| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, although they do not have a distinct collective legal personality, the press, as they were known before the advent of broadcasting, or the media, as they are now called, have a central role in the healthy functioning of a modern, western society, whose essential characteristics are freedom under the law, democracy, accountability, and transparency. The Fourth Estate is an integral element of such a society, lubricating the proper relationships between the citizen and the legislature, executive and judiciary. Indeed without it, these four could not interact properly.
It is, of course, the characteristic, par excellence, of the British constitution that there is a sensitive interrelationship between its essential components, maintained by a carefully crafted web of checks and balances. And of course these checks and balances--both statutory and administrative--apply in respect of the media and always have done. Since the earliest days it has been recognised that the press and broadcasters are different from the rest of the commercial world of which they are part. Not merely can the media be used as an instrument of political power or influence either by those within or without the formal political process, it is also in a democratic society an essential tool to provide information be it factual, opinion, or investigative, without which democracy itself breaks down. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, it needs to be identifiably distinct.
But if the media behave in a manner so they damage rather than contribute to the healthy working of our constitution and society then the rest of the system is entitled, indeed not merely entitled but compelled, to act to restore the balance.
It is also characteristic of a free society that even within these areas where under the general law there is no general constraint on the exercise of freedom,
that freedom must not be exercised in a way which unjustifiably hurts others. And this, of course, is as true for the media as for everyone else.The media are indeed a remarkable sector because they have a unique place and status in contemporary Britain underscored by our accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Their status accords the press and broadcasters great privileges, power and influence and in turn is dependent upon the exercise of great responsibility. As Kipling put it:
- "The Pope may launch his Interdict,
The Union its decree,
But the bubble is blown and the bubble is pricked
by Us and such as We.
Remember the battle and stand aside
While Thrones and Powers confess
That King over all the children of pride
is the Press-the Press-the Press!".
We must not overlook one important distinction between the printed and broadcast forms of the media. Technologically, these distinctions will soon blur, but for now they are still clear and are reflected in the framework in which they operate. The print media have always, and rightly, valued their freedom to editorialise--to take a view on the issues of the day and to promote that view. The broadcast media, on the other hand, are required by statute to be impartial. Some noble Lords have questioned their performance in that regard but the obligation placed on them in this respect is unambiguous.
The reason for this is that broadcasters have a particular power to influence our opinions; their message comes into all our homes in a way in which print never did. For that reason, they are subject to a layer of regulation beyond the usual protection afforded the public by our general laws on libel, defamation, obscenity, confidence, fair trade and so forth. Programme makers are under an obligation to meet a series of programming requirements--for example, to be accurate and impartial and to "do no harm"--while the free-to-air public service broadcasters, which are the heart of our system and are part of the information infrastructure of contemporary society, are subject to even more rigorous positive programming requirements.
Undoubtedly, despite some of the problems we experience from time to time, the UK enjoys across the whole media a range and quality of information, entertainment and opinion admired all over the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has drawn attention to the contrast between the ideal and the actual role of the journalist in our society. Certainly, I agree with John Birt, quoted by the noble Lord, that:
- "journalism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end ... we need to assert that journalism's highest purpose is to inform the citizenry."
- "It is not a pretty picture ... Perhaps bad taste is the price we pay for freedom. If so, it may be worth paying. But it is, by any standards, a price which is disagreeably high".
In this country the press has not been subject to executive control in peacetime for three centuries. The print media enjoy freedom of expression, which means the freedom to cover or not to cover any aspect of life. They are subject to the general law in the same way as any other citizen. On top of this there is a voluntary code of practice which has been agreed by the newspaper industry and is interpreted by the Press Complaints Commission. It is an integral, albeit a self-regulating element of the framework society has set for the press, which regulates the means by which journalists obtain stories which they choose to follow, while simultaneously calling for high journalistic and professional standards, inherent in the behaviour demanded by the code of conduct.
My noble friend Lord Vivian raised the issue of the reporting of military activity and the possible consequences of so doing. I shall pass on his request to my noble friend Lord Howe in order to ensure that he receives the reply he seeks.
The responsibilities of the press as a whole are exercised via the actions and activities of proprietors, editors and journalists. They are responsible both jointly and severally for whether the press actually plays its proper part in society, as I have already mentioned. Certainly there is a wide divergence in the quality of its performance which cannot merely be explained away by subjective differences of taste.
As I have already mentioned, broadcasters are subject to much tighter rules than the press in respect of news reporting and impartiality. The BBC's responsibilities for impartiality and accuracy are now at the heart of its new Charter and Agreement, which noble Lords debated earlier this year. The revised Producer's Guidelines reflect this, and the Statement of Promises makes clear the corporation's commitment to its viewers. All commercial broadcasters--terrestrial, satellite and cable--have similar conditions written into their licences.
There are well-established rights of complaint and redress, whether through the BBC governors, the Independent Television Commission or the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I believe that we have a well balanced structure in place, enabling this powerful medium to be properly regulated independent of government in the wider public interest with due respect for journalistic, editorial and artistic freedom.
I turn now to the treatment of violence. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, this is an issue of particular concern to the Heritage Secretary and she has recently agreed an initiative with the BBC, ITC and BSC to give the public a more informed choice about what they view and assistance to parents in exercising proper parental control over their children's viewing. She will also, I know, be paying close attention to research which is being conducted on a number of fronts into television violence, its effects and the options for protecting vulnerable viewers.
We must rationally examine the nature and extent of the problem, which is by no means clear at present. For example, the increase in general concern about violence coincides with a measured fall in the amount of violence actually shown on terrestrial television. We must look at the kinds of violence portrayed, the context in which it is shown and the different ends to which it is portrayed. For example, how should one compare the "Duchess of Malfi" or "Titus Andronicus" with the Bruno v. Tyson fight or "Cracker"? At the same time we must also look at public opinion: at how many and what sort of people view television violence; at how critically and in what context they view; at their reactions; at whether people complain about what they actually see themselves or merely about what they have read is to be shown. It is interesting, for example, that the European Commission in its recently published Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual services specifically comments:
- "There is a wide gap between the Nordic countries which are tough on violent material, but easy going where sexually explicit material is concerned, and the Latin countries which are tough on sex but less so on violence".
Only when we examine the evidence fully, and analyse it properly, should we consider taking fundamental decisions of principle. It may be that there is a need for some other safeguard, whether technological like the V-chip, on which we have recently published a paper, or by some other means. I simply ask that we sift the evidence and give thought to the best way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to perverted forms of sex and obscene and offensive language on television. Although that topic was not mentioned specifically by many noble Lords, the principles underlying the noble Lord's concern about that issue were not far under the surface. I know that his concerns are shared by many viewers.
While violence is the issue named by viewers generally as that which causes most concern, it is on matters of taste and decency that most complaints to broadcasters are received. Self-evidently it is not possible for every programme fully to accommodate every viewers' personal preferences, but again there are guidance codes for broadcasters on the standards to be observed and these are enforced by the regulators. The regulator acted, for example, against "Brookside" for its portrayal of an incestuous relationship--not because this issue should not be dealt with, but because it was not handled responsibly. In particular, "family viewing" provisions are intended to ensure that programmes likely to be seen by children are acceptable, and I know that the regulators intend shortly to publicise and explain this policy.
That is clearly an area in which better advance information would allow viewers to avoid programmes which are likely to offend them, and to protect children from viewing unsuitable material, although one has to be aware, as my teenage nephew and niece reminded me recently, that the identification of unsuitability may be one of the greatest attractions to viewing and that on the whole they are more adept
at unlocking the electronic key than their parents. Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing proposals for providing such information in the coming year.I have already mentioned that the place of self-regulation in the framework of the arrangements within which the media function, and perhaps one of the most obvious areas where that applies, is in the area of privacy, a topic which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his sparkling and Olympian intervention. He expressed a different point of view from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromer.
We considered that in great detail over a considerable time and concluded, in July 1995, that a statutory commission or tribunal would be a disproportionate response to such abuses as had occurred; secondly, that intrusion offences, though right in principle, would be impossible to frame in a way that caught the mischief while allowing responsible investigative journalism to flourish; and, thirdly, that there was insufficient public consensus for a privacy tort. My noble friend Lord Vivian asked what evidence we had for that. That view was formed on the basis of the responses received to the consultation document of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We welcomed improvements to self-regulation which had been agreed by the newspaper industry and the Press Complaints Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. At the same time, we seek further improvements in the performance of the press. It is undeniably a difficult area, compounded by the problems of those who court publicity in one area of their lives only to complain about its unwelcome consequences in another.
I do not deny that abuses still occur. Nonetheless, we believe potentially the best, but not necessarily the only, way of securing proper behaviour in this area is through a self-regulatory system which works. After all the capacity to run a successful newspaper must imply the ability to adhere to the code of practice.
The passing of the new Broadcasting Act earlier this year was a most significant development for the broadcast media. It is especially pleasing that many in the industry tell me without my asking that they are very glad that it began in this House, because they believe the debate here set a high standard and treated these issues in a matter and with the seriousness they properly merited. The changes the Act has made to our system of media ownership regulation were perhaps one of its most important aspects in the context of today's debate.
The balance we believe we have struck as regards media ownership is between the need to liberalise ownership regulations to meet the business requirements of a rapidly developing industry and the need to provide safeguards to maintain pluralism and diversity of voice on the other. I believe that we achieved that balance. It is interesting that a number of new alliances are being formed by various media firms.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, expressed a concern which has been expressed by a number of your Lordships on a number of occasions about the threat to the plurality and diversity of the new digital services made possible by the Broadcasting Act 1996 from one corporate entity, controlled by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, controlling the key technology for access to the encryption and delivery of services. As your Lordships' House is aware, the Minister for Science and Technology tabled regulations yesterday to implement the EC Advanced Television Standards Directive which will prevent any holder of the proprietary technology from acting as a monopoly gatekeeper to the digital age. Those regulations represent a fair balance between the return on investment for a first mover in digital conditional access technology and the wider interests of fair and effective competition in the digital broadcasting medium. The detail involved is extremely complicated and there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to have a full debate on the regulations in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the BBC's licence fee. He may be interested to know that in another place this afternoon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made an announcement about the level of the TV licence fee. The annual licence fees from next April will be linked directly to the movement in the RPI and will be £91.50 for a colour licence, a £2 increase, and £30.50 for a black-and-white licence, which is a 50p increase.
The Government have decided also that cumulative changes in the licence fee for the five years commencing 1st April 1997 should continue to equate broadly with the RPI. However, the pattern of annual changes will not be uniform. Throughout the period the BBC needs to fund expenditure on new digital services. That will be offset in 1997-98 by receipts from the sale of the BBC's transmission system and in later years by increased efficiency savings and commercial income. Therefore, in 1998-99 there will be a real increase in the licence fees but in the years 2000 and 2001 there will be a real decrease. The five-year settlement will enable the BBC to pursue its plans for digital broadcasting and enhance its programme services.
We are living in revolutionary times for the media. The traditional distinction between newspapers and the broadcasters is breaking down thanks to new technology, and there is more to come shortly as my noble friend Lord Chadlington pointed out. Nevertheless, the importance of the media to our society and to our constitutional arrangements to which I referred in my opening remarks is unaffected.
What must we do? First we must recognise that further changes will occur. Secondly, we must not waste time and effort regretting them; they are I believe inevitable. We have in place a system of checks and balances, a combination of legislation and self-regulation which together provide a proper framework for this unique part of our constitutional and administrative arrangements, so important to the health of our government and public life. For this special
framework to survive, both regulators and the regulated must exercise responsibility in the public interest on behalf of society as a whole.As the revolution gathers momentum it is inevitable the mechanics necessary to achieve this balance will alter, while the fundamental principles underlying them will not. To get it right depends on us, the politicians, and the media thinking carefully, behaving responsibly, and acting decisively and with probity and wisdom, otherwise we shall find we are living in a world described by W.B. Yeats when:
- "A Statesman is an easy man
He tells his lies by rote
A journalist makes up his lies
And takes you by the throat
So stay at home and drink your beer
And let the neighbours vote".
6.10 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it remains only for me to thank all speakers who took part in today's most interesting debate. I should also like to express my admiration for the way that all speakers, without exception, compressed interesting and stimulating ideas into the very limited time at their disposal. I congratulate them all in that respect. I must also thank the Minister for his characteristically thoughtful and courteous reply to the debate; indeed, it is a style and content that we have come to expect from him. I warmly thank him for his contribution.
It is worth saying that there were 16 speakers in today's debate, other than the three outstanding maiden speakers. I believe that there was a consensus, to put it in the form of words used by one of my noble friends, that it was the best clutch of maiden speeches that any of us can remember in this House. Finally, I should like to make one further point. From those 16 speakers there was, almost without exception, some degree of unease and criticism about the performance of the media. There was also a widespread view that regulation needs strengthening. Of course, not everyone agreed with that but most speakers seemed to have that thought in the back of their minds.
In that context, I hope that everyone will think very hard about the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for some kind of overarching regulatory body which might be able to use its teeth in a way that some of the regulators seem reluctant to do at present. It has been suggested that this is largely a question of regulation, while others have said that it is a matter of self-regulation. I believe that it is probably a matter of a word which was not mentioned in today's debate--namely, leadership. If there were some leaders in the press with the highest of standards, I believe that we would perhaps go a long way towards solving the problem. However, that is not a matter for today. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |