---

Mrs. Ewing: I think that we all appreciate the concession that was granted in Committee. However, the warden in the sheltered housing complex about which I am concerned tells me that her responsibilities are the same for both groups of residents. Therefore, she cannot for the life of her understand why there should be a difference in application of the concessionary licence. Is not that another anomaly that should be looked at? I ask

2 Jul 1996 : Column 736

the Minister again to undertake a total review of the way in which we deal with concessionary licences for the elderly, disabled and vulnerable in our society.

Mr. Sproat: I will certainly look at the anomaly in the hon. Lady's constituency, and I will see where that leads me.

On new clause 18, the Government sympathise with the concern expressed by caravan owners and the tourist industry that a second television licence may be needed for those who wish to watch television in caravans.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) must have many caravans in his constituency. He has spoken to me about this matter before. In response to what he has said, and in response to the Opposition's amendment, I am glad to say that we will introduce regulations to take account of changes in the use of television in recent years, including those affecting touring caravans and other types of vehicles and vessels. We will aim to do that as soon as possible. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will withdraw the motion.

Dr. Moonie: I thank the Minister for his helpful remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 19

Restriction on re-broadcasting of programmes forming subject of fairness complaint

'.--(1) No programme against which the BSC has entertained a fairness complaint shall, without the prior consent of the relevant regulatory body, be repeated in full or in part within the United Kingdom nor included in any service intended for reception outside the United Kingdom until the complaint has been adjudicated upon and the BSC's decision made known to the complainant.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a complaint shall be deemed to have been entertained by the BSC if on a preliminary examination it appears to the BSC to disclose a reasonable case to answer.
(3) Where the BSC has upheld a fairness complaint in respect of a programme the relevant broadcasting body or, as the case may be, the relevant licence holder, shall not cause the programme to the repeated within the United Kingdom nor permit the inclusion of the programme in any service intended for reception outside the United Kingdom until it has been edited to remove the part or parts of the programme which the BSC has adjudicated to be unfair.'.--[Sir Michael Marshall.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 pm

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 137, in clause 101, page 91, line 26, at end insert--

'(2A) It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when requested by a person or body of persons with reason to believe that their privacy has been, is being, or is about to be infringed in connection with the obtaining of material for a forthcoming programme, to investigate and satisfy themselves that the relevant code in force under subsection (2) above in respect of privacy has been properly applied; and any such request by a person or body of persons shall not prejudice any rights they may have under section 105 of this Act.'.

Sir Michael Marshall: I believe that it would be more convenient to discuss amendment No. 137 first.

2 Jul 1996 : Column 737

It is related to clause 101 and covers complaints by aggrieved parties of unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy. It is concerned with the role of the broadcasting or regulatory authorities and their relationship with the new Broadcasting Standards Commission, which I shall refer to as the BSC. It is concerned about a situation where complaints are made before a programme has been broadcast. It will become apparent that new clause 19 is about the handling of complaints after transmission.

I make the point at the outset that the new clause and the amendment have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and myself in the light of our experience and that of our constituents in respect of the film entitled "Beyond Reason", which was shown on 20 February 1995. The scale of the problems and the distress caused to our constituents can be judged by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's subsequent adjudication of 12 October 1995. It said:

"The Broadcasting Complaints Commission have upheld complaints about the drama, 'Beyond Reason' commissioned by Carlton Television and shown on the ITV network last February. The film tells the story of the killing four years earlier of Penny McAllister, wife of Captain Duncan McAllister, an army officer serving in Northern Ireland. Her throat had been cut by her husband's mistress, Susan Christie, a private soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment, who was given a sentence of five years--increased to nine on appeal--for manslaughter.


The BCC found that the film unwarrantably infringed the privacy of Duncan McAllister and his family, and that of Penny McAllister's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Squire. Both families had repeatedly pleaded with Carlton Television not to go ahead with the film they had commissioned about the tragedy. The Commission found that, although there had earlier been widespread reporting of the tragedy, there was no public interest justification for showing the film, which had been made as a television drama for public entertainment.


The BCC also found that the programme showed Duncan McAllister as a man far more heartless, selfish and uncaring than could be supported by all the evidence. The portrayal of his seeming callousness when told of Susan Christie's reported pregnancy and miscarriage was particularly unfair.


Finally, the Commission upheld complaints from Mr. and Mrs. Squire that the film's opening captions did not make it clear to viewers that the programme was made despite their strong objections and without any co-operation from them."

I have quoted that in full because it is important to understand the thrust of the new clause and the amendment. I should add that the dead girl's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Squire, are my constituents, and that the interests of Mr. Duncan McAllister and his parents were handled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire as their constituency Member of Parliament.

It may also help to put the matter in context if I refer to the 1994 report of the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I had the opportunity during an Adjournment debate on 8 March 1995, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State responded, to quote the remarks of the chairman of the BCC--then Canon, now Lord Pilkington--to whose work I pay tribute, as I do to the work of the BCC. In 1994, he said:

"We continue to be concerned by crime reconstructions particularly when they are based on cases which have occurred in the recent past. We feel it is very important that in the making of such programmes consideration is given to the position of the relatives of the victim."--[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 435.]

2 Jul 1996 : Column 738

Against that background, I shall explain why my right hon. Friend and I--because of our experience and that of our constituents--suggest that our amendment and new clause are necessary. When we were first approached by the families concerned, a year before the screening of "Beyond Reason", we used every opportunity to persuade the Independent Television Commission, as regulator, and Carlton (UK) Television Ltd., as the company commissioning the film, to give full weight to complaints of unjust and unfair treatment and of invasion of privacy, which we could see that the project represented.

We stressed in particular the distress caused to our constituents in recreating that tragedy--including the murder in 1991 and the trial in 1992--so soon after the events, and that the outrage and distress were compounded by recreating the dead girl, her parents and Duncan McAllister by look-alike actors. Our appeals were rejected. The ITC said that the project did not breach its current guidelines and codes of practice for drama documentary.

Carlton relied on public interest and other arguments, which our constituents found totally unacceptable--as, clearly, did the BCC in the adjudication that I quoted.

That was in the recent past. What is the situation today? My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I have engaged in a long series of discussions and correspondence with the Department of National Heritage, the ITC and the BBC. The significance of all those parties is worth a few words.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have shown considerable sympathy with the case that we have made. Clearly, we have been determined to ensure that, as far as possible, there should be no repetition of the suffering inflicted on our constituents--or on the constituents of any hon. Member.

On the general principle, we believe that there must be an advance opportunity to influence programme makers to prevent unfairness rather than merely being able to complain about it afterwards. However, the Department of National Heritage seems to be impaled on the hook of protecting the principle of self-regulation.

I outline the situation as explained by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a letter to me of 12 June 1996. He wrote:

"the programme in question led to a number of concerns being raised, even before its broadcast, not just by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission but also by the Independent Television Commission (ITC). I understand that the ITC was, at the time of broadcast, preparing to publish a revised Programme Code, containing new guidelines to be followed in respect of dramatised reconstructions. The ITC had no doubt that 'Beyond Reason' breached those guidelines, but was unable to take action, given that the revised Code was not, at the time, in effect. Nevertheless, the ITC made its views clear to the broadcaster, and made clear its intention to prevent any repeat, as a breach of the new Code, using its powers under the 1990 Act."

It is not entirely clear whether that means a repeat of the offence or a repeat of the programme, for reasons that I shall mention later.

My hon. Friend the Minister continued:

"At the time of publication of its revised Programme Code, the ITC wrote to broadcasters, highlighting the new guidelines and explaining their implications."

2 Jul 1996 : Column 739

Coming to amendment No. 137, in the terms before us, my hon. Friend the Minister then commented:


"If I may turn now to . . . the amendment, my understanding here is that the measures you propose are unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent an individual from approaching a regulator in connection with an allegation that a broadcaster has infringed or is likely to infringe his or her privacy. In such circumstances, the regulator, even without the power of preview or veto, is free to approach the broadcaster or licence holder informally to remind them of their responsibilities under the relevant codes or guidelines. If the broadcaster ultimately ignores this warning, he does so in the knowledge that severe sanctions may result."

That was the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister, which I have discussed with him, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. I shall return to the points that he made in a moment, but for the sake of completeness I want to refer to the arguments against the amendment put forward by both the BBC and the ITC, and which clearly have had a strong influence on the Department's thinking.

I emphasise that it is important to note the problems of principle about which I am arguing, because they are not confined to the ITC. Discussions with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission show that examples of actual and potential problems in this area could affect BBC television and the Radio Authority. I want to concentrate my remarks on television, as the medium about which my right hon. Friend and I have been most concerned during recent months. I shall summarise the reactions of the BBC and the ITC to amendment No. 137, of which they were given advance notice. Perhaps, in these rigorous days, I should declare my interest as a former BBC cricket commentator. The chances of getting such work again in this egalitarian age, with women commentators--something I am sure the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) welcomes--are rather narrow. In passing, I point out that, as a strong proponent of the need to sustain the BBC World Service, I can generally be taken to be a fan and supporter.

Having said that, I can only describe the BBC's reaction to the proposals in amendment No. 137 as one of, "Auntie knows best." I shall quote from a letter that I received from the BBC's parliamentary liaison officer, dated 21 May 1996:

"The proposed amendment . . . would impose an additional burden on the BBC quite separate from the BSC complaints procedure. The question of whether the BBC's Code had been complied with will arise in any event as part of the consideration of the complaint. It is important to remember that the BBC's duty is to 'reflect the general effect of the BSC code as it is relevant to the programmes in question'. The amendment would give complainants an unnecessary and potentially alternative procedure."

The ITC has consistently shown a greater willingness to address our concerns. Indeed, through correspondence with its chairman last January, it stated that the ITC was ready to accelerate the process of sanctions against those breaking relevant codes. I shall not detain the House with the detail, but that is a welcome assurance. However, the ITC, like the BBC, argues that amendment No. 137 is unnecessary because the procedure is already open to a potentially aggrieved party. In its letter of 28 May, the ITC also expressed fears that to formalise the procedure could lead

"to a flood of appeals to the ITC, some of which might be self serving and mischievous."

With that background, I shall now make the case for amendment No. 137. I have tried to give the full flavour of the objections from the BBC and the ITC and of the

2 Jul 1996 : Column 740

way in which they have been reflected in the preliminary responses of the Department of National Heritage. Let us consider them in turn.

First, all three parties--the Department, the BBC and the ITC--agree that the procedure outlined in amendment No. 137 is already open to those who wish to complain. Why then discourage its formal incorporation in the Act? Surely the argument that such formalisation would lead to a flood of complaints applies whether the powers are voluntary or statutory. Secondly, experience shows that the viewing and listening public have little or no idea of to whom they can turn. They cannot distinguish between the Broadcasting Standards Council, the regulatory authority, the ITC, the BBC board of governors, the broadcaster, the programme maker and so on.

---