Broadcasting Authorities: Responsibilities (Hansard, 29 June 1987)

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, we are not aware of any need; but if the noble Lord has evidence which would warrant such an inquiry, we shall of course look at it carefully.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not entirely encouraging reply. I should like to ask him whether it is not true that the evidence would be forthcoming in the course of the inquiry which I have suggested? I have a further supplementary point. Having regard to the requirements for quality and balance of output contained in such documents as the Broadcasting Act, the charter for the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Representation of the People Act, perhaps I may ask this question. Are the Government satisfied that the responsibilities laid down in those documents are being fully and satisfactorily discharged by the broadcasting authorities?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, about 20,000 hours of television and several hundred thousand hours of radio are broadcast in the United Kingdom each year. No system of regulation will ensure that all that output is blameless; but I believe that it is quite another matter to suggest that there is a systematic flouting of the standards, and we have seen no evidence of that. However, I repeat that if the noble Lord can give us any evidence, we shall of course look at it.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. If he is inclined to carry out an inquiry will he bear in mind that there are in your Lordships' House some noble Lords who think that anything to the Left of the Sun or the News of the World is the work of a hard-line Trot?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I note the noble Lord's question and his opinion; but of course there are other noble Lords who believe the opposite.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is the display of so much violence, sex, obscene language and occasional 26 mockery of the Christian religion within the statutory duties of the broadcasting corporations?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as regards that particular point, I am sure that my noble friend welcomed that part of the Manifesto which referred to our proposals.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that in the interests of freedom of speech it would be a good thing if fewer inquiries were made into the goings on of the BBC and its allied bodies?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Peacock Report, which was recently debated in this House, recommended less regulation. The Government's view is that the regulation which we have at the moment is about right.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that Attitudes to Broadcasting published by the IBA in 1986 shows that there was less bias than in 1985, and that the political bias there on both BBC channels was felt to be in favour of the Conservative Party, whereas on ITV and Channel 4, the attitudes were more likely to be pro-Labour? As the noble Lord who asked the Question, following his article in the Daily Express this month, was evidently referring particularly to political bias, and as he wrote a foreword to the monitoring unit report is the Minister aware that this unit is very Right-wing? The Daily Telegraph said: The refreshing thing about it is the candour of its Right-wing views In that case, would he not agree that the noble Lord asking the Question is hardly impartial himself?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me a number of questions, some of which I knew about and some of which I did not. It might be helpful if I were to state to the House what the rules on impartiality are. The broadcasters are required to show due impartiality in three areas: in news and news features; in matters of political or industrial controversy; and in matters of current public policy. The Broadcasting Act 1981 notes that impartiality may be judged over a series of programmes taken as a whole.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question asks whether the Government will set up an independent inquiry? We are not seeking in any part of this House to judge now. Surely the evidence, as a result of that article, is that the BBC, following the Sue Lawley interview with Mr. Norman Tebbit, were deluged with telephone calls until midnight and all lines were blocked. After the article in the Daily Express, there was also a tremendous response as regards both letters and telephone calls. Surely that does show a certain anxiety among the public about the present state of affairs. Would not an independent inquiry as a result of pressure in this House, or perhaps as a result of an Unstarred Question in this House, be the right way to proceed, rather than leaving it to other people?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, an Unstarred Question is, of course, a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip and the usual channels. I would repeat to my noble friend that the Broadcasting Act 1981 notes that impartiality may be judged over a series of programmes taken as a whole. One programme has been mentioned but I know that there were others conducted with political leaders at the same time. So, taken as an overall spectrum, I gather that the results from the BBC would perhaps be judged to be fair.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, with the results of the general election so fresh in all our minds, would it not be reasonable to expect that the requests for independent inquiries into the BBC, or other methods of attacking it from that side of the House, might not recur so frequently in the future?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it is not a question solely of attacking. It is, of course, one of defending.

§ Lord Aylestone
My Lords, would the noble Earl bear in mind the famous words of a previous Postmaster-General who said that the government of the day can either sack them or back them?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I note those wise words.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, would the Minister agree that since we have a new and much respected chairman of the governors of the BBC, and indeed a much respected vice-chairman, together with a new director-general, we ought to allow them a fair run and see whether, in a year's time, we think they are doing a good job instead of asking for independent inquiries after the natural heat of a general election?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I think it is excellent that both the BBC and the ITV are represented in this House and therefore can hear at first hand your Lordships' views.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that in spite of some of the comments that have been made on either side of the House, my Question was not in fact directed to any political bias or partiality at all. In spite of the somewhat hilarious reaction from the other side, if he looks at the Acts to which I have referred he will see that they refer not only to partiality and objectivity but to the quality and balance of the broadcast output. It was that to which I was referring and not to any question of political bias at all.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. As he will be aware, the question of balance refers to the balance of programmes. I have already explained what the due impartiality refers to.

Lord Elywn-Jones
My Lords, is it customary for a Cross-Bencher to refer to the other side?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, perhaps we are all the other side to the Cross-Benchers.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, perhaps I may make the point that I made that remark because from that side of the House came the suggestion that this proposal had come from this side of the House.