---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have spoken to these two amendments. I agree that Amendment 234 raises a very important issue. If I am slightly dismissive about Amendment 235, I hope my noble friends will appreciate that it is because I want to devote a little more time to Amendment 234 and to indicate the Government’s broad sympathy with exactly the case that my noble friends have identified. On Amendment 235—if I can be a little dismissive of the amendment—we do not think that it would be appropriate to increase the maximum penalty incurred for breaching the specific rule as opposed to other rules set out in the broadcasting code. We think the current system works well in ensuring that viewers enjoy trustworthy, high-quality news. We want to preserve a system that we think is effective. I hope my noble friends will not press Amendment 235 too hard because we consider that the case made on Amendment 234 is very important. The Government regard the rules on due impartiality and accuracy applying to TV and radio services as very important. The rules are well established especially when applied to broadcasting with access to mass audiences. I am not going to be able to match the eloquence of my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg in their articulation of the value this has brought to our society and to the quality of our democracy. It is interesting how we all spend a great deal of time berating the weaknesses that are identified from time to time in our democratic practices. Reform is ever in the air and I would be the last to want to countenance against that. From time to time it is necessary to step back and recognise those things that we do well that are important in sustaining our democratic traditions. I do not have the slightest doubt that the rules with regard to broadcasting that derive from the origins of the BBC, but now obtain across the field of broadcasting and the media landscape, are of the greatest significance to the society in which we live. It is clear that the media landscape is changing significantly and audiences now get their news from a much wider mix of sources, including digital television. Some have argued that because of this multiplicity the due impartiality rule is not needed. We do not agree. The rule of due impartiality for TV and radio services is still critically important. There is space for opinionated news. I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Bragg said about the nature of Fox News—a little bit of news among a great deal of opinionated commentary. We all recognise that newspapers spend an awful lot of their time on comment. Because, by definition, newspapers are slower to enter the public’s consciousness than other forms of projection of the news, they increasingly spend rather more of their time on comment than news. There have always been newspapers which have been pretty opinionated in their stance on matters. The due impartiality rule on TV and radio must continue. It must continue to guarantee that viewers enjoy unbiased, informative news. All our surveys and Ofcom’s surveys with regard to broadcasting indicate how strongly the British public support the concept of unbiased, informative but impartial news. That concept of impartiality, which both my noble friends have emphasised in their contributions, is of the greatest significance. If television news is considered to be the most trusted of news sources by audiences, there is little doubt that it is thanks to the impartiality rule, which is why the Government are eager that that should continue. Weakening the rule would affect the level of trust that people have in news and would ultimately affect people’s engagement and interest in this news. That is clearly not good for audiences or broadcasters and, most of all, it is not good for our democracy. Therefore, it is not in the public interest of a democratic nation. If we look to sustain the due impartiality requirements for news supported by public funds, I hope that that will not only indicate how much I agree with my noble friends but reassure those on Benches opposite about the due impact of IFNCs on the independence of journalists also. Impartiality is associated with independence, and we need to recognise that factor. The Government agree with the principle set out in Amendment 234. We think that it is of the greatest importance. I ask my noble friends to withdraw it on the basis that the Government will consider it further and return to the issue at the next stage.