Broadcasting Act 1990 (Hansard, 3 March 1992)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, no.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that monosyllable. Is he aware that there is widespread fear that Mr. David Plowright's unfortunate disappearance from Granada TV is a symptom that profits will come before programmes under the Act, especially as in 1993 an estimated £350 million will go to the Treasury as a result of the auction? Further, if, as the Minister has just said, the Government are not prepared to amend the legislation, will they consider asking the ITC to vary percentages on revenue paid annually by the licensees so that quality will come before profit?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not believe that the departure of Mr. Plowright would have the effect which the noble Baroness believes. The Independent Television Commission awards its licences to companies and not to individuals. Granada's programme proposals are incorporated in its licence conditions. With regard to the point about percentages, that is a matter for the ITC.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not the Government decide to amend the 1990 Act, note should be taken of the absolute lack of impartiality on news and views relating to party political matters?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, special provisions are made for party political broadcasts at the time of a general election. My noble friend seems to think that we might be amending the Act, but we do not intend to do so.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, in the light of the experience of the Act, will the Government look at the possibility of putting a reserve price on the franchise? Is the noble Earl aware that some companies bought for a few thousand pounds assets which were worth £7 million because no reserve price was put on the franchises at auction?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I was not aware of that. However, even if I were aware of it, that does not come strictly under the Broadcasting Act.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there seems to be no purpose in amending the Act since it is not obeyed in any way either by 746 independent television or by the BBC? Did my noble friend see "Panorama" yesterday? That programme was heavily slanted in favour of coal. At the end of the programme it recommended that only the rejection of government policy would enable coal to retain its present place.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what I may perhaps describe as an unhelpful supplementary question. I did not watch the programme because I was in your Lordships' House preventing the Government from being what I can only describe as ambushed.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is widespread anxiety throughout the country about the future of broadcasting? When people see the difficulties which radio and television are in after the passing of the Act, they are wondering what fate the Government are cooking up for the BBC.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the Government are not cooking up anything for the BBC. That is dealt with completely differently. There will be plenty of opportunity for consideration and thought about what should happen when the current licence comes to an end. To turn to the Broadcasting Act and its effects, I can understand that there is anxiety about that. There is always anxiety when there is change. Change had to take place because of new and different technologies. We made arrangements so that provided a programme passed a quality threshold and the service could be maintained, then the highest bidder obtained the licence.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the only television company which observes the impartiality code is Sky? That is why the Opposition do not like it. Is he aware further that in a recent "Question Time" programme on the BBC, the only person who was nominally a Conservative was Mr. Heath, who explained that Saddam Hussein was quite justified in his actions and that we should have been totally wrong in provoking him into a war? Further, is he aware that "Panorama" is choosing a new editor and on the short list is a Mr. Aaronovitch who is an ex-communist, an extreme Left-winger and may actually get the job? Other than Sky, no television company has any intention of observing the impartiality code. No matter how many laws are passed, they will not be obeyed.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, that was a pretty good tour d'horizon, if I may say so. However, I do not agree with the conclusions of the noble Lord.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, I feel some sympathy with the Minister on this occasion. He has had so much trouble from his noble friends in the passage of the Bill, and with their ridiculous arguments on impartiality. However, in his response to my supplementary question in relation to varying percentages in revenue, he said that it was a matter for the ITC. Will the Minister agree that the Act is a piece of Government legislation, and that if something is to be done to improve it—as many of us feel and have felt 747 all the way through —it is for the Government to take action? To keep saying that it is a matter for the ITC is not good enough.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I was trying to repeat that the Government have no intention of amending the Act. I know that it is difficult for the noble Baroness to accept that. But it has been in operation for only about 18 months. We must let the hare run a little before we change it.