House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 1996 (pt 23)

10.16 pm

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. This is probably an opportune time to discuss such an issue, given that party political broadcasts will play an increasingly significant role for political parties, viewers and listeners as we approach the next general election. For many years, broadcasters have offered time for the main political parties to present their policies to the electorate, and I certainly share the view that the major political parties in the United Kingdom should have direct access to television and radio.

As Lord Annan's committee commented in its 1977 report on the future of broadcasting, political parties are there to provide the statesmen and policies to govern the country, and the country's media should provide them with an opportunity to address the people. Broadcasting has a crucial role to play, through its ability to reach almost every home in the United Kingdom, to inform the public debate.

My hon. Friend has voiced his concerns about the implications of party political broadcasts for national commercial radio stations. I know that he has discussed these with the Radio Authority in the light of the authority's press announcement of 12 September, which established the new arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio. That is significant, as it is the first time that the requirement to carry party political broadcasts, introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990, has been applied to national commercial radio stations.

I agree with the my hon. Friend's view that the arrangements represent a real step in opening up the political process to audiences, but I also recognise that this is a new situation and that, as broadcasting develops, especially with the introduction of digital channels and a greater abundance of channels, the regulators and Parliament will want to keep the arrangements under review.

My hon. Friend may be aware that it was only after some hesitation that matters of political controversy were allowed on the ether, then known as the wireless--from March 1928, in fact. In reviewing the success of that experiment, the Ullswater committee in 1936 set the ground rules for future arrangements for party political broadcasts, which were essentially that the allocation of time for such broadcasts should be agreed between the broadcaster--at that time, of course, only the BBC--and the political parties. As the committee recommended,

"The BBC must, of course, continue to be the judge of the amount of political broadcasting which the programme will stand".

With the advent of commercial television broadcasting, the arrangements for agreeing the allocation of time were replicated, with both the BBC and independent television authorities agreeing the allocation of time in close

10 Dec 1996 : Column 192

co-operation with political parties. Crucial to the way in which those arrangements developed is that the Government did not seek to determine the allocation of airtime--not only for the reason Ullswater stated, but because it would be wrong for the Government to seek to interfere with broadcasters over a matter in which the Government would have a particular, politically partisan interest.

The current framework for party political broadcasts on commercial channels was established by the Broadcasting Act 1990. In the Bill, as published, the Government sought to transfer directly into the new broadcasting regime the arrangements subsisting between the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the political parties--by granting discretion to the regulators to agree arrangements with the political parties. There was a lively debate about the merits of party political broadcasts and some support in the House for ending altogether PPBs on commercial television. Those were the days--fresh in the minds of some--of such great works as "Kinnock--The Movie".

In his reply to that debate, the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), emphasised that the presence of party political broadcasts on both the BBC and commercial broadcasters was not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising. That view has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire.

Hon. Members may be aware that provisions in the 1990 Act prohibit advertising inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature or which is directed towards any political end.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that Amnesty International is currently appealing, and suggesting that its advertising is not politically motivated. Does he agree that that would be contrary to the spirit of the decision taken by the House during the passage of the 1990 legislation?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. I think that Amnesty International was specifically mentioned in the debate, and that that point was considered by the Committee. I should like to refresh myself on the Committee's exact words, but certainly my recollection is that the House of Commons, and therefore the Houses of Parliament, decided that it did not want a body such as Amnesty--as marvellous and splendid as it is in many ways--to be allowed to advertise. I do not know the details of the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I should be very surprised if a court of law, on appeal or in any other circumstances, sought to overturn a clear decision expressed in a specific debate of a Committee of the House, which was then endorsed by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. It is such an interesting point that I should like to examine it later in more detail.

The aim of the provisions is to protect viewers and listeners from intrusive political or politically motivated and campaigning advertising, and to avoid broadcast advertising becoming part of the political process. I believe that the American model of political advertising is decidedly not something that we want to witness in the United Kingdom, given its risk of diluting the quality of political debate.

10 Dec 1996 : Column 193

When the 1990 legislation was considered in Committee, it appeared that the new relationship to be established between the new broadcasting regulatory bodies--the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority--and the licensed broadcasters, within a clear statutory framework, risked doing away with the established practice of providing party political broadcasts on commercial channels. Parliament decided that the discretion that the old Independent Broadcasting Authority had possessed should become a duty in respect of Channels 3 and 4 and the national commercial radio services.

When moving Government amendments to give expression to the will of the Standing Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney explained:

"The reason for the Government amendments is to take account of the fact that the IBA was the broadcaster and could therefore direct the various constituent companies of the ITV network to show party political broadcasts. The ITC will not be the broadcaster. Therefore we require a statutory framework".--[Official Report, 9 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 203.]

The same principle was applied to radio.

The constitutional position of the BBC was not changed, and I have noted my hon. Friend's comments that there is no specific requirement on the BBC to carry party political broadcasts on each of its five national radio stations. I understand that, at present, only BBC Radio 2 and Radio 4 carry them. The Radio Authority drew attention to that when it announced its arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio on 12 September.

The number of party political broadcasts to be broadcast on national commercial radio is equivalent to the number broadcast on BBC Radio 2--up to two PPBs for the Conservative party and the Labour party and one for the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, with the scheduling being determined by the broadcasters within certain parameters. That is not, I believe, an onerous obligation. For the BBC, however, Radio 2's output of party political broadcasts would, under current arrangements, be augmented by a further 18 party political broadcasts on Radio 4, divided between the main political parties in the United Kingdom. This, to me, does not suggest that the BBC is neglecting its public service responsibilities in respect of party political broadcasting; rather, it shows that the corporation is committed to providing a range of party political programming that caters for the interests of the parties and the public.

Furthermore, the BBC has wide-ranging public service obligations, including a specific obligation to broadcast an impartial account of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, and to ensure that political matters are widely and seriously considered in programmes across all its services.

That said, I acknowledge that the arrangements for specifically party political broadcasts on the BBC differ from those for national commercial radio stations. That is partly a function of the different arrangements under which the broadcasters are constituted. The BBC is one broadcaster operating a range of channels, while the national radio licensees operate only one channel under each licence. The BBC's arrangements have been agreed in the light of discussions with the political parties. As far as I am aware, the main political parties have been

10 Dec 1996 : Column 194

broadly satisfied with the arrangements for party political broadcasts on BBC Radio, although some smaller parties would prefer to increase their allocations. In general, for many decades the BBC has held a difficult ring. It is open to the parties to put forward alternative proposals if they wish.