§ 3.12 p.m.
§ Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they are satisfied that during the general election campaign the television authorities honoured the terms of their charter and licences to provide entertainment as well as provide political and current affairs programmes.
Viscount AstorYes, my Lords. The balance of programmes and their content are the responsibility of the broadcasters and broadcasting authorities.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that short Answer. I congratulate him on appearing for the first time for the Department of National Heritage. We welcome that department, which is picking up the responsibility for broadcasting and its structure and, presumably, the regulatory authority. I wish to make two points—
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, I am sorry. Am I right that broadcasts which went on and on and on morning, noon and night with a mixture of news and current affairs bored many people stiff and were not at all in accordance with the charter? Secondly, was it not an error to have 47 different polls broadcast, again morning, noon and night, not only in this country but all over the world? They totally deceived us because they were utterly and completely inaccurate.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, viewers and listeners have a greater choice of news and entertainment channels than ever before and they can pick and choose among them. I must emphasise that programme content and scheduling is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the broadcasters and broadcasting authorities.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I too congratulate the noble Viscount on his appointment to office. I also congratulate him on the firmness of his Answer. Is it not the case that Members on all sides of the House will always wish to ensure that broadcasters are responsible through their own organisations and are not to be dictated to by government or by Parliament?
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. It is important that the Government set the criteria by which the broadcasting authorities operate and that they then get on with the job.
§ Baroness BirkMy Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister's Answer. Can we have an assurance that the Government will not interfere with the independence of the broadcasting authorities in spite of the continual and relentless attacks by the noble Lord opposite? Incidentally, he had rehearsed today's Question by sending almost identical letters to the press during the week of the election. Is the Minister aware that each week during the election campaign 449 BBC Television broadcast approximately 45 hours of election programmes and approximately 195 hours of non-election programmes? Is it also correct that ITV reported little disruption to the usual entertainment programme schedule? Is the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, aware that during an election—in particular during an important election which is fought mainly on television—people expect to hear and to see a lot and that that is what they want?
Viscount AstorMy Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that during the election coverage news and current affairs programmes on ITV increased by only 2 per cent. from 17 to 19 per cent. On Channel 4 they increased by 4 per cent. from 14 per cent. The BBC's coverage rose from 35 to 45 hours per week. Little of the BBC's regular output was displaced, nor was there displacement on other channels. However, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has particular views on these matters.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for giving us that useful information. However, is it not correct that prime time went because at 9 o'clock every evening time was given over to news and current affairs, which were muddled up incidentally?
Viscount AstorMy Lords, an important point of the election coverage was that it gave the British public an opportunity to hear what politicians were saying and to make up their minds, which they did correctly.