House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 May 1990

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend accept that an element of accountability is involved in standards of broadcast journalism in particular? I share his concern about censorship, but the new clauses also provide for a degree of public accountability--for example, research into the extent to which broadcast journalism is attaining the standards of accuracy and fairness that should reasonably be expected of its broadcasters. That would hold them to account, at least to a certain degree. Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that the NUJ supports the proposals, because it wants standards of fairness and accuracy to be subjected to such scrutiny?

11.45 pm

Mr. Buchan : My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and brings the matter into its proper focus. There is a widespread feeling that such scrutiny is desirable, although we are concerned that there should not be a proliferation of bodies dealing with different aspects of it. The new clause would introduce an element of public accountability. I am pleased to learn that the NUJ supports the proposal ; it has become so used to authorities that it has tended to oppose them in the past.

The best of all possible worlds would be to introduce these sensible changes in the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to look at the proposals again? Perhaps our reference to the commission is confusing, but I hope that in these two clauses, "the Commission" can be read as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, which supports the proposals. Given the Government's obsessive desire to interfere in moral matters by setting up a standards council with the ability to Moggify programmes, it is both important and logical that we should show some concern for what we should really be talking about, which is quality and standards of accuracy, journalism and news coverage.

Nowhere does the Bill--for all its fussy, meddling, moralistic interference in the form of the powers conceded to the Broadcasting Standards Council-- show any concern for the basic qualities of television. Those matters are dealt with in the new clauses. We propose to give the powers to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission

Column 148

because, given its experience of complaints and the research that it can commission, it has the ability to build up expertise and lay down codes and standards.

We seriously need codes and standards for broadcast journalism, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is the logical authoriy to develop them. I would go so far as to say that, if the new clauses are accepted, as I hope they will be, they will make the Broadcasting Standards Council superfluous, unnecessary and liable to be scrapped, as it should have been at the outset of our proceedings on the Bill. I strongly support the new clauses, because we should maintain a concern for standards.

Mr. Mellor : Given the hour, I shall deal briefly with the new clauses.

New clause 26 is unnecessary, because research is already well provided for in the Bill. For instance, clause 12 already enables the ITC to commission audience research for any licensed service programme. Moreover, amendment No. 233 provides for the ITC to commission research into the effects of programmes on viewers and into the type of programmes that the public would like to see included in future schedules. Clauses 139 and 142 also provide for the Broadcasting Standards Council to monitor broadcast standards and undertake or commission research into the portrayal of sex and violence and general standards of taste and decency.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : You can do better than that.

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Gentleman is very bouncy for the time of night. I do not know how he spends the rest of his week.

Mr. Tony Banks : In bed.

Mr. Mellor : I shall not inquire too closely into that. The singling out of matters to be researched, which new clause 26 proposes, would conflict with an appropriate general policy of leaving such decisions to the ITC's discretion. In enabling the commission itself to conduct research, the new clause raises issues that we discussed at length in Committee. We believe that it is better that research should be commissioned rather than done in-house, although I accept that that is not a central point.

The trouble with new clause 27 is that it blurs the areas of responsibility for the ITC and the BSC. Essentially, the ITC codes are aimed at the performance and behaviour of the licensees and are not designed to give guidance to viewers. I hope that I can safely say that the matters raised by the new code are already dealt with either in other ITC codes or in the BSC's duties. The BSC's duties relate very much to viewers. That is why, with respect, new clause 27 would not add to the clarity of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in amendment No. 202, raises an interesting and useful point. He wishes to have it made explicit that research commissioned by the ITC must be relevant to its regulatory functions. That is implicit, but I am perfectly content to make that explicit, and I shall do so in deference to what my hon. Friend has had to say.

Mr. Tony Banks : I take the Minister of State's point that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has sufficient powers in the Bill to do various things as set out in new clauses 26 and 27. It might be helpful if he would say that he favours the commission looking into those

Column 149

various matters in the manner set out in the two new clauses. It is important. Clearly, the commission, in judging its programme of work and its attitude towards various matters, might be guided by the words that the Minister of State uses in the House this evening. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the provisions of new clauses 26 and 27 contain a great deal of sense, and that these matters would be worthy of consideration by the commission when it comes to commissioning research.

Mr. Mellor : I do not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman. I have not actually examined every single part of the new clause with a view to knowing whether I think that it would otherwise be desirable. I certainly happily undertake to discuss the intentions of the new clause with the BSC and, where relevant, the BCC, so that we might take a view on that matter. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the outcome of those deliberations.

Mr. Fisher : I am grateful for the way in which the Minister of State has responded. I accept that there are several places in the Bill where audience research is not only mentioned but

specified--clauses 12 and 90, for example. Clause 12 allows only for research into programmes. The Minister of State referred to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's responsibility to look into matters of sex and violence. That is true, but clause 12 relating to programmes and the new commission as it relates to sex and violence ignore the matter on which new clauses 26 and 27 home in. As has been said, the requirements of accuracy and fairness are supported by the National Union of Journalists. The Minister of State underestimates the importance of those matters for research. They are not covered by research responsibilities or obligations in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), in a powerful contribution to this short debate, made the good point that, as the Bill progressed in Committee, we stumbled across more and more restrictive aspects. We have a confusing plethora. Not only do we object strongly on grounds of civil and human rights to that enormous paraphernalia of organisations, but we believe that new clause 27 would be a great deal more coherent and give a more considered view about responsibilities.

Obviously on those points the Minister of State is not yet fully convinced, but I am grateful that he has undertaken to consider them. I hope that he will accept that, whereas we understand what he says about clause 12 and clause 19, accuracy and fairness are not covered. Those are matters of considerable public concern. It would benefit everybody involved in broadcasting if there were objective research into those matters as much as into matters of preference and taste in programming. I hope that the Minister of State will bear those remarks in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

Proscription of non-domestic satellite services (No. 2)

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, if any person provides a non-domestic satellite service without a licence or continues to provide such a service when a licence

Column 150

has been revoked, the provisions of sections 165 and 166 shall apply to such services as if they were foreign satellite services.'.-- [Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchan : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I shall endeavour to be brief in dealing with what is a complicated matter. Since I have been raising the issue, a number of amendments have been tabled, including amendment No. 8 which stands in the names of Conservative Members.

I have talked of the introduction of repressive measures of censorship, but another type of censorship occurs when we have too tight a monopoly on ownership, a problem that has been envisaged almost since the commencement of commercial television. As far back as 1955, the Pilkington committee, to which I gave evidence, began to appreciate the problem that would arise as a result of what we now call cross-media ownership, a concept which now exists to a high degree. Pilkington said :

"The threat is thought to reside in the fact that, because two of the media of mass communication are owned in some measure by the same people, there is an excessive concentration of power to influence and persuade public opinion".

That was said partly because of the evidence that I gave more than 30 years ago--in relation to control by a press monopolist, Roy Thomson, over Scottish Television. He discarded the criticism in the Pilkington report on the ground that it had come from two folk lorists from Glasgow, of whom I was one and my wife was the other. That was the beginnings of an understanding of the problem of mass media which we are now witnessing to a greater degree. Pilkington was concerned that it might have two results. One was that when issues were covered by broadcasting or the press, being in the same hands, they might be subjected to undue and uniform editorial influence. The second was that the choice of issues to be reported--the setting of the agenda, as it were--could become distorted. There was a third reason, and Pilkington might have been prophetic, for it said : "Newspapers might unduly publicise and praise, or avoid adverse criticism of, the television service provided by companies in which they had an interest, and might disregard or criticise unfairly any exercise by the authority of its powers against these companies." In other words, one section of the media could be used to denigrate or support another element of the media--press and television--which is exactly what has been happening with the development of Sky Television, being under the ownership of a major press owner. [Interruption.] The monopoly element involved is enormous. Indeed, it is such that the Government have taken steps in the Bill to deal with cross-media ownership, because they recognise the problem, a problem that we have seen in practice--in the Sunday Times , The Times and The Sun --with the over-pushing of Sky Television and the praising of programmes in articles about the pick of the week and so on, so that even within itself it is unhealthy, not to mention the political control that can be exercised.

There is a huge hole-- [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) or any of his hon. Friends want to interrupt--if they want to defend Rupert Murdoch--perhaps they will get to their feet and do so. Let them say where they stand. If not, perhaps they will allow me to proceed.

Column 151

Later, the Broadcasting Act 1981 included some measures to deal with the matter. It does not explicitly preclude control of a television franchise by newspaper interests, but the IBA and the Home Secretary have power to suspend or end a franchise if it appears that the existence of the shareholding has led or is leading to results that are contrary to the public interest. That is the position at which we have now arrived. While the legislation has no explicit prohibitions on cross-media ownership, the underlying philosophy is clear. Restrictions have been thoroughly entrenched through an enabling statutory framework and by the IBA through its own regulations.

12 midnight

We have seen the experience in other countries such as America where the problem led to a decision in the Supreme Court against cross-media ownership. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. He had to divest himself of some of his holdings as a result. We have seen the problem in Australia--which I have just visited for a week to see the broadcasting system. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. What we face in Britain has had to be dealt with by at least two other countries.

If the Government had mentioned Rupert Murdoch, News International or Sky Television, the Bill would have been hybrid and would have had to be dealt with in an entirely different way. That is why I raised the matter. I was given a ruling that was constitutionally inevitable--that the Bill was not hybrid because it did not mention a particular company. It exempts from the monopoly ownership rule what is called broadcasting by non-domestic satellite television stations. There is only one such station. All of us here could own our own stations and call it non-domestic broadcasting by satellite. The only problem is that we cannot afford to do it. It is like saying that everyone is entitled to eat in the Ritz every day.

Almost the worst aspect of the Bill is that, according to The Guardian, the Minister has said that he will not pull the plug on News International. He can deny it later if he wishes. The Government intend to exclude from the Bill the operation of News International. We should remember that every other television company will be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Bill on holding. They are also restricted in terms of nationality. Proprietors must be either British or members of an EEC country. That is deliberate. Sky Television and any others which broadcast via the Astra satellite are excluded from the restrictions in the Bill.

Mr. Mellor : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's arguments will sound even more exciting when they are made in the debate that we are due to have, and which no one can avoid, on the subject of whether it is right that there should be cross-media ownership restrictions on Sky Television and others. The hon. Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to the amendment only if Sky continued to broadcast without a licence. He is dealing with a relatively limited regulatory point. Perhaps after the number of hours of debate that we have had, what he is saying about Sky might be better placed in the debate on that specific point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what had been lurking in my mind for several minutes. I was shielding my

Column 152

ignorance about the complexities of the Bill. My suspicions are now confirmed that what the hon. Gentleman has been saying does not have an awful lot to do with the new clause before the House.

Mr. Buchan : I usually agree with your suspicions and sometimes even with your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but neither your suspicion nor a consequent ruling on it would be correct in this case. If someone behaves in such a way that the ITA has to intervene, the application of the clauses applying to foreign satellite stations should apply to the non-domestic broadcasting station.

It is late at night. I welcome the Minister's intervention to discuss the topic in the amendments to be debated tomorrow. An element of the matter can be dealt with then and I shall take great joy in repeating my arguments, hopefully at an earlier time of night. I thank the Minister for his intervention.

The amendment proposes that if News International is to be exempted from the nationality rule that applies to everyone else and the control on the amount of monopoly holding, it should be treated as a non-British or foreign satellite television. If the ITC object to it, it can not only proscribe it, but take action on the advertisers and people who make the programme from Britain. It is a draconian measure, but we have been dealt a draconian measure in reverse by the Minister, and that is why I advocate this provision.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : I am a little puzzled by the new clause's consequences. I am not here to praise Rupert Murdoch, but I want to know whether my hon. Friend intends to bury him because I would object to that. The amendment makes Sky Television subject to licensing, as I take it. What is the effect of that licensing? I presume, since the cross-media ownership factor does not apply to satellite, that it would not have any effect.

Mr. Buchan : It says that, without prejudice to clause 13, if a non- domestic satellite service is operating and its operator does not choose to seek a licence or continues to provide such a service after a licence has been applied for and the ITC has decided to revoke it, the legislation referring to a foreign satellite shall apply.

Mr. Mitchell : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again ; it is good of him. What consequences and restrictions are placed on the operator if he applies for a licence?

Mr. Buchan : If he applies for a licence within the normal regulations there would be enormous consequences with regard to holding. If he does not apply for such a licence, but continues to have a satellite broadcast from abroad, different provisions prevail. I am asking for that to happen if he continues to provide such a service when a licence has been revoked. If he does not have a licence, there is nothing we can do about it, except to treat his satellite as foreign-based. That is how Mr. Murdoch would be treated because he broadcasts from Luxembourg. If he applies for a licence and what he broadcasts is not liked by the ITC it can be discontinued and the licence revoked. It can be treated in the same way as a foreign satellite. I agree that it is a most draconian measure and good, quiet resolutions will come in tomorrow in the form of amendments, to which I shall give verbal support and my vote.

Column 153

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not suppose that in your position as Deputy Speaker you have had a chance to look at today's edition of The Guardian which has just come out and has a headline,

"Parliament misled' on Rover deal".

I wonder whether you have been informed about whether a statement is to be made by the appropriate Trade and Industry Minister about the Select Committee report, which reveals that there has been a gigantic fiddle by the Government over the Rover sweeteners of £38 million, as revealed in this morning's paper. Surely we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have not received any request for a statement. Mr. David Mellor--

Mr. Skinner : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill and people outside want to know what is happening in Parliament, surely it would be right and proper for a Minister to come and tell us about this gigantic fiddle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the form, and that I am not responsible for the attendance or otherwise of Ministers in the House.

Mr. Mellor : The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to clauses 165 and 166, which are draconian clauses intended to catch satellite services which do not originate in the United Kingdom and which thus cannot be regulated by the ITC. The clauses are backstop provisions designed to deal with such a service. It is not necessary for the non-domestic satellite services with which the hon. Gentleman is mainly concerned to come within the ambit of clauses 165 and 166, because they will be regulated by the Independent Television Commission on matters such as taste, decency, balanced news reporting and so on.

Where a licensee was providing an unacceptable service, the ITC would have substantial powers to enforce licence conditions, including ultimately the possibility of withdrawing the licence. If the operator continued to provide a service after his licence had been removed, he would be guilty of an offence, under clause 13, of providing a licensable service without a licence. He would therefore be liable to prosecution. With respect to the hon. Member, I think that that is a sufficient deterrent.

The point about clauses 165 and 166 is that this apparatus is not available in the case of services originating outside the jurisdiction. It is for those services that they are needed. In the light of that, and knowing that the hon. Gentleman has just been warming up his tonsils for his assault on the substantive issue of satellite cross-media ownership tomorrow, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Buchan : I thank the Minister for his generous invitation. That is twice that I have been invited to talk tomorrow, once by the Minister and once by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the kindness that is about, I will make a long speech tomorrow.

If it were not so late, and if all the troops had been on duty, I would sadly have pushed this to a vote. I will not do so. I will resume the argument tomorrow. Of course, there will be yet another stage--before their Lordships.

Column 154

Listening to the reactionary nature of the Conservative party, we sometimes have to look to their Lordships for a liberal attitude. I look forward to that.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I do not recall any words of mine that were an open invitation to the hon. Gentleman to speak, at length or briefly, on any future occasion. We must wait until that occasion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Christian broadcasting services

(1) An applicant for a licence to provide any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) may declare that he intends to provide a Christian broadcasting service under this section ; and in that case, if his application is successful, his licence shall (in addition to any other conditions which, subject to this section, apply to that licence) be subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5) (in this section referred to as "christian broadcasting conditions"). (2) The services are--

(a) A non-domestic satellite service (as defined by section 38(2)) ;

(b) A licensable programme service (as defined in section 41(1)) ; (c) An additional service (as defined by section 43(1)) ; (d) A sound broadcasting service to which section 78 applies ; (e) A licensable sound programme service (as defined by section 104(1)).

(f) An additional service (as defined by section 106(1)). (3) Where an applicant for a licence for a service mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) makes a declaration under subsection (1), paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 2 shall not apply to him ; and accordingly the persons mentioned in that paragraph shall not be disqualified from holding a licence for such a service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(4) A licence subject to Christian broadcasting conditions may not be issued to or held by any person except a body which is a charity registered under the Charities Act 1960 whose principal object is the propagation of Christianity.

(5) The Christian broadcasting conditions are that

(a) a substantial proportion of the programmes shall be directed to--

(i) explaining what the Christian faith is and its relevance in the modern world ;

(ii) encouraging an improvement in moral standards in private and public life and an awareness of Christian ethics ; and

(iii) providing Christian counselling services.

(b) the programmes broadcast shall be predominatly of European origin ;

(c) there shall be no broadcast appeals or requests for finance or other material benefits for the licensee or any person connected or associated with the licensee.

(6) Where the licence for any such service as is mentioned in paragraphs (a). (b) or (c) of subsection (2) is subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(a) section 6(4) shall apply with the omission of the words from "and they shall also" to the end ; and

(b) without prejudice to its powers under section 42(4) the Commission may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that section 6(1) shall, in its application to that service, have effect with the addition of the following paragraph--

"(e) that undue prominence is not given in its programmes to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters."

Column 155

(7) So far as it relates to religious matters section 84(2)(b) shall not apply to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(8) In the application of

(a) section 6(1)(c) (as substituted by virtue of section 42(4)) ; (b) section 6(1)(e) (as added by virtue of subsection 6(b) above) ; and

to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, those provisions shall not be construed as imposing any duty on the licensed service which is inconsistent with those conditions ; but shall be construed as prohibiting dominance by one particular church or ecclesiastical group.

(9) In its application to an application for a licence to provide a licensable sound programme service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, section 105(2) shall have effect as if the reference to section 84(2) were a reference to that subsection as modified in accordance with subsections (7) and (8) above.'.-- [Mr. Michael Alison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Alison (Selby) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

At first sight, the proposed new clause might seem to be somewhat sweeping and ambitious, particularly as the Minister of State has already offered so much that was not originally in the Bill on religious broadcasting. I make no apology for initiating through the new clause a brief debate, I hope, on religious broadcasting and Christian broadcasting in particular.

Large numbers of our constituents regard this aspect of the Bill as easily the most interesting and important part of it. Letters to colleagues reinforce that view. The Christian religion and Christian broadcasting are still very important in Britain. For example, 62 per cent. of the population see at least one religious television programme a month, and that is a very high proportion.

As for radio, BBC Radio 4's "Sunday" programme has a larger audience than "The World this Weekend", while the alternative on BBC Radio 2, "Good Morning, Sunday", has twice the audience of "Sunday". These compete with a number of local radio religious broadcasts. We are not talking about a marginal interest.

It follows from those figures that the idea that Britain is largely a secular nation cannot be sustained. Indeed, ascertainable evidence shows exactly the opposite. It is true that only 11 per cent. go to church weekly and 20 per cent. monthly--a much higher figure, incidentally, than those who attend sporting events the day before. But, according to the IBA itself, the strength of support for Christian views and values in Great Britain is extremely high. The latest IBA survey on religious beliefs says :

"In total claimed membership of any Christian faith accounted for 79 per cent. of people. Even amongst people who are not at all religious, two out of three describe themselves as Christians'. 13 per cent. of people admitted having no religion."

A MORI survey in October of last year showed that 84 per cent. of people claimed that their religion was "Christian", while a Gallup survey of last December gave the figure as 77 per cent. On those percentages Britain is a Christian country.

12.15 am

I said earlier that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had shown himself to be generous in his response to the Christian and more widely religious broadcasting lobby. He has also been painstaking,

Column 156

perceptive and sensitive in his response to lobbying. Those qualities take time and effort and many hon. Members as well as many people outside are deeply obliged to him for his personal interest in these matters.

The lobbying group with which I have been associated, which includes CARE campaigns, the Evangelical Alliance and Christian Standards in Society, lobbied for three objectives. First, we requested, in the words of the Bishop of St. Albans, who is a member of our group, and nine other denominational leaders, that "religious programmes be specified among those which would comprise a properly diverse output."

I am glad to see that Government amendment No. 114 specifically responds and gives effect to that request. We shall debate it later, but suffice to say at this stage that we are grateful to the Minister for honouring the undertaking that he gave in Committee and elsewhere about that improvement to the Bill.

Secondly, we expressed concern that Christian and other religious bodies were being restricted in a way unprecedented in previous broadcasting legislation. The Bill excluded them from holding any ITC licence and thus from the possibility of managing their own programme schedules and competing in the market place. In the long term, this exclusion would mean inadequate funding for religious programmes and consequently a decline in quality. Therefore, we asked the Minister of State to think again about the exclusion of responsible Christian bodies from the management of television channels. The Minister thought again and to good effect.

Government amendment No. 352 makes the radical, fundamental change to the original Bill by lifting the disqualification of religious bodies from holding television service licences for both non-domestic satellite and cable services. Such bodies are thus to be enfranchised as owners and managers in their own right in this area. This matter will be debated when we come to the Government amendment, but my hon. and learned Friend has given us everything that we could possibly ask for and we are deeply obliged to him.

In the light of these two major changes and improvements to the Bill, secured with the full co-operation and active assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, it might seem churlish to land him with this lengthy new clause at a quarter past midnight. However, there remains a third objective which my group has not yet secured. It relates to certain restrictions in the Bill that have been dubbed with the code phrases "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence." Clause 84(2)(a) says :

"undue prominence is not given in its programmes to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters". Clause 84(2)(b) says :

"there are excluded from its programmes all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on religious matters".

In the view of the group that I represent, those limitations are unacceptably restrictive and inhibiting and incompatible with that very generosity towards religious broadcasting, more widely, as represented by the proposed Government amendment that I have mentioned. Thus it appears paradoxically, to our legal advisers at least, that even if a Christian group were to be granted a licence, while it would be free to broadcast programmes on materialism or easy sexual morals or something quite incompatible or foreign to the Christian religion, it could

Next Section

Home Page