| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.30 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I became involved through handling our constituents' complaints and acting as advocates for them at the hearings of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. We found the process lengthy and complicated. It was difficult for the ordinary citizen without full administrative support to make any headway. I have little doubt that many people have been deterred in the past.
On amendment No. 137, I fear that I cannot accept the assertion of my hon. Friend the Minister and the regulatory bodies that such problems cannot recur. There has been some tightening: the ITC recognises that there are circumstances in which it would be difficult to justify programmes such as "Beyond Reason", where the likely distress to the people concerned is greater than the public interest. However, there is no certainty in the matter.
What about the temptation facing a licence holder whose franchise may not be extended? Is there not a danger of a sensationalist end to the franchise designed to maximise final advertising revenue? As for the BBC, recent experience with the broadcast interview with the Princess of Wales shows that even the board of governors is not necessarily au fait with the corporation's production activity. For those reasons, I cannot understand why there should not be a clear statement in the Bill, which would emphasise the regulator's role in providing some public reassurance. Above all, it would give some hope to aggrieved parties that action may be possible before the damage is done. I commend amendment No. 137.
New clause 19 logically follows amendment No. 137 in seeking to curtail the apparent disregard of the upholding of fairness complaints. I gave the House an outline of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's adjudication on "Beyond Reason", which could not have been more damning. But what followed? Within days of the adjudication, the programme was broadcast again in Australia. That raises the question whether the ITC was correct to advise my hon. Friend the Minister that it had exercised its power to prevent repeats. I shall return to that point later, but I ask the House to consider the effect on constituents of yet another round of publicity and correspondence, which added to their distress.
New clause 19 addresses the prevention of repeats at home and overseas and would give additional teeth to the proposed Broadcasting Standards Commission to remove material that is judged to be offensive from such repeats. I emphasise that new clause 19 has been changed to try
to take account of what I accept were genuine objections to it. I should outline briefly the actions of the three main parties before I explain how we have amended it.
The BBC's parliamentary liaison officer wrote:
By contrast, the ITC showed a desire to help. I quote again from the chief executive's letter of 28 May 1996. On the new clause, it said:
The key element in the new clause is that it is covered by the words:
I accept that overseas repeats will sometimes be beyond the powers of the regulatory body, but clearly not in all cases. Many broadcasters control both UK and overseas distribution. That sanction should be in place. The moral case must apply to those who seek to beat the system,
because I assume that they must look to a longer-term relationship with the regulatory authorities, as current and potential licence holders.
For those reasons, new clause 19 would meet the needs that are plain for all to see. I wish to end on this thought. I have tried to present the arguments of the giants in this field of endeavour--the ITC, a major Department of state and the BBC--dispassionately. But I ask all hon. Members to consider how they and their constituents would feel against the background of an appalling piece of drama documentary such as represented by "Beyond Reason".
In a spirit of seeking to prevent and deter such suffering, as well as to present a genuinely clearer statement of the options open to aggrieved parties, both before and after the transmission of a television programme, I urge the adoption of the new clause and amendment.
Mr. Richard Needham (North Wiltshire):
In his usual dispassionate way, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has put the case against the film "Beyond Reason" and expressed our concerns. They are simply that no such film should be made or shown again. To achieve that, something must happen to ensure that such films do not appear on television.
This was a disgraceful and disgusting film, which started with the dead wife's blood being shown through rainwater pouring through ferns. The producers of the programme agreed with my hon. Friend's constituent that that was the least that they could do to show how the murder took place, and they took out the scene of the murder.
It is not as if that film--a faction drama mixing fact and fiction--is unique. There are similar scenes in other documentaries made in this country and elsewhere. It is an absolute abuse of a modern producer's power, and its effects were devastating on those to whom it applied.
My hon. Friend and I have the single concern that there should be sufficient provisions in the BBC and ITC codes to ensure that that does not happen again. The ITC tells us that, in its view, the new code should ensure that it does not happen again, although I have read the new code and found that some holes remain to be blocked.
One of the most chilling aspects of the new code is that it says that, in considering whether such a film should be broadcast,
Does the Minister feel that enough is being done? Although my hon. Friend and I accept that the ITC has moved a long way, we are not sure that the BBC has done so. It still appears to believe that the principle of editorial freedom means that such films should not be considered until they have been shown. Amendment No. 137 is a
belt-and-braces measure, so that those involved have adequate recourse to prevent the film being shown the first time.
We can clinically and objectively debate the issues and perhaps the remedies, but we should never forget that we are dealing with desperate tragedy. In this case--there have been many similar cases in the past few years--two families were first traumatised by a vicious murder and then further devastated by the ruthless, careless men who were determined to make prurient entertainment by embellishing and exaggerating the horror that befell the families. As a result, the lives of both those families, not least the mothers of the murdered girl and of the husband, have been damaged.
The House cannot allow innocent families or mothers to be damaged and scarred, perhaps irretrievably, by those who have neither feeling nor understanding. My goodness, how my hon. Friend and I and others spent time trying to persuade the bosses of Carlton, those who were making the film and everyone who was involved that the film should not be shown, but they could not have cared less. As my hon. Friend said, the day after the adjudication by the BCC, it was decided to show the film in Australia.
"Regrettably the proposed New Clause on Restriction on Re-Broadcasting of Programmes forming subject of complaint treads on essential editorial freedom and independence. The BBC is established and governed by a Royal Charter and Agreement as an independent broadcaster and is not subject to the editorial decisions of any other body. This is a matter of fundamental principle. The integrity and responsibility of BBC programmes are not just well attested.
Does not that fly directly in the face of all the arguments put forward by those who have shown that the BBC cannot automatically count on the form of regulation suggested? Interestingly, no reference is made in those comments to the invasion of privacy. Many may feel that that shows the BBC at its worst, with an apparent declaration of independence from any future role of the BSC.
The new Royal Charter and Agreement specifically requires that independence. Impartiality and standards of good taste and decency and accountability are also required. No additional regulations are needed to guarantee these principles and practices."
"The ITC is entirely sympathetic to the wishes of a legitimate complainant that a programme should not be repeated while the BSC adjudicated on the matter. However, current Broadcasting Complaints Commission processes may take many months and in some cases more than a year to reach adjudication. A mischievous complainant, who took exception to a programme (but had no legitimate grounds to do so) could block its repeat during this period. This clause would therefore have the unintentional side-effect of placing a significant block on broadcasters' legitimate freedoms."
On restrictions on overseas use, it said:
"The difficulty with this . . . is that it assumes that the UK broadcasting body or licence holder will also control secondary rights for overseas use. That is not always the case."
In both correspondence and meetings, my hon. Friend the Minister related our original draft new clause to one moved in another place by the noble Baroness Dean, who sought to help us in taking the new clause through the other place. I pay tribute to her work in that regard. However, the proposal was rejected, largely because of the ITC's objections, which I mentioned earlier. In fairness to all concerned, I therefore stress that the new clause moved this afternoon meets the genuine concerns put to us.
"without the prior consent of the relevant regulatory bodies".
Subsection (2) defines the basis on which the BSC will be deemed to entertain a complaint. With those changes, we have reasserted the principle of self-regulation, by confirming the power of the regulatory body to say yes or no to repeat programming. Thus we also meet the flooding and mischievous complaint concerns.
"Consideration should be given to taking professional advice about the likely effects of the dramatisation. Of particular relevance would be the views of clinical psychologists specializing in this area, or of Victims Support organisations or, with the agreement of the individuals concerned, those counselling them."
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the feelings of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend, the parents of the murdered girl and the parents of the husband--who were themselves traumatised--on being told that the decision whether the film should be seen should depend on clinical psychologists and those who counsel them? It is unthinkable that it should be allowed to happen.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |