HL Deb 04 July 1991 vol 530 cc1101-3

3.1 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why the regulatory responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 will not take effect before January 1993.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, the regulatory responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which apply to all services licensed by the Independent Television Commission, came into force on 1st December 1990.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is quite extraordinary that, although we spent 41 parliamentary days (26 days down the road and 15 days in this House) discussing the Broadcasting Bill, no one pointed out that the rules as laid down concerning due impartiality—stronger rules than were in the previous Bill—do not come into effect until 1993, long after the licences are distributed to the new people? Does he think that it would be more sensible to honour the will of both Houses of Parliament, which decided that the rules should be tightened up in that way, and to bring them into effect sooner?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, Independent Television and Channel 4 will not become licensed services until 1st January 1993. At the moment they are contractors; then they become licensees. All the proposals in the Bill refer to licensees. There are transitional arrangements, and it was made perfectly clear in Schedule 11, Part II, that the transitional arrangements end on 31st December 1992. I believe that the situation has been plain all the way along.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, there was never any secret about the matter. In Part II of Schedule 11 it states quite clearly the parts of the Bill that will come into force in 1993 and this is one of them. Does the Minister think that perhaps the noble Lord feels that we need more censorship, as it were, and more restrictions before that time? Does he remember that when the Government were prodded into moving the amendments on Third Reading there was a great deal of feeling all round the House that this provision was totally unnecessary? It had not been brought up in the Commons and the Minister responsible for the Broadcasting Bill thought that the matter of due impartiality should be left as it was.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am not prepared to answer the noble Baroness's middle question as to whether I think that my noble friend believes that more censorship is necessary. That is entirely a matter for him and something on which I am not prepared to speculate. The noble Baroness is quite right to bring up the point. The existing television companies are operating under contracts which do not expire until the end of 1992. That fact was known when we discussed the Bill. All the arrangements that we inserted refer to the new conditions which will take effect when operators become licensees which, in the case of television companies, happens in 1993.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why both he and Mr. Mellor in another place said that, if the codes did not conform with the Bill, one could ask for judicial review? Will he comment on the fact that, after having taken expensive advice from counsel, it now appears that one cannot appeal to judicial review and one has to act under the words of the 1981 statute, which are so woolly as to be totally ineffective, as the IBA discovered to its dismay?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is perfectly possible to take the Independent Television Commission to judicial review. If it is done before 1993 it will have to be under the 1981 Act because that is the Act under which the television companies operate until 1993. After 1993, when they become licensees, it will be possible to take the independent television companies to judicial review under the new Act. I re-emphasise that nobody was misled at all. All the provisions of the Act related to what would happen after 1993 as regards television companies.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords believe that, had the Independent Television Commission possessed the powers which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, would like it to have, it would not have thought of invoking those powers in relation to the Channel 4 programme on the Gulf, about which the freedom associations expressed such anxiety? Bearing in mind the coverage of all channels on the complicated matter of the Gulf, does he agree that Channel 4 did a notable service for broadcasting by ventilating certain aspects of that complicated problem which hitherto had perhaps been neglected?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am not prepared to comment on my views or anyone else's views on a particular programme. To those who thought that the Channel 4 programme was not impartial, I can only say that it is up to the Independent Television Commission to work out what is impartial and what is not and take any necessary action that it sees fit.