Broadcasting Complaints Commission (Hansard, 29 March 1983)

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)
My Lords, the available information about the commission's expenditure relates to the year ending 31st March, 1982 and is contained in its first annual report. In that year the commission's net expenditure was £97,956. Details for 1982–83 will be contained in its second annual report later this year.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he could tell the House how many complaints have been investigated during the first two years of the commission's existence? If the number of complaints is not great, would my noble friend consider whether it is because too few people who feel that they have been individually unfairly treated know of the existence of the commission and the manner in which they can report their anxieties to it? Would it not be in the general interest that rather more publicity be given to this estimable organisation?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am happy to assist my noble friend in giving publicity to the commission, the first annual report of which shows that, of the complaints it received during the period 1st June 1981 to 31st March 1982, 23 fell within its jurisdiction. Of those, six were still before the commission at the end of the period.
As to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the commission's function is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints of unjust and unfair treatment in broadcast programmes and of unwarranted infringement of privacy in programmes or in their preparation. The Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the commission's jurisdiction to the consideration of complaints about general programme standards. The broadcasting authorities are responsible for maintaining proper standards, and it would unacceptably weaken their authority if their decisions were to be subject to review.

§ Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the BBC rather carelessly 1460 published a photograph of me as Master of the Rolls and I telephoned to complain, I received no answer?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I imagine that if the mistake had been less flattering to the noble Lord he would have proceeded to submit his complaint in writing.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, was there a complaint from the Master of the Rolls?

§ Lord Ferrier
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether it is within the terms of reference of the commission to deal with complaints as to the publication of views about proceedings in Parliament?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the complaints in question relate to individual cases, and if my noble friend has a complaint as to the frequency or manner in which publicity has or has not been given to his own pronouncements it would be proper for him to approach the commission. Otherwise, I cannot help him.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, my noble friend's answer suggests that the commission is not overworked if it looks at two complaints every month. I wonder, therefore, whether it would perhaps be wise to develop its terms of reference a little so that we could make sure that in the coming weeks it is not only the minority view of the CND which is put over on the BBC and through other media but that the majority view of this country—those who believe in general and multilateral nuclear disarmament—should also be given fair treatment?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the remit of the commission relates to individual complaints. I should have thought that, this year, we might have an increase of the volume of one-twelfth in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier. But if the remit is to be expanded to deal with questions of balance, then there is a difficulty in that it will overlap with that of the corporation and the authority. I will, however, take my noble friend's concern to my right honourable friend.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, is it not a fact that the commission was established as the result of representations made in this House of Parliament and in the other place? But is it not also a fact that the terms of reference are much more limited than was required or asked for in this House? In the light of experience, would it not be a good thing to look at them again?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the remit is set out in Part III and Schedule 7 to the Act of 1981. I cannot answer for the exchanges which took place in this House before they were enacted or, indeed, at the time of their enactment. I think I can add nothing to what I have already said as to the potential conflict between the role of the commission and the role of the corporation and the authority, beyond saying that I will also draw the concern of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend's attention.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, possibly because of the remit, certain people think that the remit is entirely what it should be, and that it would be deplored if this remit was re-examined and extended? Would the noble Lord also accept that possibly the small number of complaints which have been received by this commission may reflect some credit on the BBC and the commerial companies which broadcast?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, which will give a greater balance to the submissions I give to my right honourable friend.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is not a main feature of the commission that it has some independence from the corporation and the authority? Therefore, is it not a perfectly proper organisation for members of the public to write to with complaints about balance and standards?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, it would be if it was part of their remit to look at that. That is the question I have been asked to consider.