that they are free to lend weight to civilised moral standards. They do not have to be impartial about murder or racial prejudice. Nor does the duty mean that all programmes must be bland or void of any strong expression of opinion: it means a balance of objective presentation taking one programme with another. The broadcasters are not required to show both sides of the case in every individual programme, and some programmes will by nature tend to give emphasis to a particular point of view.

The B.B.C. is also required not to put forward a Corporation point of view and the I.B.A. is similarly required not to broadcast the views of the Authority or the programme companies. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is right. Noble Lords have criticised the B.B.C.'s and I.T.V.'s treatment of the present industrial disputes and have said that the media have increased the present tensions and added to a national sense of crisis. More than one speaker has made this point, though it was not agreed with by every speaker.

My Lords, I know that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are fully aware of the dangers of over-dramatising news and comments. Your Lordships have been particularly critical of the conduct of some interviewers, and of the choice of those interviewed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury reminded your Lordships that very often the provocative is remembered, whereas the profound is very often not remembered. The B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are rightly sensitive to criticisms that they have not observed due impartiality, or that they have failed fairly and objectively to present news and current problems. Criticism of this kind, if sustained, would seriously undermine their standing in the confidence of the public. They will certainly take careful note of all of the views expressed in your Lordships' House to-night.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, asked me a question about a particular programme, and this is one of those occasions on which I must break the rule and talk about a particular programme. The scheduling of programmes on television is of course a matter for the B.B.C. and the I.B.A., within the hours of broadcasting permitted by the Government. The curtailment of broadcasting is a measure designed to save fuel, and the Government's objectives in this respect remain unchanged. The staggering of closedown between the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. was arranged to prevent a temporary surge in demand at that time of the evening which a simultaneous switch-off would create, and which poses a difficult problem for the electricity supply system. The need to avoid creating a surge of this sort remains, and my right honourable friend did not feel able to agree to the I.B.A.'s request for a simultaneous close-down this evening at 10.30.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, after a great deal of pious prating about impartiality on the part of the Government, I believe that is about the most inadequate answer I have ever heard.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, it would have been very difficult indeed to have a simultaneous close-down. This was an agreement between the broadcasting authorities. My right honourable friend's Department was also concerned with this, as was the electricity generating authority.

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate tonight on the power of the media, about which several noble Lords have expressed concern. Noble Lords will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have decided that the present arrangements for broadcasting in this country should be continued until 1981. While the present system may not produce results entirely acceptable to all your Lordships, Her Majesty's Government believe that it combines the advantages of considerable freedom for the broadcasters with limited restraints, imposed by requirements for them to be responsive to public opinion and answerable to Parliament. I am sure that the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. will think very carefully about the views expressed by your Lordships in this debate and will take them into account in running their services.

7.3 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, it only remains for me, in replying, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been extremely interesting. It has been an outstanding one, as the noble Lord who just sat down said, in that it contained a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Talking about the Addison Rules, I do not think I am alone in having said, "Is it not time that the Addison Rules were thought over again?" As my noble friend Lord Denham said, I have initiated something like four debates on this subject, and this is the first time we have really had from the horse's mouth the view of broadcasters and I think it is a pity that the Addison Rules apply to other nationalised industries.

As I have only three minutes left, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hill, although he did not run over his time, as we have run over it here—perhaps if we were in the Common Market we might stop the clock. But I hope that when he reads my speech he will acquit me of having said that the B.B.C. were always wrong. I am always loud in my praise about the absolute marvels they produce.

I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Denham that he got through the record to which he referred extremely well, because I was able to follow what he said. It was an extremely interesting speech, if I may say so, much more interesting than a good many we have heard previously on this particular subject. I believe that it contained statements of policy from Government which we have not had before.

On the noble Baroness's point about the timing of the I.T.N. News, having been in the electricity industry I take it that the surges are caused by people putting on the kettle when they switch off the television.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, some people have gas.

LORD FERRIER

This is what the surge is, as I understand it. Since I have seen, "S.O.S., S.O.S., S.O.S.", on the screen for a good long time, it crosses my mind that the electricity people might have got over this difficulty by asking I.T.V., who were supposed to switch off at 10.20 p.m., whether they could have stayed on until 10.30. They could have said in the broadcast warning, "Switch Off Something, or don't put on your kettle. "However, that is by the way. My Lords, I think I have filled my time, and I now ask your permission to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.