HL Deb 07 March 1990 vol 516 cc1165-8

2.47 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:

What remedy is available to licence payers who heard BBC Radio 4's programme "Return Ticket" on Monday 22nd January, which was presented by a prominent campaigner against nuclear weapons, giving only one point of view, without a subsequent balancing programme being broadcast as required by the existing rules on impartiality.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the BBC is under a general duty to maintain balance and impartiality in programmes. Within that, editorial decisions are a matter for the corporation. Licence payers can of course write to the BBC with their comments on programmes.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the programme is the latest in a short series where imbalance has been very palpably in evidence? Is he aware that such failures to provide balanced programmes on the same subject in the same series underline the need to look at the matter in considerable depth while Parliament is debating the Broadcasting Bill in both Houses?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I should make clear that the BBC, in the annexe to its licensing agreement dated 18th January 1981, stated: The Board recall that it has always been their object to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality, and they intend to continue this policy both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy". Also, under Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, the IBA is required to ensure so far as possible that controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a balance means a proper range of views in perspective aired over a reasonable period of time, which is part of the BBC producers' guidelines? Is that not a proper adult approach to balance, rather than a rigorous ping-pong match which can only be dull and rather patronising to the listeners?

Further, following the agreements on defence between the United States and the Soviet Union, does the Minister agree that the missiles at Greenham Common, which I believe were the subject of the noble Lord's Question, are no longer a matter of propaganda? The BBC has confirmed that if that was a live issue, the programme would not have been aired.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I go along with the noble Baroness and quote from the BBC producers' guidelines: Programme executives, editors and correspondents must ensure, however—and over a reasonable period of time—that they have done justice in their domain to a range of views and interests. It is not sufficient to claim that other programmes or media will ensure that balancing views will be heard". The noble Baroness went on to say that a personal view had been given. The guidelines deal with a personal view by saying: When a platform is offered—to an individual or group—to espouse a controversial view, programme executives should be willing to provide a suitable opportunity for a response—in good time and in an appropriate position.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there are subtleties in this matter which do not easily respond to definition? For example, is he aware that on several occasions recently a leading politician was described as being "obsessed" with something when perhaps the word "preoccupation" would have been better?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I agree. I have already referred to the producers' guidelines. It is the fact that viewers and listeners might see or hear a programme which represents a particular point of view, but may not necessarily hear the counterbalancing programme. The balance should be achieved at a much earlier stage, when editors plan a series of programmes.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that these were autobiographical programmes and, in accordance with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, the last one was an account of a royal tour? Does he not agree therefore that the BBC were deeply culpable not to show a tour by a republican to balance?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am not sure that those remarks find great favour in the House.

Lord Parry

My Lords, would the noble Viscount like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the BBC general advisory council, which spans the broadest possible range of opinion in this country, exists to receive a report of objections from the public to particular programmes and that each time it meets there is a lively debate on the issue? No producer, therefore, goes uninformed as to any mistakes that he might have made.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am grateful to hear the remarks of the noble Lord. As I have said, it is up to those who hear the programmes to write, with their comments, to the BBC if they feel so inclined.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I took the precaution of asking the BBC whether it cared to make a statement on this particular question? I have the statement here and, for the sake of accuracy, if your Lordships agree, I should like to read it.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, if the noble Lord will not think that I am indulging in tedious repetition, Question Time is to seek and not to give information.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I believe the noble Lord the Leader of the House will agree with me that it is desirable that we should have on the record the BBC's comment on this Question.

Noble Lords

Question.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that it ill becomes the House not to want to hear what the criticised organisation has to say on the subject? I should therefore be grateful if the Leader of the House would be kind enough to reconsider what he said and permit me to read out the statement handed to me by the BBC this morning.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am not certain that I understood the question. However, broadcasters are sensitive people. What is put before them they should resolve. The BBC and other broadcasters are likely to accept that they do not always get it right.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords—

Noble Lords

No.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that politicians are also sensitive people? During the period of the Labour Government many politicians on their side were deeply suspicious of the BBC. Is the noble Viscount further aware that the present unpopularity of the Government is much more due to their own actions rather than to the actions of the BBC?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, on occasions such as this I do not believe I should take sides in what is being said. It is a matter for the BBC and for those listeners or viewers who, if they feel aggrieved, should write to the BBC.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are very grateful to him for reporting what is in the charter and the annexe? I believe we needed to be reminded of that. Is he also aware that we have no doubt that the management is trying its best to keep in accord with the agreements, annexes and the like? However, can I make two points? My noble friend pleaded in his first reply that it was a personal view. "Personal view" is not an exception written into any charter.

Noble Lords

Question.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that "personal view" is not written into any part of the annexe? Even if it is accepted that this was a personal view, why was not one person from NATO given an opportunity in the short series to put a contrary point of view in accordance with the annexe?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the best response I can give at this point is to say that I will certainly draw to the attention of the chairman of the BBC the remarks made in your Lordships' House today.