HC Deb 30 July 1949 vol 467 cc2942-53

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

12 noon

Sir W. Darling

I was endeavouring to suggest to the House that there is a comparison between the eight million of population in London and the five million of population in Scotland. I was comparing the contribution which the eight million people of London make and what they receive, with the contribution which the five million of Scotland make and what they receive.

In Scotland we make a substantial contribution to the national economy. We are not asking for some undeserved favour, some unbought right. In Scotland we produce 55 per cent. of the herring of this country, 12 per cent. of its coal, 100 per cent. of its shale oil, 100 per cent. of its whisky, 40 per cent. of its locomotives and 59 per cent. of its linoleum. I cannot believe that the eight million in London produce anything like these substantial quantities. Yet the Lord President, leading the Government in this matter, has decided to take from the taxpayers of the United Kingdom a sum of £3,250,000 for certain developments during the forthcoming Festival of Britain. He has added to that a further impost of £300,000 for a funfair—so it is described: I hope that it will be very much better than that—in Battersea Park.

This morning we ask the Minister to spend £200,000 on the population of Scotland, on the five million people who have certain claims. We urge the adoption of this scheme. I am glad to support the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge in what she said about areas with dense populations having many resources for entertainment and amusement. They have church halls, political organisations, theatres, cinemas and libraries. To use a Scottish phrase, the tendency of modern planning is, "to fill the fat sow"—to give to those who have and to take away from those who have practically nothing. This idea of adding more and more to the areas where there are already large resources is very bad planning.

If I had my way in this matter, I would suggest to the Government, and to the Lord President in particular, that these relatively empty spaces should be the places where development begins. There we want television. There we want the housing disproportion readjusted. There we want the factories. By placing all these inducements in the rural and less populated parts, the undue and unjust balance would be destroyed and the attraction of London and other large areas would be diminished.

The question of television for Scotland is not a trifling or minor matter. It is an index of what is to be the policy of the Government. Do they intend to encourage the development and further development, the expansion and further expansion of the congested areas, or do they intend to do something to change the balance and make the rural places attractive? If they hold the latter view, they will support the plea of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) for television for Scotland, which will cost rather more than half of the sum which the Government propose to spend on the funfair at Battersea Park.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General must have been impressed by the force of the arguments put forward from both sides of the House and he must realise the extent of the misgivings in Scotland about the very slow progress which is being made by television. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) that the likelihood is that by the time the co-axial gets to Birmingham, and Birmingham is transmitting, the scheme will be two and half years behind schedule. It is clear that the provision of television in Scotland will be delayed much more if the Government pursue the matter in the present manner.

In his speech at the recent annual meeting of Pye Radio, the chairman recommended that drastic remedies should be taken and that we should at once put up at least four transmitting stations. A figure has been given of the estimated cost. I have taken the best advice available and I am informed that the cost would be nothing like so great as that mentioned, assuming always that we are trying to get the job done and that we are not just putting up a facade.

I am informed that all that is required is a transmitter which might cost £30,000, two tele-cinemas which might cost £12,000, and a mobile recording unit which would be able to visit Scottish theatres, football matches and other places and which would cost about £30,000. Of course, if one wished to put up a tremendous building, that might cost another £100,000. In fact the only building that is required is little more than an army hut in Falkirk to accommodate the announcer and cameras. That would be good enough to enable the job to be done. The total cost would not greatly exceed £100,000. It is for that sum that television for Scotland is being delayed. That is not good enough.

One must also hear in mind that the future of television in this country will depend largely not only on the technique of transmission, which is already excellent as we have seen during the Olympic Games, but on studio technique. At the moment, there is no means of comparison. Here I enter on much more difficult ground, because it would cost a great deal more money to set up a studio. In order to get the best results from television it is as well to have some means of comparison. Therefore it would be well to consider the provision of a Scottish studio, bearing in mind the differences in taste, language and culture between Scotland and England.

Those are important points, but most important of all is the urgency of the problem. I am told that France has now decided to go on the same line system as is used in this country. That means that it will be possible for us to sell our receiving sets on the continent. No doubt other countries will follow the lead given by France and Great Britain and will also adopt the same line system. That is of tremendous importance. If we are to cut manufacturing costs, we must have a large home market and we must consider the urgency of developing that market not only from the Scottish but from the British point of view.

I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will tell us that, very shortly, we shall have television in Scotland and that we shall not have to wait for another two and a half years before we get it. I also hope that he will say that there will be much more freedom in the administration of the service and that Scotland will have a large measure of freedom so that there will be a transmitting station there which will not be merely a relay station.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I was interested to hear the speeches about the benefits and joys of television which nave been mentioned by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) saw in it something which would cure all the problems of population and all the troubles of hearth and home. I would point out that of those at present able to install television—the eight million people around London—only about 120,000 have got it. Television cannot have proved so widely beneficial, or there is some other stumbling block—

Mrs. Mann

Has my hon. Friend taken into consideration the counter-attractions provided for those eight million people? There are no counter-attractions on a similar scale for Scottish people. Also, has he taken into consideration the innate Scottish thrift?

Mr. Ross

I know about the price of the sets. I think that we should shut down the Scottish Tourist Board if we have no attractions in Scotland. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) talked about people in the wide open spaces. There we have something which London will never have, and I am not greatly concerned about that part of his argument. The hon. Gentleman compared the eight million people in London with the five million people in Scotland. Has he taken into consideration any of the practical problems of television? There is a reliable range for a radius of only 30 miles. There is a certain amount of view up to a radius of 40 miles.

We must look at this matter from a canny Scot's point of view. The fact is that it still costs £50 or upwards for a television set, and many of my constituents, especially the older folks, who would like to have a wireless set, grouse about the cost of the licence being £1, whereas the cost of the television licence is £2.

Mrs. Mann

In spite of that, will not my hon. Friend agree that the cost of wireless sets about 20 years ago was £20, which was much more formidable—

Mr. Ross

I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, because I have only about two minutes in which to complete my speech.

Unlike America, we did not have the opportunity of continuing our research and development during the war, because it was much more important for us to give our whole attention to distracting German bombers. That is part of the cost of war, so far as the development of research in television is concerned. As far as I can see, what is really happening in regard to the new television station at Sutton Coldfield is an extension of an experiment, and I doubt very much whether the best way to proceed is by means of short-wave radio or by cable. While Scotland will probably derive substantial benefits in improvements to television and in cheapening the cost, eventually we may come to the point when we can go ahead with the experiments which are being carried out in Scotland at the moment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite shut their eyes to the fact that experiments in television are going on at Kirk o' Shotts, so that we shall get television in Scotland in time.

I would like to ask whether this is the most important thing which has to be done in this country after a war? Surely, it is more important for Scotland that we should develop the Scottish hydro-electric schemes, and that we should get on with the opening of the new pits in the Fife coalfield and things that really matter? It is all right talking about the Americans squandering money on television, but they are throwing millions away, because it is one of the most unsafe ventures into which people can put their money, and I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making sure that it is Government money which is being spent in this direction.

I am not in favour of squandering money on this racket. It is a most expensive business from the point of view of research and development, and it will be expensive from the point of view of the consumer and the ordinary person who buys a television set. Is there any hon. Gentleman opposite who is prepared to say that the present system is permanent, or that there may not be within 10 years, five years or even less, a complete switch-over and that the British system may not be completely altered?

Colonel Hutchison

We shall never get permanence that way.

Mr. Ross

We shall never get permanence in this way, and we have only to remember what happened with the development of wireless sets.

The other point is this. First things should come first, and that has been the policy of the Government up to now. I want to see television in Scotland, but I do not want it based on a false argument. The best argument is the argument of a national basis, and I hope it will not be delayed, but that we shall continue the policy of "first things first."

12.14 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)

I should like to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that we welcome this Debate dealing with the problems of television in Scotland. It is true that the Debate has developed over a rather wide field, but it does give the House an opportunity to discuss television problems. The best thing I can say at the outset is that, as far as my right hon. Friend and the Government are concerned, they are desirous that there should be the quickest practicable extension of television throughout Great Britain, having regard to the essential economic development necessary for the well-being of the country.

I always think that in a discussion which affects the B.B.C. it is always desirable to reiterate the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The powers of the Postmaster-General deal with the hours of broadcasting, organisation of broadcasting stations and wave lengths and the power and heights of aerials. There has been some hint that there has been delay in dealing with television, and there is the insinuation that the heavy hand of Whitehall or the Post Office is preventing development. I want to assure the House that, as far as the third contemplated station for television is concerned, namely, that at Holme Moss, though it cannot start until next year, the Postmaster-General has already agreed, and there is no delay on our part. So far as the actual development of television is concerned, it is the responsibility of the B.B.C. as to whether they develop their stations, and that is very important.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) raised many points, in one of which he implied—I hope I am doing him justice—that one of the causes of the lack of development of television was the shortage of money. He went so far as to say that one of the ways in which it could be expedited would be by means of sponsored programmes. Let us look at the actual position. Far from the B.B.C. being short of money for the development of television or for broadcasting in general, if we look at the last published accounts presented to Parliament, we find that there is a sum of £2,348,172 unexpended balance on capital account, so that there is no question of shortage of money. The B.B.C. are perfectly free at any time they may desire to come to my right hon. Friend and Parliament and ask for more money for the development of their radio services, and they have not done so. It is quite obvious why they have not done so; it is because there was sufficient money available in the amounts that were received from licences.

So far as sponsored programmes are concerned, that point is really too bad. Not only the present Parliament but previous Parliaments, not only the present Government but a Conservative Government, have declared themselves against sponsored broadcasts, and I am sure that it is the overwhelming view of the House that we should not have sponsored broadcasts foisted on us, and I rather regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made his remarks about that subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made one rather significant admission, which I think was as well made today and not last Thursday, with regard to the Press being sponsored by advertisements. Well, if that is the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman regarding the Press, it is not my opinion, and it is not our intention, in our radio services, to have anything in the nature of sponsored programmes, so far as the Government are concerned.

Then, the hon. and gallant Gentleman poked a little fun quite kindly—I am not complaining—at the Television Advisory Committee. It is not defunct, but quite alive. It is true that Lord Trefgarne has retired from the position of chairman, having taken up other duties, but the present chairman of the Television Advisory Committee is a very prominent person in the business world, Sir William Coates.

Colonel Hutchison

Have they met since Lord Trefgarne went?

Mr. Hobson

I cannot say that offhand, but as it is an Advisory Committee associated with the Post Office, it will meet regularly and do its particular job, so that there need be no dubiety about that whatever.

The general question of the development of television is associated with the problem of capital investment. I am not going to argue that shortage of raw materials is preventing the extension of television, though there may be a certain shortage of skilled labour. The whole problem was that pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). It is that of priorities. In which industries shall the capital be invested? Which are the industries most essential to the community and its well being? Are we to have development of power stations, which are essential; or are we to have television? Let us be frank. It is far more important that there should be development of our essential industries, and it is because of that that the Government have been compelled to review the capital investment in the television service. On the other hand, it has not been entirely ignored.

I think it may be just as well to give one or two facts. In 1949 the Government laid down that there should be no extension of television beyond the Birmingham station, which will be completed in the autumn; but so far as the figures for 1950, 1951 and 1952 are concerned, there is no bar on television whatsoever: the B.B.C. is entirely free to expend the capital which is available on television, should it so desire. As far as the actual cuts are concerned, I take the year 1950. The amount allowed was £1,903,000, which was reduced to £1,750,000, a reduction of £153,000. Hon. Members are not going to tell me that a vast organisation like the B.B.C. will say now that a £153,000 cut is to fall solely on television. Of course not. A Corporation of that sort would spread it over many services. There is no question whatever of singling out television for a cut.

It is unfortunate that we cannot go ahead with all the stations. That is perfectly true. However, it is quite unfair to compare Britain with the United States of America—quite unfair. This country of ours has fought two world wars from the first day of each to the last, and it is having to pay for them, and it is having to pay for them by concentrating industry on the export trade. As a result, capital development has to be in those industries engaged in the export trade. I think it is a little unfair to attack the Government, or to criticise the Government, on the ground that they are neglecting television.

Sir W. Darling

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? The comparison is not with the United States—

Mr. Speaker

I would remind hon. Members that the Debate on this subject is running very late.

Mr. Hobson

So far as the programme is concerned, Birmingham will be working in the Autumn. Next there will be the Yorkshire station, and when that station is completed 28 million people in Britain will be able to have television. There is no question of being hard on Scotland or unjust to Scotland. None whatever. I think one thing we can say in the Post Office is that the needs of Scotland are consistently being attended to. Consider, for instance, the provision of rural telephones, or the provision of cables to the Western Isles. All that work is being developed, and as a result very good services are being given by the Post Office. I am not in a position to say when Scotland's television station will be available, but I want to make it clear that we do appreciate the feelings and the national ideals of Scotsmen. I have not the slightest doubt that after the completion of the Yorkshire station the claims of Scotland will receive the due attention which so great a country deserves.

12.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

Had it not been for the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman we might have been more satisfied; but when he says that he is envisaging a picture in which 28 million south of the Border will have television while nobody north of the Border will have it, and when he says that he cannot say when anybody north of the Border will receive television—because certainly the effective range is only on a radius of 30 miles—we must say that that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer to the case put up by both sides of the House today. I do not think that this can possibly be the Government's last word on the matter.

The Assistant Postmaster-General did not, I think, deal with the particular point that, as this had been a Scottish invention, it was only reasonable that a little priority should be accorded to Scotland—a priority, at any rate, somewhere before the twenty-sixth million or the twenty-seventh million. I think we might have been considered at that stage, at least. We in Scotland did not come in on the first few millions. Ten million, 15 million, 20 million received facilities for this service before the Scots people. The Government said, "You do not come in yet." So now 22 million, 23 million, 24 million, 25 million are to receive the service before any of the Scots people. The Assistant Postmaster-General says, "You do not come in yet." Up to 28 million people south of the Border are to receive television facilities before the people in Scotland. Well, I must say that that is a very unsatisfactory answer indeed, and I do not think that even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will take that as an answer, or will commend it to his constituents as a satisfactory outcome of his intervention today.

The Assistant Postmaster-General said quite truly that we have to concentrate on the export trade, but the point put by hon. Members on both sides of the House was that only on a flourishing home market could a flourishing export trade be built up. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, in arguing that it might be 10 years or more before a satisfactory system was developed, was arguing for a standstill which would make it impossible for us ever to envisage our entering this trade at all.

My last word would be that I think it should be possible for commercial interests—if it is still to be an indefinite date after 28 million people south of the Border receive television before anybody receives it north of the Border—to be licensed to provide a service. It should be possible, the circumstances being as the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, for him to license commercial interests. The Rank interests, for instance, have already a transmitting station, and have recently demonstrated a programme, as against the B.B.C. programme, which was certainly quite comparable with the programme of the B.B.C. If the hon. Gentleman says there is no possibility of Scotland's having B.B.C. television services in any period he can foresee today, then it should be possible for commercial interests under licence to show what can be done. I say again that postponing this matter to the Greek Kalends, to an absolutely indefinite date, is really not what was asked for by Scots Members this morning. Nor is it an answer that they can accept.