HC Deb 29 April 1936 vol 311 cc955-1040

5.34 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I take this opportunity, on behalf not only of Members on this side of the House but of a good many Members on all sides of the House to raise the subject of the Ullswater Committee's report on broadcasting, and to initiate a debate and, if the Government so wish it, to obtain a statement of their views. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General would now say whether the Government would like to make a statement at an early stage or would prefer to have a general debate before making any statement.

5.35 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon)

I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for raising this question. I have been looking forward to this Debate for some time. The Government are giving the closest attention and a great deal of work to this subject, but they are very anxious to have the advantage of hearing the views of Members in all parts of the House on it. There has been a very strong move asking that no Government proposals shall be put forward until such a debate as this has occurred, so that the Government are anxious to have a debate on the report of the Ullswater Committee, and they will then at once proceed to consider the situation in the light of the valuable information which they have had and of knowing the views of the House upon the subject.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I will base my remarks on the report. As the House is aware, we are now actually initiating the discussion which is to decide whether the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation shall or shall not be renewed and, if so, what its terms shall be. The Ullswater Committee, very rightly, I think, begins by reminding us all that the British Broadcasting Corporation is really a quite new political invention which, in the sphere in which we work, is about as novel and ingenious as the wireless itself. It is an attempt to combine a public service with the possibilities of commercial management, and the solution, it is suggested, might be found by placing the service in the Government, in public ownership, not by conducting it like a Government Department, but by I leaving it to a body of men and women who would act as trustees of the national interests without the ordinary commercial motives behind their work.

That is an experiment, and I think it is satisfactory that the broad results of the investigation by the Ullswater Committee is that the experiment in its main outline is completely vindicated. They recommend that it shall he continued and that it shall be continued with more generous financial support. In saying this, I think it is only fair to point out that, as I shall make some criticism of the administration later on, in vindicating the experiment the Ullswater Committee is, as a matter of fact, paying its tribute to the persons who have administered it, from the Director-General downwards. I say that because of some observations which I shall make later, and I would myself pay my recognition to the fact that under this administration, broadcasting in this country, which might have adopted the more or less easy-going standards of the films, or even of the popular Press, is, as a matter of fact, recognised as a healthy and indeed an elevating influence, and, as the committee points out, is being taken as a model by other countries in the world.

Undoubtedly, the chief point which is raised by the system adopted is the relationship between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Government. The American system, where the whole enterprise is in private hands, does not raise the delicate questions that ours does, but broadcasting here is in the last resort under absolute Government control. The Corporation has got to issue any matters sent to it from Government Departments, and the Postmaster-General can forbid it from delivering any broadcast, either on a particular item or on a whole class of items, by orders from himself. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the committee, are he does make a reference in his reservation to the manner in which during or just before the election of 1931 the Government, in his opinion, used this power. He says there was a series of Government broadcasts without any reply and that in addition the British Broadcasting Corporation itself issued a series of almost semi-official statements from the Director or officials of the Bank of England, which were probably all very tendentious in their observations. I am not going to enter into that further, except to call the attention of the House to it, but I think those remarks are right at the heart of the subject. If the Government did get anything like the habit of controlling broadcasting, we should be well on the way to the spectacle which may be seen on the Continent of Europe, where, under Government ownership, broadcasting is being used really to turn the people into a population almost of robots.

I welcome for that reason the policy of the Postmaster-General in this Debate, under which he says, "Let the House discuss this subject quite freely, and then, rather on the basis of the discussion, let the Government consider what shall be done." I welcome that, because in my opinion, to begin with, the British Broadcasting Corporation must regard it as a duty to pay the most careful attention to observations made in Debates in this House, not to Resolutions, because there will not be many, but the general tone of the Debates. If they do that, my own opinion is that the House can guide the development and the tendencies of the Corporation better than can the Government themselves. I was not in the House at the time, but I was very much impressed, in the Debate which took place here three years ago, in 1933, by what I thought was the common sense of the House.

When I was at the Post Office there had been a question as to what we were going to do about broadcasts on Communism, atheism and heterodox views of that kind. I had not to decide it, but in practice up to 1933 the British Broadcasting Corporation had prevented the broadcasting of those views, and the Postmaster-General, by his advice to the House at that time, rather suggested that he thought such views should not be permitted to be broadcast. But I was impressed by noticing how, even after a series of speeches by the right hon. Mem- ber for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and Mr. John Buchan, as he then was, as a matter of fact the House took the matter into its own hands and practically said that even the most heterodox views should be permitted to come to the microphone, provided the opposite views and replies were at the same time given. I believe it would be generally admitted that that was a right decision, but it was not a decision that had been taken either by the Corporation or by the Postmaster-General at that time.

For that reason, I hope the Government will accept the proposal in the report that the Minister in charge of broadcasting should be a Cabinet Minister without heavy departmental duties. To begin with, I think it would make Debates in this House much more valuable. At present the ordinary Debates take place on the Estimates of the Post Office. Very often the Postmaster-General makes no reference to broadcasting at all in his opening speech, and all that he can do at the end of the Debate is to pick up any point about broadcasting that has been mentioned and refer to them at the same time as he refers to points in connection with pillar boxes, telephone exchanges, mail bag robberies, and general Post Office administrative topics. There is another reason why I think this would be a valuable change. The Minister would not often interfere with the Corporation, but on the occasions when he did interfere it would be on a major issue such as we are discussing now which would become almost inevitably a Cabinet decision. In these circumstances, it would be better for the decision and for the Corporation if the Minister were a Member of the Cabinet.

With regard to the internal life of the Corporation, the Ullswater Committee suggests that the time has arrived for the Corporation to include among its employes staff Associations and trade unions, if necessary. The proposal for staff associations is mild to a degree, and it is surprising that even this mild proposal is obviously resented by the Corporation. It has attempted to create public opinion against it, and it summoned the staff to have a vote. The vote was against the proposal, but as each meeting was presided over by the head of the section of the department to which I the staff belonged, I do not attach very much importance to it. I do not know of any civil servants, teachers, or university professors who do not have staff associations whenever they have an opportunity, and I cannot believe that the employés of the Corporation are the only people in the country who do not want one.

When I was at the Post Office I got the impression that the internal life of the British Broadcasting Corporation was not particularly happy. I still have the impression that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a very temperamental institution from the top to the bottom. We have had complaints coming to us every day in the last few days. We cannot investigate them, but it does appear to me that, from the point of view of the Corporation itself, the best and first reply to these complaints would be if there were trade unions or a staff organisation inside the Corporation which could investigate complaints on behalf of the staff.

There is another point I would raise about the internal administration. The Corporation employ all manner of different types of people. It is a unique institution. It is a Government Department in one aspect, and in other aspects it is a concert agency, a university extension movement, and a music hall. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a State Church."] You cannot have the usual methods of appointment and tenure of office among all these individuals. I realise that in the first 10 years there must have been personal appointments and that it was rather like the Ministry of Munitions during the War. The Corporation, however, has now been in existence for 10 years, and it is time that, so far as the backbone of the administrative staff is concerned, their position should be regularised, the members of the staff should be given proper tenure of appointments, and they should not be in the position that their appointments can be terminated on three months' notice. No man works well under the influence of fear. For that reason I hope that the Postmaster-General will impress on the Corporation the necessity of staff associations and of putting the staff on a basis of greater security.

The other two questions I desire to raise will arouse more interest than those with which I have dealt. There is the question of the relay exchanges, which used to be called wireless exchanges. This is a new name for the system by which in a town or an area a company or a firm provide by wire wireless programmes to subscribers through a good powerful receiving set. The system is of great convenience to many people. They pay about 1s. 6d. a week and all they need is a loud speaker which they can hire for another 6d. a week. It saves them the expense and trouble of buying and maintaining a receiving set of their own, which is not likely to be as good as the powerful central set of the relaying station. There are about 200,000 of these subscribers already, and nearly 350 relay exchanges. I have recently found more interest taken in them than in anything else connected with broadcasting. I have received more communications, more telegrams and more protests from the most surprising sources than on any other aspect of the subject, and I have on inquiry found that there is more than £1,000,000 invested in them. These relay exchanges have been given licences by the Post Office without charge. They are for short periods and terminate on the 31st December next. They were taken with full knowledge of these terms and when they terminate the Post Office have the right to take over the plant and equipment on tramway terms.

The Ullswater Committee proposes, with one reservation only, that these relay exchanges should now be transferred and taken over by the Post Office working on behalf of the Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office controlling the technical side and the Corporation the programme side. Even Lord Selsdon, who makes the reservation, does not do so because he does not wish the Post Office to take them over; he merely says that he does not believe the system of audio-frequency on which they are at present working has any future, but that the system of high frequency has a future. He only wants the Post Office to have the relay exchanges for two years in order that they can make a series of experiments, lest they should take over a lot of equipment that was useless and obsolete. This is obviously a question for the House to give its views upon. I suggest that if we look at the question from both the technical point of view and the point of view of the public service, the case for taking over these relay exchanges is really overwhelming.

On the technical side, each subscriber has to have two wires wandering about the air, and if he wants two programmes lie has to have four wires to his house. If we are to rationalise the process and carry it on economically, it would be far more economical for the system of wiring to be controlled by the Post Office, which has a whole department for dealing with wires and with the enormous mass of telegraph and telephone wires with which it is already concerned. Apart from that there are powerful technical reasons if we consider future developments. Most people think that Lord Selsdon is right and that the future development will be high frequency transmission. I am now talking of the telephone subscribers who are using the relay stations. By this system of transmission you can over a single telephone wire send a number of programmes. You can send two programmes and a television programme as well, and, at the same time, interfere in no way with telephone messages. If that be the development of the future, it is obvious that the whole thing must be in the hands of the administration which controls the telephone system.

The arguments from the point of view of public service are more powerful than the technical arguments. There is a lot of money in this business, and it is better that the money should come to the State rather than to private individuals. A great many of the companies who run these relay exchanges are doing very well because they are skimming off the cream of the business. They have established themselves in fairly crowded areas where short lengths of wire will serve a great many people at not much expenditure, and, as a consequence, the companies are making good profits. That, however, is not the point of view of a public service. We are back here in the same position as we had in the days before the penny post, or the old days of the National Telephone Company. The whole policy of the Post Office is to give a good service on equal terms to as large a number of the population as possible.

Take the case of relay exchanges. Some areas in the country are rather hilly and the ordinary wireless subscriber cannot get good reception, but if he were joined up with a relay exchange he could be given good reception. It may not be an area where there is a profit to be made, for it may be, sparsely populated, and under the present system it will not get a relay station because it has no commercial value. Therefore, it is clear on public grounds that this system should be brought into the general broadcasting system. It is not really a question of private enterprise versus Socialism, for broadcasting is already a public concern. The question we have now to consider is whether, having set up a public concern, we are going to inject into it firms working on the basis of ordinary commercial enterprise and not working in with the policy of the public concern. For that reason it is inevitable that we should take over these stations if we are to give the whole population an equal service on more or less equal terms.

I should like to conclude what I have to say by referring to one other fairly controversial subject, which, I think, is rather a matter of Post Office administration, to which the report refers. It concerns the advertising programmes which come to this country from Luxemburg and a number of French stations. The Post Office has endeavoured to deal with those programmes, has discouraged them, and I think the House, when it hears the circumstances in which they are being broadcast, will see that the Post Office can scarcely take any other view. I am not going to discuss the question of taste in programmes; other Members will do that. But take the Luxemburg programme. Why is any Luxemburg programme possible? Because Luxemburg has stolen a wave length. It is a pirate. [Interruption.] My own view is, however the British Broadcasting Corporation did the work, that if programmes are sent out for purely commercial purposes you will get a certain number of the public who will listen to them. But the position with regard to Luxemburg is that they have stolen a wave length. They were given by the International Convention a wave length of 230 metres, such as was suitable to a small area. Warsaw had at that time a wave length given to it which it did not take up, and Luxemburg seized it, and refuses to give it up because of the profit it is making out of it.

For British financial concerns to use this system and then to plead that they are performing a great public service and ought to be allowed to continue to use this system, is not permissible, because if everybody did what Luxemburg is doing they could not use that system or any other. All broadcasting, national and international, would become impossible, and in these circumstances it seems to me clear that the Post Office have the duty, and even the right, to endeavour to bring to an end a system which does depend upon a flagrant breach of an international convention. Those are the points which I should like the Government to bear in mind.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) dealt with wireless exchanges, or relay exchanges, as they are sometimes called, and I am intervening in this Debate because of my close association with this section of the industry for many years. I have seen it grow from an industry in which a few thousand families were connected to wireless exchanges until now the number has become 250,000, and in place of the few thousand pounds originally invested in the industry, there is now £1,500,000 invested. In my intervention I shall endeavour to state what I believe to be best in the national interest, and to subordinate whatever personal or private views I may have. The hon. Member referred to audio-frequency and said that it had no future. A colleague of mine who has just returned from America tells me that over a number of years they have been experimenting with high frequency and have spent something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 dollars upon those experiments, but have now given them up and have returned to the low-frequency, the audio-frequency method, which is being so successfully operated in this country. Experiments have also been conducted in this country and elsewhere into high-frequency methods, and in this age of scientific development no one can say what the future may hold in store, but for the next few years, at any rate, it is extremely doubtful whether a better method than the existing one will be found.

The hon. Member also said that it would be an advantage from the technical point of view if the Post Office operated this service, because four wires were necessary for one subscriber, if he wanted two programmes, and two wires for one programme. That is not the case. Those four wires can feed 500 subscribers. It is not like the telephone, where one wire is used for each subscriber. These four wires run round and may feed as many as 400 or 500 or 600 families, their houses being tapped off. A short tributary wire runs into the house from the main feeders, and the occupant of the house has his switch with which to select his programme and also his loud speaker, as the hon. Member correctly stated.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

It would be interesting to have some more technical information. The hon. Member says the houses can be tapped off, but are there not four leads-in?

Mr. WAKEFIELD

There are four separate wires running from house to house throughout the town. A switch box is placed under the eaves of a house, and an internal lead is led down from that switch box to the inside of the house. The main feeder wires carry on. The system is very similar to that employed in the distribution of water, gas and electricity, where there is a common pipe or wire to feed a large number of consumers. It is different from the telephone system, where there is one wire required for each person. The hon. Member suggested that if the Post Office undertook this work all these wires would be done away with, that there would be no mass of wires such as he suggests exists now, but that is not so. If we were to adopt the telephone system we should have to have a single wire for each subscriber, and in each subscriber's house there would have to be a wireless set. The thing could not be done merely with a switch and a loud speaker. There would be a multiplicity of wires if it were done on the telephone system, in place of the very few wires now required. The present system has been accepted by the local authorities in many towns throughout the country. It is in existence in many seaside places, where the amenities have to be studied for the sake of the visitors, and the wires are found to be quite unobtrusive.

Another point is that only about 5 per cent. of the subscribers to relay services are on the telephone, and if the Post Office confined its energies to connecting up only telephone subscribers the relay service would not be available to the very many people, including working people in industrial areas, who prefer this method of wireless reception. The hon. Member went on to submit that as a public service this should not be in the hands of private enterprise, and that the present operators of it skimmed the cream of the business and left out bad areas. I think I can say that in every area where there are a few thousand houses and where it has been possible to obtain permission a relay service has been established. No relay service can be established in this country without first securing permission from the local authority for the wires to cross the streets; and except in the case of scattered villages and small hamlets this wireless relay service has been established wherever permission has been given. If the Government carried these wires to isolated farm houses and hamlets all over the country the taxpayer would have to find some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 every year, because it would not be an economic proposition. Even if it is desired to have the telephone service in a country area large payments have to be made if there is no telephone line in existence there already, or a number of subscribers must be guaranteed before the Post Office will undertake to provide the service. These are considerations to be borne in mind.

Now I should like to deal with some of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee. Anxiety has been expressed lest relay systems should be used to disseminate advertisements or betting news from stations abroad. Under the licence issued by His Majesty's Postmaster-General to which reference has already been made, the Postmaster-General has complete control over what is relayed by these wireless exchanges. He can forbid any items, and in the licence it is expressly forbidden to any relay exchange to relay anything in English from a foreign station which savours of political or religious propaganda. As to betting news it will be recalled that about a year ago this House decided that sweepstake news should not be published in the newspapers and the Postmaster-General informed the relay exchanges that they were not permitted to relay this news and they do not do it. Information about football pools is published in the newspapers and the wireless exchanges merely do what the newspapers do. But the Postmaster-General has complete powers to prohibit anything if he thinks fit to do so.

Then it is stated in the report that the wireless exchanges are in a position materially to damage the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of their material from foreign sources, selecting some parts of the Corporation's programme and omitting others. That is perfectly true, but I think that criticism could be quite easily met if in future licences—should it be decided that wireless exchanges are to be allowed to continue to work under private enterprise —it were provided that the exchanges must confine at least one programme to the national programme, and that the British Broadcasting Corporation, as is its usual practice, should continue to send out controversial matter upon that national programme. If that were so there would then be no unbalancing of the programmes, because as the alternative programme the relay exchanges could give either the regional programme or a selection of other programmes as they pleased. The wireless exchanges serve small and specialised areas and if the British Broadcasting Corporation include a talk on pigs in one of their programmes it is clear that that can have little or no interest to tenement dwellers in the middle of London. A programme from abroad of greater entertainment value to subscribers of a relay exchange would accordingly be substituted.

What is the criticism of wireless exchanges? It is merely that they give what the public require. At the engineering office of a wireless exchange there are load meters which tell exactly which programme is popular and which is unpopular. At those exchanges, one can see when people switch from one programme to an alternative programme. Therefore there are indisputable facts to show which programmes are popular and which are unpopular. I suggest that it is possibly not desired that the public should have an avenue through the wireless exchanges of involuntarily expressing their opinion, for if, as is suggested in the recommendations of the report, those programmes were put into the hands of the British Broadcasting Corporation, there would not be the same openness about what is popular and what is not, among the listening public.

I have had, as I know other Members have had, many letters on this subject, and I propose to read a typical one: It is with regret that I hear that the Government is considering taking over all relays and running them on the Post Office system. Why should we have programmes which the British Broadcasting Corporation pick for us? At present we have to rely on foreign stations to make wireless worth having. We pay 10s. licence, the same as people with private sets, and they can have their own choice of station. We have been satisfied with relay as it is now for several years. If this recommendation of the report is adopted, it means class legislation and differentiation. It means that the wireless exchange, which is a collective receiving set, will not be permitted to give to its subscribers that which the individual person, with his own receiving set, is able to get. I suggest that before entering upon a dictatorship of the air we should be very careful. That is the sort of thing that is happening in certain foreign countries. In Japan, for example, individual wireless sets and relay systems must only give the national stations and programmes. In Germany the relay systems are under national and municipal control. In the Broadcasting Committee's Report this reference is made on page 42 to the standardised set: We are informed that in Germany, by co-operation between the broadcasting authority and the wireless trade, a standardised receiver has been designed and is sold at a low fixed price, and that this procedure has enabled a larger proportion of the population to become listeners. I am informed by the Radio Manufacturers' Association, the representative body of this industry, that that is not quite the case. The Radio Manufacturers' Association questioned the source from which the committee received their information, and learned that the Volksempfanger was not produced by cooperation between the broadcasting authority and the trade, but was constructed by the manufacturers on direct instructions from the German Ministry of Propaganda, the set being deliberately designed to receive only transmissions from the German National Station and the local transmitter. I suggest that we do not want that sort of thing in this country. We have freedom and liberty here. As long as wireless exchanges perform their function and are reasonably controlled—they are under absolute control now by the existing licence—I suggest that they be permitted to continue to carry out the functions which they are performing with considerable satisfaction.

In order that there may be no excuse and no leakage, I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that a relay board should be instituted which would be in a position to license and supervise the operation and extension of wireless exchanges and to see that no irregularities took place. The board would relieve the Post Office, and would be similar in some ways to the Betting Control Board, although smaller, and it might serve a very useful purpose. A further constructive proposal is that all wireless exchanges should have at least two circuits, two programmes, so as to be able to give an alternative programme. There should be the national programme, upon which controversial matter could be listened to, and another line which could be used with reasonable discretion, according to the wishes of subscribers in the different localities of the country. In order that the standard of efficiency might be of the very best, the Post Office Engineering Department could lay down high standards, so that the very best service could be given to the public.

Reference has been made by an hon. Member to the fact that there are 350 or so wireless exchanges throughout the country. If it is desired to improve the service, the board which I have suggested could he empowered to license and group a number of exchanges in various districts. In that way it would be possible to create several large companies to provide a first-class and satisfactory service in all districts and under proper supervision. I am making these proposals for consideration, because I believe that along those lines some of the wishes expressed by hon. Members might be met while leaving the industry in the hands of private enterprise. The proposed board could recommend to the local authorities operators suitable for operating in the particular localities, thereby obviating many of the difficulties, which now face wireless exchanges.

From a national point of view, every encouragement should be given to this new industry. The view has been expressed on many occasions in this House that the best way in which any industry can be developed is through the medium of private enterprise. If it is felt that there is a national need for these changes, the best way they could be made rapidly and quickly would be to assist private enterprise to do it. If there were a board, as I suggest, to license and supervise a number of reasonably large companies throughout the country, the Post Office could take the system over more easily if at any time it were desirable to do so, than if there were many small companies operating. The position for taking over now is not satisfactory for the Post Office. It is not the same as the position of the Telephone Service, because it has been operating for only a few years. When the Telephone Service was taken over, it had been operating for some 25 years.

I saw in the report that one of the reasons for recommending that the Post Office should take over was based on analogy between the wireless relay service and the postal and telephone services, but surely that is a false analogy. The relay service is part of the wireless trade, although only a very small part at present. When the telephones were taken over, there was only one way in which you could send a letter, telegraph or use the telephone, because they were all in the hands of the State. The relay service is an alternative service, but if the suggestion of nationalising it is carried to the logical conclusion, the whole of the wireless industry must be nationalised. The Government must sell, and service and supply wireless sets. Otherwise they would he in competition with private enterprise. The Government would be operating a relay service similar to the alternative services of private enterprise. That is a position which has never arisen before and which would be very unsatisfactory for everybody concerned. I hope those points may be considered at the proper time.

I have deviated for a moment. I was speaking of the national importance of wireless stations. It may not be generally realised that in time of national emergency, or of war, the big transmitting stations could very easily be put out of action, when the country would be left in a difficult position. People would be without news. They might be in shelters below ground during an air raid, and at that time it would be important that their morale should be maintained. With a wired network through the towns and urban areas, it would be possible and easy to put over an entertainment service and to give news to people in their shelters and homes, and to keep them happy and their morale upon a high level. For that reason, every encouragement to expand should be given to this new industry.

With that object in view, I ask that a long tenure, at least 10 years, to coincide with the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation, be given to wireless exchanges, so that they can plan ahead and develop with the best material, and build on a sound basis. If this be done, it will be found that the exchanges fulfil a national need. They will be there in case of national emergency, and at all times there will be that control which, I agree, is essential to prevent abuses or interference with the national interest. Having made those remarks, I hope the House will appreciate that I have endeavoured to speak from my personal experience of the operation of this industry and have tried to put forward views in the national interest while keeping my own personal interests away from the matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. HULBERT

While I have been a Member of this House I have seen the unvarying courtesy with which new Members are treated. I am sure that the same courtesy will be extended to me this afternoon. I wish to speak upon the question of relay stations. I have no interest whatever in the industry, and I have never had the good fortune even to try one of the alternative programmes which they supply. The notes which I have in my hand have been supplied to me by constituents of my own who have for the past two years made all possible use of this service, and also by the Chamber of Commerce in my division. An hon. Member opposite has suggested that the position of relay exchanges is analogous to that of telephones and broadcasting, but I think that that is an error, because, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), relay reception forms only one small part of the means of radio reception in this country.

Dealing with the general question, I think that most listeners will agree on the whole that the British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes are not too bad. They are not perfect; if they were perfect, the foreign broadcasting stations that we hear at times when the British Broadcasting Corporation is inactive would not exist. But these relay exchanges surely serve a section of the community who cannot afford to buy the expensive wireless sets which would be necessary to enable them to enjoy the same type of programme as is given by the relay service. It would seem that to nationalise these services, and have them taken over by the State at a possible loss, would be the first step to nationalising the whole manufacture of wireless sets. We do not want the manufacture of any instrument of entertainment to be in the hands of the Government.

There is a very important point that would arise if the Government took over these services, and that is the collection of the weekly rental of 1s. 6d. One hesitates to think that a Government Department would be disposed to employ these weekly collectors, while, if the rental were to be paid on a quarterly or annual basis, it would impose a real hardship on a great many listeners. There is also an important point with regard to the 10s. licence which every person who has one of these sets has to have, in the same way as the owner of a normal wireless receiving set. I am given to understand that the relay companies are not allowed to connect one of their loud speakers into a house until they have given an undertaking to the Post Office that the person concerned holds a wireless licence, and in that way the Post Office have a guarantee that there shall be no default in taking out a licence by anyone who uses one of these relay services.

I have had the opportunity of reading the terms of the licence which the Postmaster-General grants to the companies who operate these exchanges, and it would seem that under that licence, even as it is to-day, the Government have the most complete control, not only over the programmes which are transmitted, but also over the engineering side of the business, so that there is no opportunity for the relay companies to lay any of their wires in such a way as to interfere with the Post Office telephone or telegraph services. As regards the engineering side, we are told to-day that the closest co-operation exists between the Post Office engineers and the relay companies. I am sure that all Members on this side of the House are very keen to ensure that this new industry which has been pioneered in England during the last few years should not, prematurely at any rate, be absorbed by a Government Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon has explained some of the developments which have taken place, and has made the suggestion that some form of control board might be set up which would provide even further and greater safeguards than exist to-day.

I hope that the Postmaster-General, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell the House that, means which will satisfy his Department will be put into operation for the continued use of these relay services by means of private enterprise, and that they will not be handed over to the Post Office, certainly until their development is much more complete. There is one question that I would like to ask my right hon. Friend. It arises out of a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who said that to-day the British Broadcasting Corporation are in the position of being forced to broadcast any message or statement sent to them by a Government Department. Is it a fact that, in the event, say, of the Minister of Education wishing to have a series of broadcasts on any particular Bill, or of the Minister of Agriculture wishing to extol the virtues of marketing schemes, they could insist at any time upon broadcasting a particular message?

6.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

It is my privilege to offer to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hulbert) the congratulations of the House upon his performance this afternoon. I am sure that all those who have had the privilege of listening to him will hope that that privilege may shortly be renewed in our further debates in the course of this Session.

I do not propose to enter into a discussion on the matters with which the last two speakers have dealt, because I want to, raise some further points on the, report. I want to comment on that portion of the report which deals with staff matters, because I think there is no doubt in the minds of most people that at the present time the position as regards the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation is highly unsatisfactory. It is to be observed, looking at page 54 of the report, that for some reason or other the Committee were without the assistance, by way of evidence of anybody from the British Broadcasting Corporation other than what one might call the "bosses" of the Corporation—the five Governors, the Director-General, two Controllers, three Regional Directors and one Director of Music. No ordinary members of staff were there to give evidence as regards staff conditions, so that presumably all the material on this subject that one finds in the report is based on the opinions that were put before the committee by these chief officers of the Corporation. In the absence of a staff association, it was perhaps difficult, if not impossible, to pick out any individuals, for fear of what might happen to them afterwards if they gave evidence which was not in accordance with the ideas of the Director-General. In spite, however, of this one-sided view which must have been presented to the committee, a number of criticisms and recommendations appear in the report, and I would draw the attention of the House to one or two of them. In the first place, in paragraph 30 attention is drawn to the extreme importance of its subject-matter. It says: The staffing arrangements of a public corporation require careful consideration. Besides being justly administered and leading to efficiency of service, they should afford evident grounds for public confidence in the system itself. It is quite true to say that it is a matter of vital importance that in a corporation of this sort, in which Parliament has some measure of responsibility and control, we should see that the staff arrangements are satisfactory from every point of view. Then, in paragraphs 34 and 35, the committee draw attention to the highly unsatisfactory method of recruitment which obtains at the present time, and they make a recommendation, which seems to me to be very sound, as to how that should be remedied. I trust that the Postmaster-General will see to it that the remedy is brought about. In paragraphs 37 and 38 the committee deal with the question of staff representation, and point out the alternative methods by which that may be gained; and in paragraph 39 they deal with a matter of fundamental importance—the control by the Corporation over the private lives of the individuals who constitute the staff. The committee say: It seemed at the same time desirable that the staff concerned with programme work"— nothing else— should follow the general tradition of the Civil Service in refraining from any prominent public part in matters of controversy; but apart from this we consider that the staff should be free from any control by the Corporation over their private lives. If one looks at the reservation of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, one sees the importance of staff representation as regards this feature of the life of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation. He says: I do not regard the present attitude of the Corporation towards staff representation as at all satisfactory. While it is stated that no inquiry is made as to whether or not an employee belongs to a trade union, it is my clear impression that trade unionism is not encouraged, and that the general tendency is in the direction of autocracy and paternalism. I think that that last sentence gives the key to the whole of the present difficulties which arise with the staff of the Corporation. There is now an unlimited dictatorial autocracy by the Director-General, and it is leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In order to emphasise its seriousness, I must go in a little detail into the exact conditions of employment in the Corporation. Starting with recruitment, the unsatisfactoriness of the method that has been adopted is recognised in the Committee's report. There has been a completely arbitrary selection of persons, whether to go in at the top or at the bottom of the list of staff. Sometimes most unsuitable people have been chosen in this manner, and that has led to a constant necessity for reconstructing and reorganising departments in the Corporation in order to shift those people who have proved themselves, after choice by the Director- General, to be unsuitable. Indeed, in some cases quite heavy sums of compensation have been paid to individuals who have been forced to resign because of their incompetence—compensation paid in order that no trouble or publicity might result. Clearly, if you start recruiting your staff in that way, it is bound to give a general atmosphere of unsettlement to the whole organisation.

When we come to the terms upon which the staff are employed, the staff agreement, which is euphemistically referred to as a contract for mutual protection, provides that those under £500 a year are subect to one month's notice, and those over £500 to three months' notice. There is, therefore, a complete absence of security. At any moment the agreement may be terminated without reason stated, that is to say, at the whim of whoever is in charge of the staff administration. In that agreement the employé has to agree to conform not only, as is usual, to the reasonable orders and directions but also to the restrictions that are put upon him either by the Board or by the Director-General. Under paragraph 12 of the Staff Regulations there is this restriction: The only political activities permitted are those which may be defined as the minimum public duty of a private citizen. That, presumably, is to cast his vote in the ballot box. It proceeds: Any activity which may cause controversy or undue publicity is forbidden. Not political activity, but any activity. I presume it would, therefore, be forbidden to any member of the staff to win a big race, because that might cause publicity. There are also limitations as regards the literary and musical productions of members of the staff. These are most stringent and unnecessary restrictions upon the liberty of the subject, far more stringent than those that apply in the Civil Service, and there is no corresponding advantage, and there may be said to be in the Civil Service, of security of tenure, certainty of promotion and those other factors which make the Civil Service so stable and secure a form of employment. This atmosphere of very rigid restriction naturally gives the fullest advantage to the play of dictatorship within the Corporation, and allows the very maximum of interference with the private lives of the staff.

When one comes to the question of salaries and wages, there are no salaries attached to posts. They are provided by the Niggling of the market between the Corporation and the individuals who are employed. Paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations states that all salaries and wages are confidential and should not be the subject of unofficial discussion. In other words, hide each man's salary from his friend in order to raise the maximum of suspicion between the various members of the staff and to create that atmosphere of secrecy which is so very potent an assistance to the dictatorship above. Thus the salaries and wages are kept an individual matter between employer and employé and, besides leading to the natural friction and discontent to which such a system of unpublished salaries must lead, it also, of course, deprives the employé of any bargaining power which might arise from a mass representation of himself and colleagues.

Under the staff pensions scheme there is administration by five trustees. Two represent the Corporation, two the staff and the fifth is the Director-General, who therefore always holds the casting vote. That is a matter of some importance, because there are various provisions by which a refund out of the staff pensions scheme to the employé depends upon the manner in which they leave their employment or are discharged from it, and therefore it is a convenient way of exercising pressure to get rid of people in a manner most convenient to the dictatorship. The only form of association of the staff is the Corporation club, which has to cater for their sports and their social enjoyment. Members of the staff are pressed to join the club, and until recently the Director-General was the permanent president. He appointed the chairman and the secretary, the latter on the recommendation of the council. Now the board nominates the chairman instead. This carried the dictatorial supervision of the Director-General out of the office into the sports field and into places of social entertainment.

Over and above all this comes the supervision over the private lives of the staff. For instance, any person who is the so-called guilty party in divorce proceedings is at once dismissed, even if there has been no publicity in connection with the divorce. Whatever anyone's indi- vidual views may be as regards the desirability or undesirability of divorce, I am certain that Members will agree that that is not a matter with which the employer is concerned provided he gets efficient service from the employé. Indeed, it goes a good deal further than divorce because nothing unorthodox is tolerated at all. Even if it does not lead to compulsory resignation, it forms the subject of a black mark against the employé. All signs of independence or of criticism of the Corporation, which by some curious coincidence almost immediately reach the dictatorial ears, are at once dealt with in one way or another. It is plain that the only protection would be some efficient representation of the staff in a staff association, but upon that the dictatorial face has always frowned, and is still frowning quite heavily. The necessity is pointed out in the Ullswater report, and especially in the reservations of the Leader of the Opposition to which I have referred. After that report was issued, action was taken by the Corporation to test, as it was said, the desires of the staff, and the Director-General announced at the Corporation Club—rather a strange place, I should think, at which to announce it—the results obtained from that so-called ballot. They were 9 per cent. for, 11 per cent. for further consideration, and 80 per cent. against, which sounds as if the staff was very much opposed to any staff association.

When one comes to examine the method by which their wishes were ascertained, or, as I would rather put it, by which a negative result was assured, one finds, first of all, that the staff was consulted in sections, on the principle of "divide and conquer," each section in the way the head of the section thought best. For instance, the general office staff, which consists of typists and others, was assembled by the lady superintendent and told that, if they chose, they could vote for an association but, if it came into existence, they would probably lose certain privileges which the Corporation had formerly accorded to them. There was no explanation of what a staff association meant, no explanation of its purpose or what it could achieve, and probably it is not to be wondered at that there was a large majority in that department against it. Similarly the Controller made it quite clear to the administrative staff, over which he presides, that he was very strongly opposed to any staff association, so that there is no real indication of what the choice would have been had they had put before them concrete proposals and some explanation of the advantages that might be derived from an association.

There is no recognised method of promotion in the Corporation at all. It is done at the selection of the Director-General. Many who have been once promoted are recommitted to what are known as the backwaters when they have shown themselves unable to cope with the jobs to which they have been promoted, but they retain the high salaries attached to those jobs and, in order to get rid of them, it is constantly necessary to reorganise the departments, and those who are not wanted for one reason or another are eventually squeezed into resignation. All these factors show what an extremely good groundwork there is for complete dictatorship by an individual over the lives of the staff, and it is not to be wondered at that highly unsatisfactory results are obtained in the general content, or rather discontent, of the staff. Good relations among the staff, if over-emphasised, are considered to be unhealthy, the reason, of course, being that they tend to create some resistance among the rank-and-file against the orders of the dictatorship.

This is a matter in which Parliament is rightly and intimately concerned. It is essential that some immediate steps should be taken to try to put this situation right, and I suggest that these steps at least ought to be taken forthwith First of all, there should be proper staff representation, organised either through a trade union or through some staff association. Secondly, the method of recruitment laid down in the Ullswater Committee's report should be at once adopted. Thirdly, there should be proper gradations of salaries attached to offices, and proper regulations as regards the promotion of individuals within the organisation. Fourthly, there should be far greater security of tenure of office in order that people may not be in constant danger of losing their office and be overcome by the constant fear of that danger. Lastly, there should be a complete cessation of interference with the private lives of the staff. These protections are much more vital in this case than in the case of the Civil Service. In the case of the Civil Service there is a responsible Minister in this House to whom questions on matters of individuals being mishandled or mistreated can always be put, but as regards the Corporation there is no protection of that kind and, therefore, they are in the position of having no method of airing their grievances, be they real or imaginary, with the result that the grievances circulate round and round and round in the organisation itself, having no means of escape.

If necessary, the right hon. Gentleman should organise some method of ascertaining the wishes of the directors and the staff. Probably that would be unnecessary if a proper staff association were organised, for those wishes would very soon come to the surface. If it be that the dictatorial character of the Director-General is standing in the way of this, then the Director-General must be changed in the interests of the staff. I want to give one instance of the length to which this autocratic control over private lives is being carried at the present moment. I am going to give the case of Mr. R. S. Lambert, who has been the editor of the "Listener" since October, 1928. Quite recently he thought it necessary in a matter not concerning his work with the British Broadcasting Corporation to issue a writ for slander or libel against another individual. Before doing so he actually mentioned the matter to his superior officer. The superior officer approved of the course that was being taken. A few days later, actually before he had issued the writ, Mr. Lambert received a document from the same superior officer warning him that if he proceeded with his writ his position at the British Broadcasting Corporation would be in serious danger. I have no knowledge of the merits or not of the matters with which the writ is concerned, and it would obviously be quite improper to discuss them if I had the knowledge. I am not concerned with whether Mr. Lambert is wholly right or wholly wrongs but what on earth has this to do with the Corporation? What right have they got to use their economic power over Mr. Lambert to make him discontinue an action against Mr. X? Obviously none.

Quite clearly this is something that cannot be justified by anybody. It is the sort of behaviour which everybody would condemn in a private business, and when it comes into a public corporation such as this, it is not merely a matter for condemnation. It is a grave scandal, and something of which the House ought to take immediate notice. It is something with which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us to-night he is prepared to deal at once, and to see that this sort of conduct as regards the private lives of the individuals in the British Broadcasting Corporation ceases forthwith, because we have the responsibility —and I hope that the House will direct the right hon. Gentleman to carry out. that responsibility—to see that these people on the staff of the Corporation are protected from these most undesirable actions by the Director-General.

7.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I am quite certain that, according to your own desire, Mr. Speaker, you would like the Debate continued on a basis of cut-and-thrust, and theoretically I would like to say to my hon. Friend across the way how much I disagree with him. But that is not the case: I agree with every word he said. I have drunk his glass of Bristol milk with very great enjoyment. I think that he has done a public service in putting before this House and before the world a state of affairs which wants very quickly remedying. We are here to-day to discuss the whole question of broadcasting, and I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying right at the beginning of this Debate that we could ramble right over the report and recommendations of the Commission, and I know that he will not think that we are criticising him or the Government in any way.

In discussing these questions we sometimes get a wrong impression. The development of radio has been a very wonderful thing, but we must not associate the development of radio with the British Broadcasting Corporation. These are two separate things. In another walk of life many people associate the development of flying with the Air Ministry. The two things are really entirely divorced. Here we have a great scientific invention which has advanced in a most amazing way in every country, but here to-night we are discussing the way in which we deal with broadcasting in this country. We have the special privilege of having had the report of the Committee on Broadcasting, and the first question I want to ask the Postmaster-General—I know that he will not take it in an offensive spirit—is how was it that there was simultaneously given to the world the reply of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the committee on practically every point. After all, the committee was set up to investigate the British Broadcasting Corporation, its officers and its policy, and surely the public and the House of Commons were entitled to see and read the report as early as the British Broadcasting Corporation. Yet—and a very curious thing it was—when the actual report was issued, the reply of the Corporation was issued at the same time. I do not say that there is anything particularly vicious about it, but I hope that if we are to have any other reports on any other subject the same procedure will not be adopted, because it is mischievous.

It is said that there is such a thing as exclusion from the microphone if you criticise the British Broadcasting Corporation. In the early days I used to do a lot of broadcasting, and I was always told that my voice came over very well. I do not know whether my subject matter was liked: I was never quick enough to get home before it came through. But the moment I took up at a public dinner the position of criticising in a chaffing way the British Broadcasting Corporation, from that moment I have never been near a microphone, and I never shall. It does not matter very much, but it is an example of the sort of influence which is exerted. On the question of accounts, this is a public body and I think that we should have accounts as detailed as the expenditure on other national matters. We never have had full accounts of what the British Broadcasting Corporation get through their publications, although I must admit that they have been better this year than before. The British Broadcasting Corporation uses a piano of one make, and one make only. That must have been got by somebody paying for the advertisement. We have never seen where that comes in; is it in revenue or capital account?

We have had a very delightful speech from the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) on the question of relay stations, but I would like to get at the bottom of the discontent. I have a great admiration for Sir John Reith and the British Broadcasting Corporation, but where they have failed is on the Sunday programme; and you can get to the bottom of many of these troubles if you keep that point in mind. In the question of relay there are two points. One is whether it should be by private enterprise or done by the State. But the real objection of the listener is that according to the recommendations of the Committee he in future is bound to listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation and to nobody else. That is a very serious point. The sponsored programme will be spoken about by another hon. Member. But the sponsored programme occurs at times when there is no programme coming from the British Broadcasting Corporation at all. In the morning up to 11 o'clock it is quite true that you might have to listen to something interspersed with Bile Beans, but it is a programme, and not a bad programme. If the British Broadcasting Corporation were better nobody would have heard of a foreign programme, but many times on a Sunday night you have to look abroad for an entertainment which is not given by the Corporation. If you are going to give a relay system in one part of the country by the State, I cannot see how you can refuse it in another part of the country by the State. That seems to visualise a very big expenditure of public money which seems to be unjustifiable.

On the political side I do hope the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that he recognises that although we do not want to come and ask questions about programmes and that sort of detailed thing week after week, we do want a guarantee that once a year we can really have a full-dress discussion on broadcasting. Hitherto it has come on under a private Member's Motion; today it has come almost by accident, and by the courtesy of the Opposition. I should like him to give a promise that if there is to be a Minister more intimately connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation than in the past, we shall have at least one day to discuss this very important subject. We Members of Parliament who have to be critics of this great institution, if we are in our place what chance have we of ever hear- ing anything? We are allowed hundreds of newspapers in our smoking rooms, but we are not allowed a reception set anywhere. In the evenings the Committee rooms are empty. Surely it would not be too dreadful to allow some of us, instead perhaps of playing chess or reading newspapers, occasionally to go up and listen to the products of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

7.14 p.m.

Captain PLUGGE

I want to crave the indulgence of the House on this my maiden speech, and to express my appreciation of the obvious desire of the Government to give full expression of opinion both before the Ullswater Committee and before this House. The number of listeners has increased very rapidly during the past 10 years and of every consideration in broadcasting matters, the listener who pays for his licence should have the first. There are so many listeners to-day that one could say very rightly: one listener, one constituent, and therefore there could not be a better body to represent the views of those listeners than the hon. Gentlemen in this House, the representatives of the people.

I am very pleased to notice in the report that among the recommendations there is one which proposes to make better use of the money collected in licence fees. It is a pity to think that a new industry at the beginning of its existence should be taxed to the extent of more than 10s. in the £. It is only right that licence money, after the usual deductions for cost of collection has been made, should go entirely to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the maintenance and the bettering of the service for which it is intended. When, as in the case of the wireless listeners, one compels, under law, the user of a receiving set to pay this tax, hon. Members may have to consider whether it is not necessary at once to introduce legislation to forbid interference within the radio field. The tax on licences is compulsory and in most countries in Europe, where this is the case, legislation has been introduced to make it illegal to cause any kind of what is called high frequency interference, by lifts, ultra-violet rays, or any other machinery that will interfere with the happy enjoyment of the programmes for which those listeners are paying. I am glad to see that the report in its recom- mendations has not overlooked this fact. I submit, however. to the House and to hon. Members that the recommendations should be strengthened and that immediate action should be taken. In many instances, although the Post Office give great facility and assistance to listeners who have complained, they are not in the position of enforcing the suppression of many an interference to which I am referring.

In the report I note that the recommendations condemn the English transmission from oversea stations. Here I crave the indulgence of the House in being compelled to talk about a subject of which I have much knowledge. I am the person who initiated the first transmission from an oversea station on behalf of a British firm from the Eiffel Tower in 1925, and I should like very briefly to analyse with hon. Members what objections there can be to the utilisation of existing facilities to push British trade in foreign countries where those facilities are existing and are available to other nationals. To make it quite clear at the beginning, I would emphasise the fact that there is no question of any interference with the British Broadcasting Corporation's transmissions. The jurisdiction of the British Broadcasting Corporation is confined to the 12 English wave lengths allotted to this country. These 12 channels are the English channels, but there are in Europe some 200 channels. There are, therefore, 188 other channels in use, and the utilisation of those channels where it is possible to push and foster British trade and relieve unemployment in this country does not in any way interfere with the programmes transmitted on the 12 English wavelengths. The channels used are individual channels.

Reviewing these oversea transmissions in English, I should like to visualise and analyse with hon. Members the bodies which are concerned with or affected by these transmissions. I suggest that they first concern the listeners, and there are some 30,000,000 of them. Secondly, there are the British advertisers who use this medium to foster trade in Europe. Thirdly, there is the British Broadcasting Corporation who have the monopoly of the building and operating on English soil of broadcasting stations on the 12 English wavelengths, but not the monopoly of the use of the English language on the ether. And, lastly, there is the Press which gives such an excellent service to manufacturers to advertise British goods in this country. If we consider the views of the listeners we have a ready reply. We find that the company concerned with the English oversea transmissions established an interesting census last year. At random, they arranged for a body of men working under affidavit to call upon over 9,000 houses at random all over the country and to report what they found. To make the figures easy to hon. Gentlemen, I would say that 10,000 houses were visited and what did they find? They found that out of those 10,000 houses, 7,700 had radio sets and 2,300 had not radio sets; in other words they found that 77 per cent. were radio listeners, and 23 per cent. were not. Of the 77 per cent. that were radio listeners 61 per cent. expressed the opinion that they were listeners to English transmissions from overseas stations, and enjoyed them. In addition to this expressed view there exists an association which has received over a quarter of a million letters from listeners appreciating those transmissions. We have therefore the expression of the view of the listeners; they are delighted and object to anything being taken away from them.

I now come to the advertisers. The British advertisers who use this medium spend money in so doing, and we must, therefore, conclude that since they freely spent the money they are satisfied with the results they obtain. I will quote from a speech made by one of those advertisers during the course of a meeting of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. He said: If foreign Governments decided of their own accord to prohibit British advertising whilst allowing that of other countries, we (the British advertisers) should all protest in the most energetic manner and demand that the National Government take immediate steps to remove such an injustice. That our own Government should initiate such action against its awn nationals is as inexplicable to foreign Governments as it is to ourselves. I come to the third body, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Does the British Broadcasting Corporation oppose these transmissions? It has, as I have said, the full control of 12 wave lengths. It can broadcast on these channels the programmes which it desires and for the length of time it desires but on those 12 wave lengths only. Some of the channels otherwise used by foreign artists advertising foreign products are now used instead to advertise British goods all over Europe. These channels are tuned in by choice by a great number of listeners, and as a result these listeners pay their 10s. licence in the same way to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I, therefore, leave it to hon. Members to decide. They have to consider whether there is a reason to object. They might consider that it would be a reasonable thing for the British Broadcasting Corporation to say: "The listeners pay for our livelihood. We are the last body who would like to take something away from them which they are getting for nothing and which they enjoy. We want to give what we can and to see that they get as much as they can for their 10s."

The British Broadcasting Corporation gives two alternatives on their 12 channels and there are weekly over 100 hours provided from English transmissions from overseas stations. This service is to-day the third alternative given to the listener to which he looks forward on paying his 10s. licence. The English transmissions from oversea stations form actually an integral part of the British broadcasting service today. One can compare a broadcasting service to a dish which is sometimes served and is called "hors d'oeuvres varies". It is not so much the individual items which count but it is their number and variety. Although the quality of a particular broadcasting programme is dependent upon the quality of music or particular entertainment, the quality of a broadcasting service is expressed by the number of alternatives provided. To compare one or two towns in the world, London with its 10,000,000 inhabitants has two alternatives by the British Broadcasting Corporation and one from the English oversea transmissions, three alternatives. Paris with half the number of inhabitants has eight alternatives, Brussels four alternatives and New York has 22 alternatives, programmes at nearly every time of the day or night.

I now come to the honourable fourth body, the Press. The Press have given every possible help and assistance to this new industry of radio. From the very beginning they have published radio programmes both from the stations in England and from overseas stations. They have appointed radio editors, radio correspondents, set aside radio columns and done everything to help and assist this new industry. They probably also bear in mind—one listener, one reader. It is therefore only natural that they should assist the industry in every way. Yet I submit to the House that the Press could very reasonably object to this method of advertising British goods because they might say that it is taking away from their revenue. Yet Press circulation is inside England, whereas radio advertising covers some 20 European countries as well. It is not certain that the revenue which is expended upon radio advertising is taken away from the Press. It might be taken away from poster advertising or from Neon signs or from mail orders through the post. But let us assume for a moment that it is taken away entirely from Press appropriations. Looking into the money expended annually in this country upon advertising we find that approximately £60,000,000 are expended on Press advertinsing, yet only about £200,000 are spent on radio advertising. Therefore if it is entirely taken away from the appropriation of Press advertising, it is to the extent of one-third of 1 per cent.

It is only natural for the Press to say, "Yes, but the situation may change; radio advertising may expand.' In reply to this we have an example at our disposal that of a country, the United States, which has indulged in radio advertising for the last 13 years. We can, therefore, look at what has happened over there. In the United States of America we find that all the 200 broadcasting wave lengths distributed throughout Europe are available to the United States of America alone. We have only 12. Moreover, the geographical expanse of their country permits them to use those wave lengths in some cases as much as three times over because stations are so for apart. We, therefore, find the United States with some 600 broadcasting stations instead of the 12 we have in this country. Wave lengths are like colonies. We have secured 12 colonies and the United States have secured 200 colonies.

The ether world is a new world. We have to consider what other countries are doing and to reflect before we discriminate against the activities of our nationals using those facilities which are available to them and ethers in other countries. We now see what is happening and has happened in the United States. During these.13 years they have used all their stations for advertising purposes. They have now 600, and we find, in looking into the appropriations of radio advertising, that it is only 11 per cent. of the appropriation of the American Press. I submit that even if the whole of the 12 stations of the British Broadcasting Corporation were used entirely for advertising we could not reach in this country for radio advertising more than 2 or 3 per cent of the Press appropriation in this country. Therefore it is for hon. Members to decide whether or not they think that the present situation is unfair and that the Press should not be content, as they actually are, with their 99.6 per cent. of the appropriation.

I might answer a point which may occur to hon. Members, and that point is why cannot radio advertising expand to any greater extent? The answer is that a broadcasting station is like a newspaper with only one sheet. An ordinary newspaper may extend its size. It can jump from four pages to eight pages, from eight pages to 12, or from 12 to 32, should it receive more advertising. A broadcasting station cannot expand—it is like a newspaper on one sheet, which can only print on one side—half of the 24 hours people are asleep.

I have found myself personally in the unfortunate position of a British subject in a foreign country negotiating on behalf of British interests and finding that the nationals of other countries are very fully supported by their Ministers and Ambassadors and their Government, and can secure privileges and concessions, whereas the British subject finds that his own Government and his own diplomatic service, far from helping him secure the concession, use their endeavours to minimise the value of his efforts. I do not know what hon. Members may think of that position, yet such is the international position in broadcasting to-day. I submit that the Government and their repre- sentatives abroad should give every facility and every assistance to any British subject in his endeavour to utilise facilities available to advertisers in this manner in any part of the world.

Broadcasting covers every field of life. Indeed broadcasting is life itself. It comes under the jurisdiction of every Government Department, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Education and the Air Ministry, and therefore it is most proper, as suggested in the report, that there should be a Minister of Broadcasting responsible to this House at all times. I am glad that that subject has been dealt with in the report, and I would ask hon. Members that when they consider the report they may give their support to this important Measure so that we may ourselves be at all times responsible for the policy of so important a field, a field which concerns the lives and happiness of 30,000,000 of our constituents. I thank the House for their indulgence during this my maiden speech.

7.33 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

I congratulate the hon. Member on a very good presentation of his case. Although I cannot say that I agree with much of it, that does not interfere with the fact that it was very well delivered. He gave a most persuasive presentation of the case for the station abroad with which he is particularly identified, and which he has created. It is a very great thing to have created Radio-Luxemburg successfully, and it was interesting to be told all about it in the very admirable way that the hon. Member described it. I should like to say how very heartily I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) when he congratulated one of my hon. Friends on having raised the matter of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although I do go to Broadcasting House for a good many different purposes I have never heard anything about that matter inside the building. I have noticed that one person has succeeded another rather rapidly, but I have never asked anybody why the change has taken place, and I doubt whether I should have received any answer had I done so. What I am going to say arises purely out of my interest in the welfare of a great and powerful Corporation.

I cannot imagine why it is that the British Broadcasting Corporation should take a stricter line in regard to the control of their staff than the Civil Service takes. It is, of course, a matter of great importance for the country that there should be certain control of our Civil Service, and I could not take up the line that nothing that a civil servant does outside his office concerns the Civil Service. The Civil Service must draw the line somewhere. I was a civil servant for three years and I know that they drew the line below me. I cannot agree with the proposition that a big employing corporation has no interest in what its people do outside, but why it should be that the British Broadcasting Corporation are more strict and searching than the Civil Service, I cannot understand. I cannot see why there should not be set up in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation something like the organisation which has worked so well in the Civil Service—the Whitley Council. I am chairman of the small Whitley Council in the Forestry Commission, and I know that the Whitley Council is a very good safety valve for the Commissioners, the heads of Departments and the staff. It enables one to obtain extraordinarily useful knowledge of what other people on the staff think about various matters which they have a constitutional right to bring up. I have never known anything to happen on the Whitley Council which was not useful to everybody, and I cannot see why something of the sort should not be set up in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Neither do I see why they should not have something in the nature of a salaries list. Everybody inside must know what the salaries are. Surely it would be a good thing if the salaries could be set down, instead of being left to rumour and the handing on of information from one to another. We have been told about the heads of the athletic organisations which exist in connection with the Corporation being appointed from above. That gives one a sort of idea of the unnecessary spirit of autocracy which must prevail there. I know that when I was a civil servant we had our departmental athletic and other organisations. There were also various organisations representing the whole Civil Service. The idea that the heads of these organisations should be appointed from the heads of the Departments instead of being freely elected and, if necessary, deposed by the members of the associations, would have been considered perfectly appalling in the Civil Service. Surely, there ought to be complete freedom in matters of that kind. I hope that the heads of the British Broadcasting Corporation will not consider that we are going outside our proper functions in taking an interest in these matters.

I should like to say a few words about the difficult question of relays. Relay companies are very powerful. They have a great power of lobbying in this House. I say that in no offensive sense. They do, however, vote a very considerable sum of money for the purpose of influencing our votes. This is a very difficult and big problem for the Government to decide. They ought to decide one way or the other, and fairly soon, either that these services ought to be taken over, before they become too big, or else that we should give them the ten years charter which has been asked for. In the latter event we must be certain that during the intervening period so powerful a vested interest is not built up as to make it impossible for the State to take it over later. We have in mind the very large sum that had to be paid to the National Telephone Company when it was taken over. If that concern had been taken over earlier the sum paid would have been very much smaller. At the present time we have a comparatively small relay system and the advisability of dealing with it one way or the other is very material.

I cannot help thinking, although we had such an interesting statement from the hon. Member opposite about the advantages of private broadcasting, that there is a great deal to be said for our alternative system of a limited number of wave lengths instead of the 600 competing wave lengths in the United States. How on earth people can select the wave length that is wanted out of so many competing services, puzzles me. There is a great deal to be said for our system of broadcasting in this country as a quasi-public service. We have adopted that system and that fact ought to have very considerable influence with us. The broadcasting which provides through the relay system an alternative to the system of the British Broadcasting Corporation should be on the same platform, of the same nature and under the same type of public control as the British Broadcasting Corporation itself, closely, co-operating with our primary national service, the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The people who object to the present Sunday service of the British Broadcasting Corporation have a great deal to say for themselves. If the relay systems were taken over by some Government Department it is possible that they might continue something on the same lines but with a lighter alternative programme, perhaps occupying more time than is taken by the British Broadcasting Sunday services. I do not want to go into any controversial matter, but the main point I feel is that I object to giving private persons an interest through the relay system in commercial advertising. We have a public interest in the way which the British Broadcasting Corporation is run. The Government appoints the directors, and we know perfectly well that if anybody went to the offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation and offered a large sum of money to be given to the board so that he might put over a talk, he would be kicked out. We have no sort of security with regard to the services made use of by the relay stations. I know that the relay stations may not initiate anything, but obviously it is in the interests of commercial concerns to induce some or all of the relay companies to select those programmes coming from abroad which contain the advertisements which those particular companies want to have put over in this country.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

The right hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension, because in the licence issued by His Majesty's Postmaster-General it is expressly stated that the relay services are not permitted to receive any consideration, either direct or indirect, for putting over any advertisement from abroad.

Sir F. ACLAND

It is one thing to say that a private company is not permitted to receive anything, but it is a different thing to say that it does not receive anything. It would be impossible to detect if it did receive anything. The people in control of these companies might be capable of receiving money for so arranging their relays as to take in particular advertising services from abroad which would contain advertisements in which particular concerns were interested. I am not imputing any corruption, but that is the difference between the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is under direct public control, and a service run by private companies who, although they have to accept a definite charter or licence from the Post Office, are under no sort of control of the same type that we apply to the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is their rival.

Mr. DUNCAN

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a licence and the conditions, which are very stringent?

Sir F. ACLAND

Yes, but that is immaterial. My point is that although the terms of the licence are stringent there can be no such control over private companies to see that they comply with the terms of the licence, and nobody can detect the fact that they are not doing so, as would be the case in the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is my point. In paragraph 53 of the report it is proposed that there should be a responsible Cabinet Minister, to whom the House can look if there is any interference with programmes or with talks. That is a very important matter, and I hope it will be taken up by the Government at once. It may be right, sometimes it may be inevitable, that the Government should express its views on some programme or some talk, or about some speaker, but it is rather undesirable. What is most undesirable is that when there has been any interference by the Government we should not know where the interference comes from. One has heard of some Department having made representations, but that does not necessarily convey that any Minister has been consulted or is responsible. In future, if this recommendation is adopted, there will be somebody who will be able to be questioned in the House if any question arises of interference with programmes, and to that extent we shall be better off and know where we are.

My last point is that if in the long run the British Broadcasting Corporation is to have the smallest influence in stimulating interest, intelligence and appreciation, which we all desire, they must have regard not only to the quantity of their listeners but to their quality. The great majority of the people who come home tired in the evening do not want to use their brains or their musical taste and discrimination. They look for light music, and it is right that they should be provided for; but the real hold which the British Broadcasting Corporation ought to get in the affections and estimations of the people depends on their providing for the minority who are interested in books, and in discussions, and in some forms of music. There has lately been a, suggestion that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a little inclined in the best hours of the evening, that is from seven to nine o'clock, not to pay so much attention to the educational side as they used to do. In my opinion that is undesirable. You want to get people interested as listeners in the British Broadcasting Corporation because the Corporation can be relied upon to present a consideration of serious subjects in a serious way in a series of talks, which have a definite place in their programme. That is not referred to in the report, but I hope I shall be allowed to mention the matter.

7.50 p.m.

Major ASTOR

As a member of the 1923 Sykes Committee on Broadcasting, and also a member of the Ullswater Committee, I should like to say a few words on some of the points in our report which are not controversial, and give my reasons for supporting the recommendations that I did support. Our main task was to recommend any alterations or improvements which we thought would better enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to carry out their function of giving the best possible service, the greatest possible measure of enjoyment and interest and benefit, to the greatest number of people. The first consideration, of course, is the listener. There is a very wide variety of listeners, a variety in taste and outlook and feelings. If the British Broadcasting authority is to achieve any measure of success surely it is of the first importance that it should be sure of a regular revenue, an income, that its policy and management should be impartial and independent of any sectional or commercial interests. The experience of the past few years and the evidence put before us certainly showed conclusively that the present constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation is well suited to its purpose. We have referred respectfully in our report to the wisdom and foresight of our predecessors in the Crawford Committee, and it is fair to say that other countries regard our broadcasting system as a model.

We took the view that subject to all reasonable safeguards and subject to the ultimate control of Parliament, the broad- casting authorities should be given a fair measure of autonomy. Their first task is to keep in touch with the listeners through the medium of letters, advisory councils, and criticisms in the newspapers and in the House of Commons, and thus to maintain a fair balance and the highest possible standard in their programmes. Of course we examined carefully the criticisms which were brought before us. In some cases the criticisms came from both Hanks, and cancelled each other out. In others they were obviously made under a misapprehension. In other cases we were unable to get any evidence to substantiate or support the criticisms made. But, on the whole, and considering all the difficulties which confronted them I feel that the tribute expressed in our report, and which has been expressed elsewhere, to the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation is fully deserved. Like all human institutions they are not infallible but, at any rate, they show a readiness to accept suggestions and many which we have made have already been put into operation.

With only comparatively minor alterations we recommend a renewal of the present charter, except that in the matter of the licence fees we recommend that a greater proportion should go to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Owing to the rapidity with which their plant depreciates, the research work they have to carry out and the development of the Empire broadcasting services it was proved to us that their present income is not adequate to the maintenance of their programmes. It is only fair as a first charge, of course, that the Post Office should be repaid for expenses in connection with the collection of the licence fees and the detection and removal of interferences. In the case of a financial crisis which the country has been going through it is only fair that the British Broadcasting Corporation should pay their share towards the national recovery at the expense of having to curtail their own activities. In normal times I question whether the State has any moral right by an indirect form of taxation to any share in the licence fees, at any rate, until all reasonable needs of the British Broadcasting Corporation have been fully met. In the charter, the renewal of which we recommend, the constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation is based on a revenue derived from licence fees and on a monopoly, subject to various safeguards and the control of Parliament.

What are the alternatives to this systems? In some countries the Government controls broadcasting; it is entirely in their hands. In other countries it is based on sponsored programmes and advertisements. In this country we find a very general and strong feeling against the broadcasting of advertisements, and one finds a similar feeling in countries which are suffering from broadcast advertisements. To allow the principle of revenue derived from advertisements would, I submit, be bringing in a consideration which we a re most anxious to avoid. It has been urged that in the interest of trade the broadcast of advertisements should be allowed. I recognise, we all recognise, the great pulling power that the broadcast of advertisement does have, but the public before now have shown that they do not regard that as the only consideration. They insist on a certain limitation and have rejected forms of advertising which have offended the ordinary individual's eyes or ears. There is, of course, an agreement between countries now that no country should broadcast, in the language of another, matter which is not acceptable to that country and contrary to its wishes. We know that two foreign stations ignore this agreement in the case of advertisements. Anyone can buy time from these stations and use it within wide limits. For instance, is there any check on undesirable or misleading advertisements through these stations?

It is true that a man with a receiving set gets both the advertisements and the programmes which go with them, but no one can regard that as an argument for opening the door wider for relay exchanges. These exchanges have been increasing to a great extent recently. They enable people to listen-in cheaply and they also cut out Interference. The question now at issue is whether these relay exchanges should remain in private hands or be taken over by the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation respectively. I think this is an important matter. Perhaps on the technical side we can agree that the Post Office has the experience and the facilities to maintain existing lines, to lay new ones and to avoid duplication. I think that probably it is also true to say that the Post Office would be more likely than a private company to extend the system into a wider field in the country districts and beyond the localities of the dense population.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

Would the hon. and gallant Member explain how duplication would be avoided if the Post Office did it instead of the wireless relay exchanges?

Major ASTOR

The Post Office are already responsible for a whole network of wires and would, therefore, be in a better position to avoid the duplication which might easily take place if other authorities put up wires.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

Separate wires must be used in order to put the relay over, and therefore duplication occurs.

Major ASTOR

I do not wish to argue on a technical point. I merely suggest that the Post Office are in the nature of things best qualified to carry out the technical operations in connection with these exchanges. The point with which I wish to deal is whether the programmes should be controlled by the private companies or by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I have been forced to the conclusion that, having set up the British Broadcasting Corporation, with a system of checks, safeguards and control, it would be illogical and inconsistent to set up a rival authority which might have a different policy for broadcasting, an authority which might ignore and cut across the very principles and considerations upon which the present constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation is based.

May I now consider some of the arguments is that it would tend to strengthen the Corporation in the position of dictators; but I regard the checks and safeguards over them as adequate. Behind them is the force of public opinion and criticism in the Press and in this House. It is also said that it is unfair that the fortunate owner of a receiving set should be able to pick up foreign stations, whereas the man who relies on relay exchanges may not be able to get foreign stations. One of the criticisms against the British Broadcasting Corporation is that their programmes are too highbrow and that even their light music is above popular taste, particularly on Sundays. They are trying to brighten their programmes and there is no reason why they should not go further. I hope they will. They are urged in many quarters to give more and better light music. One of the difficulties, I understand, is that musical experts hold widely different views as to what is and what is not good light music. In our report we recommend that if these relay exchanges should be handed over to the British Broadcasting Corporation, it should be incumbent upon them to give full consideration to any demand on the part of the subscribers for selections from foreign stations. They do already give selections from foreign stations, and again there is no reason why they should not go further in this direction.

These appear to me to be minor difficulties and objections. If we were starting afresh with a clean slate now, I firmly believe that those who agreed with the principles upon which the present British Broadcasting Corporation is based would also agree that it is only logical that the Corporation should be responsible for the policy of the relay exchanges. I firmly believe that the arguments in favour of making them responsible for those programmes will become stronger, and I believe that the sooner the exchanges are handed over the better for everyone concerned.

There is only one other point on which I would like to say a word or two. Many hon. Members no doubt saw a letter in the Press from the Incorporated Society of Musicians. I am sure we all have full respect for their views, but they urged one view which I would like to contest. They said that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be debarred from competing with and embarrassing what they called non-subsidised orchestras by allowing their own British Broadcasting Corporation orchestra to play in public. From the nature of things the British Broadcasting Corporation have been able to get together an extremely fine orchestra, their first orchestra being one of the best in Europe, I understand. It is a national asset. They do provide well-paid and regular work for a large number of musicians. They are also continually broadcasting other orchestras and performers, but they say, I have no doubt with absolute truth, that it is most important that a good orchestra should sometimes play in public and that if it is always playing in padded rooms it loses something. It is important that it should come under the influence of a live audience. I believe, too, that the public like hearing them. Many people believe that the only place to hear a good concert is in the concert hall. I think that on the whole the evidence is that broadcasting has been a benefit to the musical profession, and that, thanks to broadcasting and gramophones, interest in music has been increased and the number of concert goers greatly increased. I am sure that if anyone wished to go to the opera or any good concert, he would be wise to apply for seats in good time. Far from embarrassing other orchestras, I believe that considerate competition of the British Broadcasting Corporation orchestra is all to the good and to the benefit of music, musicians and music lovers. I hope it will be continued.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. PARKER

I think that on all sides of the House there has been great disquiet at the dictatorial position of the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think that this particular problem raises a wider question—that of the relationship between the various public corporations which have been growing up in recent years and this House. I very much welcome the suggestion put forward in the report of the Ullswater Committee that there should be a special Minister who would act as a liaison officer between the Corporation and this House. There is, however, another matter which requires investigation, and it is the question of the personnel of the Board of Governors. I think there is fairly general dissatisfaction with the type of person appointed as governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation. At the present time the male members are extraordinarily old. The oldest, who was appointed only last year, is 71 and the youngest is 60. There are two lady members on the board, and unfortunately my ungallant attempts to discover their ages have not been successful, but I fear they would not reduce the average age to any great extent.

If broadcasting, which is definitely a creation. of the present century, is to be a live thing and if it is to represent the wishes of the people of the country, there should be as governors people who are young and who represent the younger generation, and not people having an average age of over 60 years. May I further point out that two of the chairmen of the Board of Governors actually died of old age during the past year? I think it is unfortunate that this practice of appointing very old people as governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation should continue. Moreover, most of the governors appear to be drawn from a particular section of the community, and are a particular type of person. They come especially from among retired second-rate politicians. I do not think that when these people retire from this House or cease to be active in the other place they should be placed on bodies of this sort. We need people who are still in full vigour and are interested in the general affairs of the country, and not people who are out of touch.

What is the result of this policy? It is that when there are governors who cannot pay adequate attention to the affairs of the Corporation, the officials of the Corporation get completely out of hand. That is what has happened, and that is why there is a Director-General who is in this peculiarly dictatorial position. Because there is no adequate link between the Corporation and this House, and because the Governors are too old to be able to give adequate attention to the affairs of the Corporation, the Director-General has been able to get into that peculiar position. If we are to prevent that sort of thing continuing or arising in future, it is necessary to see that a better type of person, younger and more vigorous, is appointed as governor, and that there is an adequate link between this House and the Corporation, in order that the general affairs of the Corporation may be under continuous supervision.

I would like now to refer to the question of staff organisation. I understand that there are nearly 2,500 persons employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. They represent an enormous variety of occupations. It is asserted by the Corporation that they represent so many different occupations that they could not possibly be organised into any proper staff association or trade union organisation. I do not agree with that view. I would like to describe the efforts that have been made by one or two trade unions to extend their membership within the Corporation, and to show what reception they have had. It so happens that when there is a broadcast from this country to the Empire, as on Christmas Day when the King makes a speech, the wiring is done by the Post Office, but that when there is a broadcast only within this country, the wiring is done by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The electricians who do the wiring for a broadcast outside this country are employed by the Post Office and belong to the Post Office electricians' union, but the electricians employed by the Corporation do not belong to a trade union. There is no actual rule of the Corporation that they should not, but it so happens that when anyone applies for a job they are asked whether they belong to a trade union or not, and it also so happens that no person who belongs to the trade union ever gets a job as an electrician under the Corporation.

Attempts have also been made in regard to people like packers, sorters, porters and so on engaged at the Corporation in sending out publications and similar work, to raise the question of organisation but the Corporation have frowned on any attempt to organise these workers or to create any machinery to represent them in negotiating with the Corporation on their conditions of employment. The Corporation take the line that any member of the staff can appeal to the Director-General, but it is absurd to imagine that any one of 2,500 employés can appeal to a person occupying such an important position as that of the Director-General of the Corporation. If there is to be proper protection of the rights of the people working for the Corporation, there must be some proper organisation to look after them and some negotiating machinery to deal with questions of conditions, wages and so forth.

What I suggest is, not that there should be one complete staff organisation including everybody—which I do not think would work well, having regard to the variety of occupations involved—but an organisation on the lines of a newspaper chapel. I suggest that the journalists in the newsroom could belong to the journalists' organisation, the electricians to the electricians organisation, the musicians to the musicians' organisation and so on, and that there should be a federal organisation covering all of them, and representing them all together in such a way as to reconcile their claims and negotiate directly with the Corporation on matters of common interest to all. That sort of organisation works well in the case of all the big newspapers and a similar organisation would, I believe, work very well inside the British Broadcasting Corporation. It would get over the difficulty caused by the small numbers of people following particular occupations in the Corporation and it would be better than a purely staff organisation which might not allow of sectional interests being properly represented.

In the Ullswater Committee's report it is suggested that, in regard to the more important posts, there should be a new system by which people who apply for posts should be interviewed and examined. I suggest that something more is required. There should be a definite system of recruitment for the whole of the clerical and administrative staffs even the minor posts; there should be proper channels by which the humblest clerk and typists could enter the service and there should be no avenue in regard to which questions of jobbery of any kind could arise.

Then there is the question of political activities. I agree that people who are responsible for programmes should not take part in political activities outside their office hours but I think that the Government in drawing up the new charter should lay down clearly what posts are to be non-political, in the sense that the holders are not to take any active part in politics. There should only be a limited number of posts to which that condition would apply. The people holding the major organisation A1 posts and those responsible for the drawing up of programmes might, I think, be restricted in that respect leaving everybody else completely free.

Mr. McGOVERN

Why should anybody be restricted?

Mr. PARKER

Obviously, there would be difficulty if a person who was a candidate in an election was responsible for the issuing of the news or anything of that kind and the general practice in a considerable number of organisations to-day is to apply certain restrictions of that kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN

But if a man is prohibited from being a candidate at an election that does not mean that he cannot take any part in politics. A man may be allowed to take an interest in politics and may yet be refused the right to act as a candidate. For instance, the miners have said that certain officials of their union shall not be candidates at elections but that does not bar them from taking any part in politics.

Mr. PARKER

I quite agree, and with regard to the greater number of positions that would certainly apply. But I think that, with regard to those actually responsible for running the programme, there would b a certain amount of difficulty. It would be difficult to allow people responsible for the organisation of programmes to play a very active part in politics. Generally speaking, I think the restriction should only apply where there is a clear case for such restriction. There should be no general application of it, as there is at present, denying the right of people to take part in politics. For example, one of the employees of the Corporation was a Liberal candidate in Chester and he received definite instructions that he must either give up his candidature or lose his job. His job was that of education officer organising talks and one might make out some sort of case for restriction in that instance if he were a candidate in the area where he was responsible for the organisation of these educational programmes. But I do not see that there is any justification for refusing such a man the right to be a candidate outside his own area.

It is very necessary that a clear line should be laid down with regard to this question of political activities and candidatures in reference not only to the British Broadcasting Corporation but other public corporations as well. A very serious position is arising in that respect in this country. We have larger and larger combines in private enterprise; great public corporations are growing up and we find an increasing tendency to restrict the right of the people employed by those bodies to take an active part in politics. That means that in these large combines only the directors can take any part in politics or stand as candidates for Parliament. If public corporations like this are also to ban their employés from taking part in politics, we shall reach a stage at which the people who can take a part in politics and in the government of the country, will be drawn from a narrow section of the population. It will mean, eventually, that only the representatives of particular interests will be able to enter this House, and that only people who actually represent trade unions or particular big businesses will have the opportunity of standing for Parliament. That would be very undesirable.

It is time that this House paid attention to this question in relation to various public corporations, and laid down very clear rules as to the posts in connection with which there should be a restriction of this kind and those whose holders should be free. We should require very definite justification before allowing any post to be subject to this kind of restriction. Two bodies may be held up as examples in this respect. The railway companies allow great freedom to their employés, even those occupying high positions, to take part in politics and the same is true of the London Passenger Transport Board. These examples might be copied widely in the country but this House ought to pay particular attention to seeing that in all these public corporations no more restrictions than are necessary should be applied in the matter of Parliamentary candidatures or other political activities. With regard to the question of relay exchanges, I do not see why the large profits made in town areas should not be used to extend the services to more remote areas. I do not feel that the question of large public expenditure arises at all, because the profits which would accrue to the British Broadcasting Corporation if it owned them could be set aside for the extension of the services. This could go on gradually until the need was fully met.

Then again there is serious disquiet about the question of adult education. Yesterday one of the most important advisory committees of the British Broadcasting Corporation reached a complete deadlock on the question. There has grown up through the Corporation a very useful adult education system, and it is estimated that over 40,000 people listen in regularly, in groups, to educational talks given over the wireless. I think it would be most unfor- tunate if such a system as that were destroyed, and there is evidence to show that the tendency at the present time is to alter the times of these talks, to prevent their being regular, and to break up the whole system. I think that is very disastrous and unfortunate, and I do not think the British Broadcasting Corporation ought to act in that way. The Universities and other bodies responsible for adult education are very disquieted about the tendency in that direction. It is worth pointing out, I think, that in this country the time actually given for talks of that kind is less than in any other country in Europe, except Italy, where the Government presumably do not want to educate the people.

With regard to the question of the censorship by Government Departments of programmes by the British Broadcasting Corporation, I understand that in certain cases it may be desirable that some sort of censorship should exist, especially perhaps on foreign affairs, where I think the Foreign Office may quite rightly intervene in talks on foreign policy if they think they might cause international complications. Last summer, however, it was proposed that there should be a series of talks in the autumn rather wider than usual, and that both Fascist and Communist speakers should be worked into a programme and allowed to give their views. Mr. Harry Pollitt and Sir Oswald Mosley were selected as the representatives of their points of view, and there were other speakers representing the more orthodox parties. The Foreign Office were consulted, and they had no objection. Later in the autumn, however, they suddenly raised objections to the programme, after it had been published and after the whole thing had been arranged. They stated that it was possible that Sir Oswald Mosley might be represented as an Italian propagandist in this country and that Mr. Harry Pollitt might be represented as a Russian propagandist.

The British Broadcasting Corporation with great care raised the matter with the two speakers in question as soon as possible and got guarantees from them that foreign policy would not be introduced into their talks. Nevertheless, the Foreign Office still objected. The talks were postponed in the autumn on the ground that the General Election was coming on, and in the spring the Corporation again raised the question whether they could not have these talks. The Foreign Office again intervened and blocked the talks altogether, and that is the present position. I do not think the Foreign Office have any right to block talks which are not on foreign policy. I think certain rules should be laid down, if we are to have this kind of censorship by Government Departments, and that in a case of that kind it should be possible for the British Broadcasting Corporation to appeal to the Minister responsible to Parliament for a decision when disagreement arises.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. RICHARD LAW

The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate said that the question of the taking over by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the broadcast relay services had nothing at all to do with the question of the principle of nationalisation, but it seems to me that it has everything to with it, and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), who has just spoken, really was speaking from a definitely Socialist point of view. He said he would like to see the broadcast relays taken over by the State and the money made by the more profitable districts used to develop the less profitable districts. That may or may not be a desirable point of view, but it is certainly a Socialist point of view. And not only so; it is a most dangerous form of Socialism, because it involves the nationalisation not merely of property and machinery, but of ideas, of entertainment, and so on.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) has left the House, because there are one or two comments which I should like to make upon his speech. I am sure the whole House was most interested in that speech and most impressed by the great care which he, as a member of the Ullswater Committee, had evidently devoted to the subject of broadcasting. The hon. and gallant Member for Dover, at an early stage in his speech, said that he and the committee had regarded this problem of broadcasting mainly from the point of view of the listener and of the listener's enjoyment. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member and the Committee, it seems to me that neither he nor the committee has really done any- thing of the sort. The hon. and gallant Member went on to critcise the broadcast relay services, and he based his criticism, not upon the fact that the listener did not want or did not enjoy these services and in his way benefit from them, but upon the fact that in some way they interfered with the efficiency of this enormous and powerful bureaucracy, the British Broadcasting Corporation.

I think the same thing is apparent in the whole of the Ullswater Report. I have read the report, and although I could not absolutely vouch for it, I believe that in the whole of the report the word "entertainment" does not occur at all. If hon. Members turn to that part of the report which deals with musical programmes, for example, they will see on page 30 that the committee lays down four objectives which those who are responsible for compiling musical programmes should have in mind. I think they are the cultivation and encouragement of music in this country, the production of the best kind of music, the improvement of taste, and the encouragement of musicians in times of depression. There is no objective there of entertainment which will please the listener, even if the listener's tastes are not as high as the British Broadcasting Corporation would like them to be. And that same attitude colours the whole of the report, especially in so far as it relates to the broadcasting relay services. On page 40 of the report the committee states: We have had evidence from many quarters that the proprietors of relay exchanges are in a position materially to damage the Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of material from foreign sources, selecting some parts of the Corporation's programme and omitting others, and upsetting the balance upon which those programmes are constructed. It seems to me that those phrases are either completely meaningless—and that is the interpretation which I should put upon them—or else they are sinister in their intent. Are we to understand from those sentences that the only way in which the Corporation can achieve a balanced and good programme is to have everybody in the country listening to the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme, and nothing else, all the time? Obviously that is absurd. Are we to understand that if a listener who does not want to listen to a lecture on the foundations of music, switches on to a dance band in Berlin, or switches off. altogether and goes to a boxing match, or to a cinema, or to a Debate in this House, or to whatever the kind of entertainment may be that catches his fancy, he is damaging the balance of the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes? That is obvious nonsense.

There is another interpretation that one may put upon it; that is, that the Corporation has a duty to establish a kind of cultural dictatorship over the people of this country through broadcasting. Obviously, the Corporation cannot touch the well-to-do listener who has his own wireless receiver and can turn on to any foreign station he likes. It can deal only with the few hundreds of thousands who are so poor that they cannot afford wireless sets, or who live in areas in which reception for one reason or another is difficult. I am sure, that that cannot be the intention of the Committee in making that reference. I am sure that the House would resist it and would never consent to such a transaction being carried through.

Parliament some 10 years ago, it is true, set up the Corporation and gave it a monopoly of the broadcasting of matter in this country, but it is certain that Parliament had no intention of giving it the monopoly of reception in this country. I do not think that the House of Commons or the Government would be justified in giving the Corporation such a monopoly now. It is not a question of whether the programmes are good or bad, but it is undesirable that any one body should have the power, not only to say what should be broadcast in this country, but to say what should be listened to, not by the country as a whole, but merely by the poor and less fortunate listeners. In my attitude towards this question of the broadcast relay services, I have no interest either direct or indirect, in them, and it would not matter to me twopence if they were swept away. But in my constituency, which contains a considerable working-class population, the programmes that are relayed through these services are very important. The people who are the clients of the broadcast relay companies are not people, whose lives are in general very exciting or bright. They are not people who have money to spend on any kind of entertainment which takes their fancy. They have to put up with comparatively simple pleasures, and I suggest that we in this House ought to be very careful about badgering these poor people and putting them at the mercy of a vast and very high-minded, but rather soupy bureaucracy like the British Broadcasting Corporation.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN

I rise to intervene in this Debate in order to make a complaint about the attitude of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Independent Labour party. That party is able to state in the British House of Commons the point of view of a section of the people of this country, but at the General Election, despite the fact that we had 18 candidates in the field, we were denied the opportunity of broadcasting along with other parties. We were not unreasonable. We did not expect to have the same time as the other parties, but in view of the number of candidates that we had in the field, and of the history of our party, we made a legitimate claim. The Director-General, in reply to correspondence, said that he would consider the matter when he found how many candidates we were putting in the field. We had said in previous communications that we were expecting to put in about 20. After nomination day, when we informed him that we had 18 candidates, he replied that, because there were not 20, the Independent Labour party could not have an opportunity of broadcasting. The Ullswater Committee has made reference to what shall be done with regard to broadcasting during general elections, and I hope that in future the minority parties will have the opportunity of putting their points of view before the country and have at least the same opportunity that is given to the bigger parties. I hope that this will be treated seriously, because it is of the utmost importance in the working of democracy that minority parties should have proper opportunities of expressing their opinions.

Many people regard the British Broadcasting Corporation as a notable example of successful Socialism. We of the Independent Labour party, who regard ourselves as the real Socialist party, do not regard the Corporation as a Socialist concern at all. We do not think that there is any real Socialism about it. We consider that the broadcasting would have been far better operated if it had been operated as the Post Office is. There would then have been responsibility for its working in th House of Commons. I cannot see how the superannuated politicians and lady friends of politicians are able to run the broadcasting better than civil servants would be able to do it. The governors do not inspire me with any confidence. Would the Minister, when he is replying, give us some information as to how these appointments are carried out. I noticed that when Lord Snowden resigned from the Government, Lady Snowden shortly afterwards ceased to be a governor. Those of us who were in the Labour movement with the former Prime Minister smiled when we saw that his friend Mrs. Hamilton was taking the place of Lady Snowden. Why should an organisation responsible for so great a service be in the hands of people appointed in that way?

In spite of what the report says, and in spite of the fact that no representations came to the committee, I think there is very wide discontent with the working of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think the existence of these relay programmes form a real criticism of the programmes which are supplied by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I know it is said that the relay service is taken because it is cheap, only 1s. 6d. a week, but in any street it is common to see radio shops offering receiving sets which will get programmes from nearly everywhere at 1s. 6d. a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "For how many years?") You can pay over as many years as you like. I have a set at 3s. a week, or 12s. a month—and it is much cheaper after a time—but I have seen sets offered at 1s. 6d. a week. It is one of the best sets that can be made. I am not going to advertise it. These relay programmes are a real criticism of the kind of programme supplied by the British Broadcasting Corporation. When listening to a British Broadcasting Corporation programme the impression produced on me is that I am in some slum dwelling and listening to some highly superior slum visitor anxious to do something for the improvement of poor people in the slums. There is far too much of that from highly superior people who are so anxious to improve everybody else.

What people want is to have entertaining programmes, programmes which they can understand. The public taste is often a sound criterion in the case of a picture, and I think that is also true of broadcasting, and the fact that there is this widespread demand for radio sets which will enable them to get Continental stations as well as the home stations shows that people are after a good show and are not prepared to be dictated to. There has been criticism of the Director-General's dictatorship over the staff. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) formulated a very severe indictment of the system, and I think most Members will agree that the matter should be put right forthwith. A serious indictment could be made also with regard to the treatment of listeners. I should like to see the staff treated decently and listeners also treated decently. The Leader of the Opposition, in the part of the report for which he is responsible, put his finger on a vital spot when he said the governors should not all be drawn from the better off people or the higher social classes. That was a very sound criticism.

The whole concern appears to be run as though it were an instrument of the well-to-do. We should remember that the overwhelming majority of the people who provide the revenue, through the 10s. licences, consist of the working class and yet in the management of the organisation the working class is represented only to the most minor extent. It is run very largely by people drawn from other circles, who do not know the working class, do not understand the working-class point of view, but are seeking, evidently, to mould the working class. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that in future there shall be better representation of working-class interests, that more working class people are on the advisory committees. I have been looking at the names of those forming the General Advisory Committee. They are nearly all ancients; with the exception of George Bernard Shaw there does not appear to be one young person among them, and George himself is beginning to get to middle age. They are people with ancient ideas. There ought to be a bigger representation of people belonging to the working class. I should like to see someone there to represent the unemployed—someone who has been connected with unemployment problems, and who can speak for the unemployed with some measure of authority. Much more attention should be paid to the fact that the customers of this concern, the people supplying the revenue, are very largely working class.

I notice that an admirable attempt has been made to open up different regions of the country. We have the regions of London, the Midlands, the North of England, the West of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I notice that the Ullswater Committee suggest that Wales should be a separate region. An hon. Member asks me what objection I have to that. I have none at all. I am not critical about it. I think it is a very admirable suggestion. But what I was going on to say was that after they had spent a lot of money in opening up these regions they then showed their wonderful skill by seeking to co-ordinate them all. With all those stations in existence, we are able to get only two programmes, National and Regional. That is a piece of absolute nonsense. There should be much more variety of programme when all those stations are working. If the British Broadcasting Corporation had utilised their machinery in the right way, they would not have had to come here saying: "For Heaven's sake let us try to close Luxemburg, or the International Broadcasting Station, or stop these relay people." I have listened to the international programmes, and it is certainly most irritating to be told that the programme is being supplied by So-and-So. I have never met anybody who liked to hear that the programme was being supplied by some hoot manufacturer, or somebody like that. but we put up with that discomfort because we get some sort of programme instead of the kind of thing which we get in this country.

Some little time before I came to this House I was a Presbyterian minister, and I object, as a religious man, to the way in which religion is treated by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I want religion to have a chance in this country, but the mawky, sentimental, holy-Willie stuff that is doled out by the British Broadcasting Corporation is setting people against religion over the length and breadth of the land. The way in which the Corporation have tried to shove it on upon every occasion, and that sort of Sunday tone in which it is read out, and all the rest of it, are most disgusting. Religion ought to have a chance, but one of the most anti-religious influences during recent years has been the British Broadcasting Corporation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Corporation have tried to shove it down the throats of people. I am reminded of the time when I was a Presbyterian minister in Ayrshire, and a local picture-house opened up on Sunday. One of my neighbours came to me and said "You must approach the magistrates and get them to stop this opening on Sunday." I said to my colleague that if we could not do it by moral influence we were not going to invoke the law, and that we were not going to prosecute. If there was a public for the pictures, that public was entitled to have them, and we were not entitled to prosecute, and impose our religious ideas by the power of the State.

With regard to the week-end programmes, I would remind the Postmaster-General that people who have been working hard throughout the week are tired. Decent, religious people who get this kind of thing offered to them by the British Broadcasting Corporation want much more than a sermon by somebody like myself. [Laughter.] Oh, I can preach as good a sermon as most of the ministers or parsons in this country. That is one thing I would be quite willing to take on. I am a little bit vain about that. Another point is that on the Continent you can hear a whole opera, but in this country you get only one act of one of the operas. There is no arrangement about it. It should be possible to arrange, with all those wireless stations in existence, to give a whole opera and not simply an excerpt from it, a single act, cut out here or there.

Broadcasting should be under our complete control, through a Minister in this House. I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the committee, seeing that they are to retain this sort of bastard Socialism, that there should be a Minister who would take a large measure of responsibility with regard to the working of the Corporation. If there were such a Minister, there would be some safeguard for minority opinion in this country. Minority opinion should have the opportunity of broadcasting. I am thinking not only of political minorities, but of minorities in art and music as well. Full scope should be given for minority views to have expression. If there were a Minister responsible in this House we should have the advantage of greater control, a democratic working of the Corporation and the bringing to an end of the intolerable dictatorship which has been imposed upon us.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. LIDDALL

I shall not attempt to follow hon. Members who have indulged in criticism of the administration, and I certainly shall not be tempted by the last speaker to discuss holy Willies or holy Campbells. I cannot for one moment support the Opposition, who would nationalise any private enterprise which is a paying proposition. I am especially interested in this subject because, in July, 1934, I presented to the House an Electricity Supply (Wireless) Bill, to enable wireless broadcast programmes to be transmitted over the ordinary electric light and power cables. Nothing further was done in the matter because the Government had appointed a Committee to go into the whole question of wireless. The findings of that Committee are now before the House. If the recommendations are adopted, it will be impossible for private enterprise to exploit not only the wireless re-diffusion system but the relay wireless services in this country.

Every one realises the importance of such a document as the report of the Broadcasting Committee, which was composed of eight men and one woman, all persons of distinction occupying high positions in the public life of this country. I hope that this anti-Socialist Government, which is opposed to confiscation and which stands for the liberty of the subject, will hesitate to adopt that part of the Committee's recommendations which says that: The ownership and operation of relay exchanges should be undertaken by the Post Office, and the control of their programmes by the Corporation. We must all agree with the Committee as to the urgent necessity in the national interest that the broadcasting service should at all times be conducted in the best possible manner and to the best advantage of the people. Let me say at once that the Relay Services Association of Great Britain would welcome the opportunity of co-operating with the British Broadcasting Corporation on relay programme policy in general, but there is a vast difference between co-operation and confiscation, and the existing licences include the provision that, on their termination, The Postmaster-General may require the licensee to sell to him such portions of the plant and apparatus as he may specify, at a price equal to the value thereof at the date of purchase as plant and apparatus in situ, exclusive of any allowance or compensation for loss of profit, compulsory sale, goodwill, the cost of raising capital, or any other consideration.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

Do they not sign that provision?

Mr. LIDDALL

The hon. Member is quite right, but that is an express provision which the licence contains at the present time.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

Where is the complaint if they have agreed to it?

Mr. LIDDALL

The complaint is that the licence can be terminated without any allowance or compensation for loss of profit, compulsory sale, goodwill, the cost of raising capital, or any other consideration. Who are these licensees, and what is the service that they render? The licensees are the Relay Services Association of Great Britain—not one particular combine of relay exchanges, but the whole of the relay services of Great Britain; and it may perhaps be as well at this time, when some Members may be present who were not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) explained what a relay service is, to say once again that a relay service is a system whereby wireless programmes are received in a central exchange, and redistributed by means of overhead wires to subscribers, who pay a small weekly rental for the service. At the present time there are approximately 340 exchanges operating under licences obtained from the Postmaster-General, and it cannot be too often emphasised, in view of some of the things that have been said, that in each case the subscriber pays his 10s. for a wireless licence. As the Ullswater report states: The system appeals specially to those who find wireless reception difficult or who wish to avoid the expense of buying, or the trouble of looking after, a wireless set. Only a loud speaker and a selector switch are required in the home, and programmes are relayed continuously from 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, chosen mainly from the transmissions of the British Broadcasting Corporation. But the Ullswater Committee, state that they have had evidence from many quarters that the proprietors of relay exchanges are in a position materially to damage the Corporation's programme policy by taking a large proportion of material from foreign sources, selecting some parts and omitting others, and upsetting the balance upon which the programmes are constructed. Anxiety has been expressed lest the system should be used to disseminate advertisements or betting news from stations abroad, to colour the religious or political outlook of subscribers by a one-sided selection from home programmes, and to lower the level and lessen the impartiality of the broadcast service. I say without hesitation that that part of the report is grossly unfair. The relay industry has always recognised its obligation to adhere to an impartial policy, and public opinion in areas where relay exchanges exist and operate will confirm the statement which I now make. The Postmaster-General has already an absolute veto on the relaying of any programmes, and he has exercised that right in the past. But the House and the Government must realise that the reception of wireless programmes is not, and never can be, a monopoly for any method. Postal, telegraph and telephone services are essentially different, and, if relay exchanges were handed over to Post Office control, it would only result in a Government Department being in competition with well established private enterprise. To such a state of affairs Members of the great Conservative party and Members of the once great Liberal party have always been entirely and utterly opposed.

But, apart from the question of nationalisation and the position of the relay exchanges and the radio manufacturers, what have the common people to say on this subject, because it is the common people of this country who are the main subscribers to our great relay services? Eighty per cent. of them are working men and women on a very low wage; 25 per cent. of them, possibly, could not afford a decent wireless set, and, but for the relay service, would be denied the pleasure, and what, indeed, in these days might well be termed the right, to have wireless in their homes. I have received a very great amount of correspondence on this subject from subscribers and, without exception, they are all satisfied with the service they receive and are opposed to this latest move to bring about Socialism in our time. The Relay Services Association is willing and anxious to co-operate with the Corporation in their relaying programme policy in general and would not object to the Post Office supervising the technical side of the. business, but it asks for greater security of tenure and asks that its licences shall run concurrently with the Corporation's charter. On behalf of the subscribers to the service, and of thousands of people who directly or indirectly are finding employment in this new and important industry, I beg the Government to turn down the recommendations in the report in regard to the relay exchange.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE

I am wondering at this stage whether the Debate has really answered the hope expressed when it began, that it might elicit the views of the House as a whole on the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee. I am doubtful whether it has done that, because it seems to me that it has enabled Members to raise a large number of matters which are important but which are really not essentially identified, though they may be related to the recommendations of the report. But I shall probably carry the House with me in saying that the Debate that has taken place has clearly made the case, if it was not made before, for that paragraph in the report which recommends that there should be someone in the House available to answer for Corporation questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made some very strong statements with regard to staff questions and others have followed in the same way.

I hold no brief for the Corporation or for anyone in this matter, but I should like to ask the Postmaster-General, in case anyone should have an exaggerated idea of the matter, if he could give us, now or on some later occasion, the actual figures of those who have left the service of the Corporation in the last two or three years and the reasons why they have left. I cannot remember the figures, though I have seen them. I think that would restore the question to its proper proportions. The nature of some of the occupations within the Corporation is entirely different from those in any other kind of public service. Those on the broadcasting side of the Corporation are in a position in which their faculties and their resources may become exhausted more quickly than in any other branch of life. Some of them have the responsibility of producing a public entertainment once a week, and sometimes oftener. Many producers make their livelihood by producing one or two shows in a year. Special treatment has to be found for some employees of the Corporation for this reason.

The general Debate has turned on matters in which Members are particularly interested, especially that of broadcast relay services. It was, perhaps, inevitable that special attention should be given to that, owing to the large number of people who are interested, and also to the kind of campaign that has been waged in connection with it. It was stated in the "Daily Telegraph" on 23rd March that a meeting had been held of the Broadcast Relay Association for the purpose of influencing public opinion, and also the opinion of Parliament, and a vote of £5,000 was made for carrying out that purpose.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

I know that that was published, but the matter was taken up with the newspaper, which admitted that its information was incorrect. There is no fighting fund of £5,000.

Mr. WHITE

I am glad to hear that that is the case. I have the extract from the "Daily Telegraph" and I have seen no contradiction of it. The hon. Member says that there was no vote of £5,000. I do not know whether he also says that the meeting was not held. Does he say there was no campaign of any kind and that no steps were taken to influence Parliament or public opinion, or do I understand that the inaccuracy of the statement was confined to the voting of £5,000? It is common knowledge that every Chamber of Commerce in the country has been approached to pass resolutions, and a resolution has been forwarded to the annual meeting of the National Association of Chambers of Commerce, and various other steps have been taken. All the branches of the Federation of Property Owners' Associations have been approached and they are writing to their clients to say that the suggestion that the Post Office and the Corporation between them should control this new service as part of the national service should be resisted at all costs because this expropriation would apply to all property in future. We must have some regard to a campaign of this kind.

In assessing the matter Members should not only have in mind the recommendations of the Ullswater report but should also bear in mind the nature of the campaign that has been set on foot. I do not think that anyone has questioned or is likely to question that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a suitable instrument for carrying on this public service as trustees for the nation, and if the public and the House of Commons are satisfied that the policy is sound—I know that it is subject to criticism, but if it were not it would be the only human institution I know that is not—if the instrument and its main lines of policy are accepted, there is no cause why any section of broadcasting in this country should be withheld from the common concern.

That is the conclusion to which I have been led by careful study of the whole question and, as the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) pointed out, it is the conclusion to which all the members of the Ullswater Committee have been led. There was a suggestion that it might lead to a dictatorship. Any suggestion of that kind in this country is fantastic. We are not going to have a dictatorship in this country from the British Broadcasting Corporation or anyone else. It was pointed out that it might make things more difficult for certain impoverished people. Neither the British Broadcasting Corporation nor the House of Commons is going to stand for that. There is one technical possibility which impresses me very much, looking into the future, and that is the possibility that, owing to the development of the traffic in the air and the ether becoming overloaded, it may be that wireless will be driven back upon the wires, and in that event what would be the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of its systems? I would ask hon. Members to look into this matter still further, and I believe that they will be driven to the same conclusion as I have been driven to, that these things should be carried on by the same instrument as trustees for the nation as a whole.

I have been rather surprised that there has not been more reference made to advertising during the Debate. I rather gather from the feeling of the House that the instinct of this country which, guided by the Sykes Committee and every subsequent committee, has considered and rejected advertising as part of the business of broadcasting in this country, has been sound and is accepted by the country. I have made some investigation into this matter, and I can find only one body of opinion in this country which is in favour of advertising, and that is the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. That is an important body which comprises a large number of important firms, but, as they expressly say, they do not ask that advertising should be permitted. All that they put forward is that the matter should not be closed; they do not want a final conclusion in this matter now. After some efforts to find out what public opinion is on this matter, I have come to the conclusion that even this body, whose business it is to advertise, is not suggesting that the Government should throw open the broadcasting organ of this country to commercial advertisers in any shape or form. It is true that in the confused atmosphere of a luncheon at the Savoy Hotel, they went somewhat further, but they were there simply as business men, not having studied the question as a whole. The Chairman adding that the 25 or 30 Members of Parliament who were present might be described as business men of the nation, and he had no doubt that having heard what was said they would agree that they had a job of work to do when they got back to the House.

The Ullswater Committee recommended that the charter should be renewed, and if one had to guess at anything the Government may do it is that they will renew the charter. The only question is for how long they may consider it wise to renew the charter. The opinion has been expressed that the British Broadcasting Corporation, having passed out of the experimental stage, might be expected to be for a period of at least 20 years, 10 years longer than the earlier charter. No one could say that the British Broadcasting Corporation are any longer in an experimental stage, except that a body like the Corporation must always be one of perpetual experiment. But, looking at the matter from another and wider point of view, broadcasting is the most powerful education and cultural instrument which we now have in the world, and the effect which that is going to have on the national and cultural life of this people no man can predict. It is permeating the remote country districts, where people live quiet and sequestered lives, and they are hearing the same language, the same courses of instruction, the same music as are heard in the towns, and no one can foretell what its ultimate effect may be on the character of the people. I for one would be unwilling to leave any instrument wielding this enormous influence, whose effects must be unseen, for as long a period as 20 years. It would be a mistake.

Parliament should have the opportunity of reviewing this matter. But if Parliament and the Government wish to introduce into the British Broadcasting Corporation those elements of commercialism, advertising or anything of that kind, anything which is really incompatible with independent management, I should be loth to see the charter renewed for even five years. I have heard no one say, "Do away with the British Broadcasting Corporation and have Luxemburg or somewhere else in perpetuity." Other systems have been marred by the introduction of commercialism or some political influence, which has destroyed broadcasting as an instrument of culture and education.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES

This has been a most interesting Debate, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), with whom I had the privilege of serving upon this Committee, I think that probably the most valuable thing that we have unanimously suggested is that the question of broadcasting should be one for Parliament alone to consider, at any rate once a year. At the present time all that happens is that it may be considered as one of the many questions which can be raised when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is being considered in this House. It is only right that this subject, which affects the lives of so many of us, should be discussed in this House, and that there should be a Minister responsible for the conduct of this great Corporation answerable to this House upon questions of policy which affect that Corporation and the country generally. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead, I was struck by the fact that nobody has suggested that in the main there is anything wrong with the British Broadcasting Corporation. The country is to be congratulated upon the wisdom of those who set up that Corporation and which guided them in the form which that Corporation took and the powers which they gave to it. It is right that broadcasting should not be left entirely to private enterprise, and also that it should be divorced from being under the direct control of the Government of the day. In some countries it is still left entirely to private enterprise, and in other countries it is so much under the direct control of the Government of the day that no other opinon is allowed to be expressed except the opinion of that government. We know that that is the position in Germany and in other countries, and that it is not the position which is desired by this country.

We were fortunate in hearing evidence from various countries, and were glad to know that other countries regarded our system on the whole as being the ideal system and the one which they desired now to copy, and, in particular, it is the one, I understand, which the Dominions now desire. It is a great tribute to the work that was done by this House a little over 10 years ago and to the work of the Committee which was then considering the whole matter. It is also a tribute to the work done by the Governors of that Corporation and by the Director-General. They have guided in this matter with wisdom and prudence, and the country as a whole is under a deep debt of gratitude to them. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) I was rather surprised that immediately our report was issued to this House it was accompanied by a document which was issued on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I and my colleagues noted that they extended a certain meed of praise to us for the work that we did. I realise that we cannot all be great like the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Director-General, and we are grateful for this meed of recognition which has been shown to us. It is a little unfortunate that this should have been issued by them at the same time as the report itself. It was right that this House should consider that report first, because we were reporting to a Minister on the instructions of the House, and it was a matter for the House to comment upon before any other official comment was issued.

The Debate has dealt with two points in the main. One was ably dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who rightly called attention to the fact that we had not received any evidence from any member of the staff of the Corporation. We noted that fact ourselves. I have one regret, looking back over the work of this very interesting committee. We held 35 meetings, heard 75 witnesses, and considered some scores of documents. We decided—I am afraid too early—to hear that evidence in private and not to hear it in public. I know full well the reason which weighed with us all. It was that probably people would speak more openly if they knew that their evidence would be confined to us and would not be published abroad. But, looking back, I think now that we were wrong and that it would have been better if the evidence had been given in public and had been available to all and sundry. I know that very often it is suggested that there is too much publicity with regard to cases in the Law Courts, but it would be a bad day if evidence could not be given publicly and be available to everyone. I believe that our report would have carried much greater weight with this House, and possibly with the Government and the public had the evidence we heard been available to all.

Undoubtedly, there was a certain amount of trepidation in our minds with regard to the staff. We were not quite sure whether everything was all right. We had no direct evidence. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have observed that we devoted 10 paragraphs of the report to staff questions, and quite rightly said that we consider it a most important matter and hope that those 10 paragraphs will receive the full consideration of the Corporation in anything that they do. Without a doubt, we feel that the staff should be protected by their own organisation, whatever form of organisation they are likely to have. That is a matter for them to decide, but it is proper that they should have an organisation to speak on their behalf.

I had no doubt whatever that the question of relay exchanges would be a matter for controversy. Speaking for myself, I had never heard of relay exchanges until the evidence was produced before me by the Relay Exchange Association. I did not know that such a body existed. I signed this report on the evidence that we had heard, and it will be noted by the House that we were unanimous with regard to it. The Minority Report of Lord Selsdon differs from the rest of us only in the method which he thinks ought to be adopted in order to put an end to these private relay exchanges. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) called attention to the fact that what we had now suggested was Socialism in our time. At any rate, all of us, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, thought that some proper compensation should be paid to these people, but Lord Selsdon would not pay them any compensation at all. He thinks they are a dying industry and that another two years will see the end of the whole thing. No one has any right whatever to transmit messages along the wires, and these people have no right to do so unless they can get a licence from the Postmaster-General. Knowing that, they go to the Postmaster-General and obtain a licence. They obtain that licence upon terms. They enter into a solemn contract and are told the terms. They have now gone to the public and raised money amounting, I believe, to something between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000. I do not know whether everyone is aware of the fact that the licences terminate at the end of this year, and so far as they know they may not get them renewed. There was no guarantee whatsoever that they would be renewed.

If there was any goodwill in those companies, the goodwill has been given to them by the Postmaster-General granting the licences. Now, they have the audacity to come along and say: "Extend our goodwill for another 10 years." The hon. Member for Lincoln says: "At the end of that 10 years, whatever my contract may be, I shall want to be paid for all my services. I shall want to have all my capital restored to me and all my plant, whether it is out of date or not, purchased at its full price and not at a knock-down price." That is the attitude they are adopting. Then we are told that they have been working in the public service. Let us be frank about these matters. Public service was not the primary consideration. Quite rightly, we cannot blame them; their primary consideration was profit making.

It is a curious position that they occupy in regard to their instruments and wires. They take a house or a room in a fairly congested area and there they have the apparatus which can extend the volume, from which they run wires into the congested area. They go round canvassing people and saying: "Would you like to have your wireless from us?" From these wires they run, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) said, tributaries to the houses. But before they can do that they have to get the assent of the municipal authority. The municipal authorities have discovered that this is possibly a source of revenue and some of these companies are now being charged £2,000 to £2,500 a year. We were told that in evidence by the companies themselves. Then they say that this is a service which is performed for the very poor, for the people who cannot afford to keep a wireless set. They tell us that the amount that the poor have to pay is 1s. 6d. a week and something like 6d. a week for a loud speaker. That is 2s. a week, or 104s. a year. In addition, 10s. has to be paid to the Post Office for a licence. That makes the total amount 114s., or £5 14s. a year, and the only thing that these people have at the end of the year is a loud speaker, which may not be theirs, because unless they continue their instalments even that may be taken from them. In the meantime these companies are having a monopoly within that congested area guaranteed to them by the municipality.

Some of these companies, I was able to observe, were not in a very strong position, and it might be that they would go bankrupt at any moment. When I asked what would happen then, the answer given to me was: "Perchance some other company in a more prosperous position might take over the plant." When I said that that would amount to a new contract and probably new terms, they said: "That is the position." It is an intolerable position that this business is to be allowed to be extended into these congested areas for the private profit of these people alone. The curious position is that the broadcasting is done by the Corporation and the Corporation is not allowed to make a profit. The broadcasting is of no use whatsoever unless there is a receiving set or a relay system at the other end. The receiving set people and the relay people are entitled to make a profit, and yet their instruments would be no good if the broadcasting was of no use. The three of us held very strong views in regard to wireless sets because of that very curious anomaly. It is an extraordinary position that however good the broadcasting may be it may be ruined because the set is faulty, and it may be ruined by the man who is in charge of the room from which the relay takes place. There is a real danger there. These companies say: "We cater for the public." Do they? The programme is decided by themselves, and those who are receiving it from the relay wires have no control at all. They get what is given to them, either on the long wave or the short wave length. If they want to have anything else they cannot get it.

Take the position in regard to talks, quite apart from politics. Take any new thought, or take religion. I do not want to mention religious matters, but let us deal with religion as an instance of how the man in charge at the relay exchange can act. The man may be a very strong Roman Catholic who does not like what is going to be broadcast, because it affects his religion or it may be that he dislikes the Roman Catholics and that someone is broadcasting the religious thought of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, he gives some jazz music from somewhere else. That is a danger. We felt that it was right that the danger should be removed, and removed now before it has become such an important monopoly that it will cost the State more than it would cost them now to purchase it.

Lord Selsdon, on the other hand, took the view that the audio system is a dying industry. We had evidence of that fact. We were told immediately after the relay people had given their evidence that a much better system would be to use the high frequency along with the electric light. We were also told by the experts from the Post Office that a much better system was along the telephone wires. Lord Selsdon said: "I am not interested in these relay exchange people. Their system is already out of date. I am perfectly certain that the Post Office either by using the electric light wires, the telephone wires or the telegraph wires, have a very much better system, and in less than two years these people will be wiped out and will be no use." That is what I have to say in regard to the relay exchanges. I do hope the Government will deal with the matter quickly. It is unfair to keep people waiting. It is unfair for them not to know what is to be their fate at the end of this year. Are they to be compensated? Are they coming to an end, or not? Whether or not the Postmaster-General can deal with that matter to-night, I do hope the Government will make up their mind in regard to it as soon as possible.

I was rather surprised that I did not hear more to-night from hon. Members with regard to our suggestions over the future of broadcasting from the Regionals. At the present moment there are very nearly 8,000,000 out of 11,000,000 houses which are getting the broadcasts. It is an extraordinary situation. The one place where people can be quite sure of having their grievances discussed properly is this House.

I am not sure that hon. Members will thank us for the recommendation in our report, but I am sure the public will welcome it. Having regard to all the advice in the Press and in the films to everybody "write to your M.P.", I hesitate to think what our post-bag will be like when a Minister is in charge and answerable in this House. At any rate, it is right that public opinion should make itself felt and this is the place where it should be heard and expressed. I hope that more attention will be paid by the Coropration to the development of the Regional. It is in the Regional that you get local culture, the totality of which makes up British culture. The culture of Lancashire is not the same as the culture of Yorkshire. The music which appeals to one does not appeal to another, and it is only right that the Regional should be given the fullest opportunity for the expression of its own culture.

I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) that this is the greatest instrument for culture and education that has yet been devised. I look forward too. I am not at all sure that it is not the greatest instrument for the peace of the world, and I look forward to the time when broadcasting will not be merely a Regional or a National matter, but that it will be international, so that there may be a better understanding between peoples who will be able to appreciate each other's thoughts as they can appreciate each other's music to-day. I am not sure what will be the future of the Press, having regard to the development of broadcasting. It may be all right, but I am positive that 25 years hence it will not be in the form that we know to-day. It will take an entirely different form. The news will come through the broadcasts and it will come to the distant home on the hill just as soon as it comes to the home in the busy town. It is a wonderful instrument in the hands of this Corporation, and I am sure we have done right in recommending that the Corporation should continue its great duties for the next 10 years.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. AMMON

I am sure the Postmaster-General is convinced that there is a tremendous amount of interest taken in this subject and he will gather that there is a strong opinion in the House in favour of some Minister being responsible to Parliament to answer questions concerning the Corporation. I want to bring to the attention of the House a recent happening which will show how important this is. Recently, there was broadcast a talk with regard to a decision of the South African legislature regarding native franchise. It gave rise to a considerable amount of protest, and it was pointed out that the statement which was given was entirely wrong. Not only did people of the Labour party make this complaint, but no less an authority than the "Morning Post," on 9th April last, in a leading article, attacked very strongly the action of the British Broadcasting Corporation with regard to this talk, and pointed out that the whole affair had been distorted and had given a wrong impression of what had happened in the legislature in South Africa. On the attention of the British Broadcasting Corporation being called to the matter, they made a reply in which there was this amazing sentence: The script of the talk was examined beforehand and was presumed to give a reasonable and unbiased statement of the facts. If there had been a Minister in the House responsible for the Corporation, it would have been possible to have brought this matter before Parliament. The Postmaster-General will also be aware that there is strong support for the suggestion that the board should have on it a representative of that elusive person the man-in-the-street, and certainly some of the younger generation. One does not depreciate the work of the Advisory Committees. They have worked well. On looking at the names of those who compose the board one marvels that they have done so well, but they would have done much better if they had had a little assistance from people who are in close touch with various section of the community. In the matter of income this institution is peculiar. It is a national institution run on non-profit lines. The whole income should remain in the control of the British Broadcasting Corporation, save such necessary payments to the Post Office for services rendered. Having regard to what has happened to the Road Fund one feels a little nervous as to what might happen to this fund. It might be confiscated and the work of development hampered and crippled.

I would like to draw attention to the specific recommendations made by the committee that there should be further opportunities for political broadcasts, but I want to say that if that is done, every safeguard should be afforded with a view to seeing that such broadcasts are not used for the ends of any one party. They should be open on completely equal terms to all sections of political thought. I need only make a passing reference to the events connected with the general strike in 1926 to show what I have in mind, and I might mention the election broadcasts which took place in 1931, when, curiously enough, all the talks given were in support of the Government. They were on the Gold Standard, and the Government probably wished a little later that they had never been delivered. They were, in any case, wholly partisan and biased. I would like, moreover, to suggest that all political parties should be allowed the same amount of time in which to put their views before the public over the wireless, and that all such talks should cease some three days before the election. I think there should also be frequent broadcasts on political subjects.

I suggest that in these broadcasts the British Broadcasting Corporation should not determine either the subject or the speaker, and that their duty should be concerned only with the allowance of time. It should be left to the people whom they represent—subject to a proper understanding—and the persons concerned to choose both those who shall speak on their behalf and the subjects on which they shall speak. May I suggest also that all discussions of economics should not consist only of the views of hard-boiled economists, but that those holding somewhat heterodox views should be allowed to express them?

The report also contains a reference to the news service, and I submit that as it is now it is wholly unsatisfactory. We ought not to be content merely with that which is supplied by the news agencies, but the British Broadcasting Corporation should set up its own news department. Although it would probably involve too great an expense to set up a news agency on the lines of the Press news agencies, the British Broadcasting Corporation might at least employ some competent journalists whose task it would be to collect the news. The Corporation ought not to rely entirely upon a selection of news supplied by the agencies. It is with some considerable trepidation that I have heard the suggestion that the discussion groups should be ended. These groups have had a considerable educational value in times past, and it would be a great pity if they were to be discontinued, for they supply a means whereby groups of young persons and others can take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the wireless to follow cultural and educational pursuits. There is pretty strong feeling against any endeavour to undermine or end these groups.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has referred to the conditions of the staff employed by the British Broadcasting. Corporation. Although I have been supplied with a certain amount of information in that connection, I think there is little need to supplement the very admirable statement which my hon. and learned Friend made and which met with such general approval. I would like, however, to draw attention to two points which are mentioned in the report itself. The first point which I would like to make is the extraordinarily autocratic situation which has arisen in the British Broadcasting Corporation. For instance, a branch officer was officially reproved by the Director-General for having encouraged a state of good relations among the staff under him, because it was said that was unhealthy. I suppose he wishes to keep the staff in a state of perpetual friction because that is supposed to be good for it. I would like to know what the Postmaster-General thinks of that? He has come to a large service where there has grown up a considerable amount of staff representation and trade unionism, which had to be fought for in the first instance just as it seems it will now have to be fought for in the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think the Postmaster-General will bear testimony that he has found these organisations very helpful, that they have in no way hindered him, but have made his position easier and brought him into relations with the staff which he could not otherwise have obtained. Consequently it is nothing short of amusing to find somebody committing himself to the statement that it is very unhealthy to bring about good relations among the staff. The committee itself mentions this particular matter, and I make no apology for calling attention to it. The report states: We have been informed that there is no desire for any form of staff representation and that the late Mr. Whitley, who would naturally have been in favour of it, came to the conclusion that there was no need for it. It has been represented to us that by informal means of consultation, together with the right of appeal to the Director-General or the governors, the staff can make known their views, higher officers can keep in touch with them and any grievances can be redressed. Here I would mention that no one representing the staff gave evidence before the committee or was allowed to give evidence before it.

We cannot accept this contention as necessarily disposing of the need for organised machinery. A similar right of appeal to the Postmaster-General exists in the Post Office, but has not precluded the need for staff representation. The large measure of freedom from direct Parliamentary control which is accorded to the British Broadcasting Corporation seems to us to increase this Reed. Such representation might take one of two forms: (a) the intervention of external trade unions, or (b) the constitution of one or more internal associations. … For these reasons it is difficult to foresee any comprehensive solution on the lines of the first alternative (a). As to the second (b), we think that the Corporation should make it clear that it will provide all necessary facilities for any representative organisation, whether a single staff association or smaller bodies representative of appropriate groups, which its employés may wish to set up. The Director-General then began to be a little perturbed, for since the report was issued a meeting of the staff has been called to discuss this matter. So far as the women's side was concerned, the staff was called together in sections, with only a, few hours notice, and addressed by the officials on the question of staff representation. The chief woman officer, supported by her assistants, talked vaguely about the difficulties of organisation, suggested that it would mean bringing in busybodies from outside to interfere with the pleasant personal relationships at present existing between officials and staff, and made it clear that the official side did not look kindly on any form of staff organisation. She then took a note in the open meeting on a show of hands on (a) those who wanted some form of representation, (b) those who wanted to hear more about it, and (c) those not interested. I should add that a hint was given that organisation would mean the abolition of privileges at present enjoyed by the staff. That gives point to the case raised by my hon. and learned Friend earlier and indicates that there is room for inquiry in this Debate. You cannot expect to run a service efficiently, if you have a certain amount of seething discontent beneath the surface, and it is pretty evident that that is the situation in this case.

I wish to make a passing reference to a subject which has, to a large extent, side-tracked the consideration of other portions of the report, namely, the relay services. In a long membership of this House I do not think I ever heard more flagrant special pleading on behalf of particular interests than we have had to-day. It was done in a manner that is unprecedented and not in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons. We had people here who are directly interested and this special pleading was without any reserve. At least one would expect that there would have been some reserve but they showed no reserve whatever in pleading a case in which they are particularly and specifically interested.

The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) read a letter which he told us he had received from one of his constituents. We could all have produced similar letters because they have been circulated and, in my own case, I was curious enough about the matter to make some inquiry into these letters because I never received so many letters on any subject since I have been in public life. Knowing my division very well, I was rather concerned about the kind of letters which I got and I found on inquiry that the people who wrote them had been talked to by the collectors and informed that they would be deprived of this particular service unless they wrote at once to their Member of Parliament and got him to take action immediately. That is the sort of business that is being carried on—the business to which my hon. Friend below the Gangway referred as having been discussed at a particular meeting. Then I have had telegrams from people, including some whom I knew to be in receipt of public assistance. I began to wonder what was their concern in sending me telegrams about relay services. I venture to suggest that there is a little more in this than meets the eye and I say in no uncertain terms, that the House has a right to express strong disapproval of this pleading on behalf of special interests. I think there has never been a case so flagrantly pleaded on behalf of particular interests represented in this House.

With regard to the merits of the case, what is the position? These people, to use the term of my right hon. Friend, have stolen a wave-length to which they have no right and have exploited it and refused to give it up, as far as Luxemburg is concerned. We see the enormous profits that are being made for the private interest of those concerned in these companies. An hon. Member talked of confiscation and the beginning of Socialism and all the rest of it. He did not tell the House that the licence is given free to these people; that they do not pay anything for it, and that they are exploiting it to such an extent as we know to be the case. I understand that profits of 50 per cent. are being made and a bonus of 50 per cent. is being given in some cases. No wonder there is a good deal of perturbation. Then I turn to the report itself, and I find that no less a person than Lord Selsdon, who was once the President of the Anti-Socialist Union, is actually suggesting that these people are not entitled to any compensation whatever, and that as and when their particular licence rims out, the whole obligation of the State has been met.

On the whole, I want to say that I think everybody must admit that we have been served excellently by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and that it will compare very favourably with any other broadcasting service that can be found in any other country. We are taking advantage of the report to emphasise and support those suggestions which can be made for the improvement of it and of the service, and particularly for the better relationship of those who are engaged in the service. I sincerely hope the Government will implement the report as early as possible, and above all that they will see that there is an opportunity to be able to discuss and raise questions in this House concerning tile Corporation by the appointment of a Minister whose duty it will be to have control over it, and that as soon as possible they will see that they have that control, and also of this relay service, before it has grown to such dimensions that it will be very difficult indeed to buy it out or get rid of it under any circumstances. As the committee point out in their report, the arguments for the absorption of this service by the State are almost the same as in the case of taking over the telephone and postal services themselves. It is a great public service, necessary for the public interest, and it is part and parcel of the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The last point that I would again emphasise is the necessity that the Corporation should not be crippled for funds, and that the money which it receives should remain within it, so as to allow every opportunity for research and investigation and for fresh programmes, so that the very maximum of benefit can be given to the community.

10.22 p.m.

Major TRYON

I hope the House as a whole will at all events agree upon one point, and that is that the decision of the Government to consult the House before formulating any proposals has been fully justified by this Debate. Indeed, I think the only Member of the House who cannot be said to have greatly benefited by the arrangement is the Postmaster-General, because I am put in the position, which I announced at the beginning of the Debate, of being here to listen, to learn, and to consult with my colleagues afterwards, but, as I said at the beginning, the Government have been anxious to get the views of the House, in all parts, and to consider them immediately, without any delay, and I hope that soon there will be an opportunity for a further and, I hope, equally interesting Debate, at which the Government will be able to announce the proposals which they will put before the House after having had the advantage of this Debate.

I should like to begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for having initiated this Debate. I think he has done a great service, and that he has added to it by the most valuable contribution which he made to the Debate. I may say that by its tone he has influenced the Debate from beginning to end. I should like to allude to the position about the Ullswater Committee. In the first place, it was not a committee appointed by this House. It was one of the numerous Departmental Committees appointed by my right hon. Friend who at that time was Postmaster-General, to report to him, as is usual with Departmental Committees, and when I hear suggestions that the whole of these eminent persons appear to have become Socialists or that they made a report without rhyme or reason, I contend at all events that people who had 35 sittings and who examined 79 witnesses are entitled to have great consideration given by the House and by-the Government to anything that they have put forward. Indeed, I think I may claim, from the long inquiry which they made, that it has enabled all those who have spoken to make some of their most valuable contributions to the Debate.

If one thing has been clear, it has been the valuable information which those Members who themselves sat on the committee have been able to give. It is a pity that in such a good-tempered Debate the hon. Member who spoke last should have made personal attacks on one or two Members who intervened. It seems to me that if a Member of this House has a special knowledge of any one subject, and is possibly concerned in it, it would not be right to disfranchise his constituents and silence him and so deprive the House, which wants all the best information, of the information which he can give. One thing which I think the House would ask—and it gets it in full measure—is a disclosure from the Members concerned that they have some commercial connection with the subject under discussion. I do not wish to make anything of a debating point, but if hon. Members are never to speak on subjects with which they are concerned, and possibly financially interested, there are a good many other subjects upon which we should lose a great many valuable contributions, especially when co-operative societies are under discussion.

I hope that the House will agree with me if I express the debt which the Government and the House owe to this Committee. It has done an enormous work in an extraordinarily interesting subject. As they are all supposed to be Socialists, I will give their names. First, of course, is Lord Ullswater, a distinguished former Speaker of this House. Then there was the leader of the Opposition, and it was extremely good of him to give up so much time to the work of the committee. Then there was Lord Selsdon, who has not been regarded hitherto as a conspicuous Socialist. There was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Clement Davies), who made a delightful speech, and the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor). There was also Lady Reading, and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who also made a most valuable contribution. These are greatly respected people of wide experience and varied political views, and if they have come to an almost unanimous conclusion on a large number of topics, it means that their report is entitled to very full and careful consideration by the Government and the House.

I am not going into all the points, for, in doing so, I may in some way disclose either my own view or the intention of the Government, which would be much better put as a whole, as I hope it will, at an early date. I think that the attitude of the public towards the British Broadcasting Corporation is typically British, that is to say, that the public grumble a good deal at the Corporation, but if anyone were to suggest that it was not the best arrangement for broadcasting in the whole world, they would be extremely indignant. People talk of nouns of multitude, such as a wisp of snipe, or a gaggle of geese, to which, I believe, someone added a grumble of Britons. The general attitude is that people all want something different, and it is impossible to meet all their views, particularly on the most contentious subject of all, and that is music. This is a subject on which we have to look ahead as far as we can.

Nobody knows what may be the enormous scientific and engineering developments of the near future in broadcasting. The whole future is uncertain. The air is becoming filled with messages of every kind. I believe that in my own constituency the Brighton police use the wireless to assist them in arresting offenders—I hope other Members' constituents. Aeroplanes need wireless, ships need wireless, and there are all sorts of overlapping or closely-approaching wave lengths. The whole question is one of extraordinary scientific difficulty. What we have to do is to look as far ahead as we can, and that is very difficult.

Let me take the points in the Debate in the order in which they were presented. I have already expressed my high admiration of the speech with which the Debate was opened. The question of the staff has been alluded to by various hon. Members, and I will only say that it is not a question which has been raised for the first time in this House. It has already been very fully looked into; the question was not a discovery on the part of anybody here. We are going into the question very fully, and I may say to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that I cannot make an exception to the general statement I have made, that the Government will announce their whole programme at a later date. If I had his gifts of sarcasm and wit I should, perhaps, have been tempted to refer to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol rebuking dictatorships; but I will not go into that now.

I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating two hon. Members on their maiden speeches, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hulbert) who made an excellent speech and the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), who made an excellent and clear speech on a highly technical matter. I am sure that we were also glad to hear the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) though his maiden speech was made some time ago. There is one idea that I should like to correct. There is an idea about—I am not disclosing the Government's attitude—that this committee has made a proposal under which nobody will be able to listen to anything but the programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is not the proposal of the committee, and I think it should be known that what they recommended was that it should be incumbent on the British Broadcasting Corporation to give our millions of listeners every chance of listening to any foreign programmes. That ought to be made clear, because it is an important point, and a good many people do not seem to have realised it.

On the question of advertisements, I do not think we have absolutely gathered the united opinion of the House. The first thing to consider is whether we want advertisements on the air or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have spoken so often on tariff questions in the old days that I am tempted to point out that the present arrangement is something like Protection reversed. I can understand people who think there ought to be free competition between two nations, and there are some, of whom I am one, who think some advantage should be given to producers in the home country. The present arrangement is the exact opposite, because the British Broadcasting Corporation are forbidden to broadcast advertisements but foreign stations can broadcast them, and they get money out of England for broadcasting to our people. I do not think that is fair to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I shall be very glad to know that the House does not as a whole, as I think I may say, favour advertisements. One hon. Member suggested that we might have the opportunity of listening to these broadcasts in the smoking rooms and other rooms of this House.

If some of these who are so keen on the foreign relays of advertisements were to turn on occasionally to what you get on those stations, perhaps they would realise that the programme is not altogether free from defects. I have a short extract, which I shall shorten as much as I can, of the kind of thing you get on Sunday from some of those relay stations. I find that the idea, or so I gather, is that you play a tune and endeavour to get that tune associated with the particular form of advertisement, or with the article or thing which you are advertising. The idea is ingenious, but I hope the principle does not apply to the whole of the programmes, because you get some rather curious results. An advertisement for a football pool, for instance, is immediately followed by "Onward, Christian Soldiers." There is an even more sacred hymn which might be left out of the programme of advertisements. Then there is the prison scene from "Faust," which is used in the advertisement for syrup of figs. Perhaps the House will appreciate most from the legal point of view another advertisement for football pools, which is followed by "You can't do that there 'ere." Finally, a particular kind of cheese is associated with a tune of which I have never heard. It is called the "Drunkard's Doom."

We might call upon the British Broadcasting Corporation to produce something on Sunday that is a little better than that. I find myself delighting in the position of agreeing with somebody from whom I always differ, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who put the view that if there were one extremely bright programme on Sunday most of the difficulties might be avoided. It is excellent that there should be two programmes, and if one programme were brighter we should not listen to the programme with the advertisements for cheese.

A good many other points were raised. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) raised the question of relays. I wish more Members had been present to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover. There were not so many Members in the House as I should have liked. I should like to say how very sorry I was to miss the speech made by the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), who made a most valuable contribution in a previous debate in connection with broadcasting. I think I can say for the Government that, conscious of the advantage which they have in the speeches which have been made from all parts of the House, they will reconsider the whole of this problem immediately. I am looking forward to a further debate, when I hope to be able to speak with greater freedom.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Forward to