HC Deb 02 April 1953 vol 513 cc1456-76

4.9 p.m.

Mr. John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

It is nearly a year since the Government announced their intention of ending the B.B.C. monopoly and allowing an experiment in commercial television. It is 10 months since they published their White Paper giving their exact proposals. Those proposals were approved by the House but since then the public at large have known practically nothing about what has happened in that field, and very little progress seems to have been made so far. In every debate on this subject the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who I regret is not in his place, has maintained that the demand for commercial television comes only from advertising agencies and big business. That is something with which I wish to deal later.

Let me say at the outset that I am, and have been for many years, a director of an advertising agency whose associated companies are among the biggest producers of commercial radio and sponsored television, not only in the United States of America and other countries, but in each of our Dominions. Lest I should be accused of "private log-rolling," to use the characteristically charitable phrase of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who I also regret is not present, let me say that for the last six years I have been a member of the B.B.C. General Advisory Council. To a certain extent, therefore, I may claim to have a foot in both camps.

Be that as it may, I ask the House to believe that my advocacy of commercial television has nothing to do with my own commercial interests. I feel as deeply and passionately on the subject of breaking the B.B.C. monopoly as does the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on the other side, and I ask him to believe that. Indeed, my own narrow commercial interests would best be served by leaving things as they are, but I believe that in the public interest the television service should be extended as quickly as possible. I think that television will soon supplant sound radio for all general purposes, in very much the same way as the talking film supplanted the silent film. I have, therefore, great sympathy with those sections of the British community who, under the present set-up, will not be able to witness the Coronation ceremony.

A White Paper issued some 10 months ago contained, broadly speaking, four points. The first was that the Government recognised that the monopoly of the B.B.C. has done much to establish the excellent and reputable broadcasting service for which this country is renowned. The White Paper stated that the B.B.C. services must remain intact. In all the debates we have had on this subject, it might have been assumed from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that we were proposing to abolish the B.B.C. and supplant it by commercial television. That is not and has never been the intention of the Government. They intend that the B.B.C. shall remain exactly as it is, with its revenue unimpaired, but parallel to it there shall be some competion in the form of sponsored or commercial television.

The second point made in the White Paper was that the Government have come to the conclusion that in the expanding field of television provision should be made to permit some element of competition when calls on capital equipment make that feasible. Thirdly, the White Paper said that a controlling body would have to be established to safeguard the public against abuses, to lay down the terms on which those independent stations might operate, and generally to oversee the programmes. Fourthly, the Government stated that they would rely on the Television Advisory Committee for all technical matters. For example, the Committee would advise on what wavelengths would be available, how many independent stations could operate, and so on. Were the Government this afternoon to announce new frequencies and how many stations would be licensed, no new sets capable of receiving those programmes could be available in this country before 1954 at the earliest. Therefore, my first point is that it is absolutely vital for industry to have this information now in order that they may develop new sets, and so that adaptors may be made available next year.

When will this Television Advisory Committee report? Will it be next week, next month or next year? We know that under the Socialist Government the Committee were zealous enough in the discharge of their duties to meet three times in three years. I hope we shall not emulate that record, but that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us they have met frequently, and are in a position to report.

In introducing the White Paper, the Assistant Postmaster-General gave an assurance that, while the Government wanted to go ahead with these alternative methods of television, the B.B.C. would have priority in building their own five T.V. stations which would give something like 90 per cent. coverage. I think I am interpreting the sense of the debate correctly when I say that did not mean that the Government gave any assurance that the B.B.C. would complete all its stations and all its development plans, including those for the development of very high frequency. I should like to quote from what the hon. Gentleman said on 11th June. He said: The Government are in earnest, not only over breaking the B.B.C. monopoly, but also in permitting sponsored television. They have decided that the B.B.C. shall be allowed to have priority over the completion of the programmes that were held up because of the capital cuts. But that does not mean that, when adequate resources of money and materials are available, competitive television must wait until the B.B.C. extension is complete in all respects. It does not mean that the B.B.C. will have to put the last coat of varnish on any building that they may put up before competitive television can be started. In fact, it is the hope of the Government that it will be possible before long that this experiment can actually be started and that the controlling body should be set up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 328.] My second question to the Assistant Postmaster-General, arising from his own speech, is: when will the B.B.C. have allotted to them the necessary resources? Are we to wait until the five stations are completed? Are we to wait until they are started or merely until the money has been granted? Or are we to wait until the whole of their V.H.F. plans have been developed? The B.B.C. themselves are responsible for a great deal of the failure to develop television. The amount of capital resources they have expended on the Third Programme, which caters for 1 per cent. of the populace—and in that figure I am generous— could equally well have been devoted to the development of television if the B.B.C. had desired.

Many believe that this capital cost argument is being used to delay progress, and that the B.B.C. is being unnecessarily liberal in its plans and programmes. But even if the capital investment argument were truly valid, which I do not accept, why on earth have the Post Office allowed a 10-month delay in appointing the controlling body they themselves recommended? This is the body which must consider and lay down the conditions under which the licences to operate these independent T.V. stations will be granted. It is the body to consider representations made from any quarter, and must so arrange its plans that they can be debated in this House before they are finally approved. The Post Office have shown excessive dilatoriness in appointing the controlling body.

My third question is whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can give an assurance that the controlling body will be set up forthwith. While the bureaucrats have dawdled, delayed and dallied, private enterprise has been, as I believe it always is, zealous in its duty. Private enterprise has approved a "Code of the Air," a copy of which has been forwarded to the Postmaster-General. According to Labour Party propaganda and the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, the proposals of the Government are a menace to all our home standards and to the impressionable minds of our children. I do not know whether this is a Parliamentary expression, but I say that is utter poppycock. I have no hesitation in stating that this "Code of the Air," which has been prepared by the Incorporated Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, lays down proposed standards far higher than those which would be accepted by most newspapers or music-halls and considerably higher than the standards which the B.B.C. set themselves.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

Why does the B.B.C. not require a controlling body?

Mr. Rodgers

It has a Board of Governors subject to Parliamentary control. The advertising industry has already set itself exceptionally high standards in its work in the Press and on the hoardings —standards which are maintained by voluntary co-operation, and which are unsurpassed anywhere in the world. Yet the Labour Party are extremely distressed —and I accept that they have some fears for which there may be grounds—about ending this monopoly. They have distributed talking points and leaflets with headlines such as "Not Fit for Children." All this suggests that independent television operators would put out programmes that would offend public taste and do damage. I only hope that the sponsors of this very liberal and very high-principled "Code of the Air "will publish it so that we can all read and study it. I think that if hon. Members opposite study the specific regulations regarding broadcasts to children they will find that their arguments are tendentious nonsense.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that advertisers would go out of their way to put on programmes that would deliberately offend public taste, they are not only remarkably credulous but also display crass ignorance. The desire of all those who would operate independent television stations would be to attract an audience and provide first-class entertainment and vital and stimulating programmes. The same sort of people who run our newspapers and work in the B.B.C. today will be the people who will take part in these independent television operations. I do not see why we should assume that when people from the B.B.C.—and I mention the name of Mr. Norman Collins in this connection, because he was good enough to be head of television programmes—work on independent stations they will debase their high standards. Of course, not. It is no use quoting United States experience, because we all know that the United States did not start quite as well as we did, and they have no parallel B.B.C. or public corporation to operate and set a very high standard, which undoubtedly the B.B.C. have done.

My third reason for urging the Assistant Postmaster-General to go ahead with his plans is that I believe that the public have already shown that they want commercial television in addition to the B.B.C. programmes. Various newspapers have carried out public opinion tests on this question—"The Economist," the "News Chronicle" and the "Daily Mirror," all of varying political persuasions—and each one shows a majority of people in favour of competition with the B.B.C. and alternative programmes to those of the B.B.C.

I ask my friends in the Press who, I know, have tended to back up the arguments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East to remember that all the arguments used by the Labour Party in defence of the B.B.C. monopoly could equally be used—and, indeed, have been used—in favour of the freedom of the Press. It took centuries of hard struggle to arrive at such freedom of the Press as we now enjoy, and I myself believe that the freedom of the air is vital to the continuance of the freedom of the Press itself. I urge hon. Members to remember that, when the B.B.C. itself started, the Press opposed the B.B.C. putting out news bulletins and refused to print B.B.C. programmes because they thought they would lose circulation. Of course, that has not happened, and the circulations of newspapers have tended to increase, as, indeed, have the sales of radio sets.

In case my friends of the Press think that they would lose advertising revenue from the introduction of commercial television, let me quote some figures of the experience in America. I have here the figures of the national advertising expenditure in newspapers and magazines and on television and radio for four years. In 1942, newspaper revenue from advertising was 152 million dollars, which, incidentally, excludes 2,000 million dollars of local advertising; the magazine advertising revenue was 153 million dollars; there was no television, but competitive radio advertising amounted to 185 million dollars. In 1945, newspaper advertising revenue was 240 million dollars, magazine revenue was 290 million dollars, and radio advertising revenue was also 290 million dollars. In 1949, 445 million dollars was spent on advertising in the Press, 430 million dollars in the magazines, and 395 million dollars in radio. In 1951, the last available year, the newspapers had an all-time high in- come of 513 million dollars from advertising, the magazines 480 million dollars —also an all-time high income—sponsored television, 128 million dollars and radio 375 million dollars.

I understand—although I am not going to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General for confirmation of this—that all newspapers, with the obvious exception of "The Times," have applied to operate commercial stations should the Government decide to go ahead with their plans, as I hope they will.

I wish to query one thing, and it is a very serious point. I hope the Government will not be backward in coming forward, if I may use that phrase, because of the efforts of the B.B.C. itself. It is obvious to listeners and viewers, of whom I count myself one, that in the last few days the programmes in the B.B.C. have been specially selected to present commercial radio in a very unfavourable light. This has extended to school broadcasts, to "Any Questions"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I am not quite certain whether the Postmaster-General has any jurisdiction over the programmes of the B.B.C.

Mr. Rodgers

I submit that he is responsible for the general over-all policy of the B.B.C.

The second point about the B.B.C. is that in the last few days there has been an announcement by the B.B.C. Staff Association to the effect that they are meeting to discuss measures to be adopted for opposing commercial radio. This raises an important constitutional issue. If Parliament has decided on giving independent television a chance, by what constitutional right does a State monopoly and its servants set out to oppose and flout the will of Parliament? I would welcome the Assistant Postmaster-General's views on that.

Finally, I will sum up the reasons why the Labour Party oppose the introduction of independent television stations. I believe that all monopolies are dangerous. They like them. I also believe that any monopoly over the things that influence the mind is doubly dangerous. The party opposite do not believe in trusting the people. We believe that the people should be allowed freedom to choose their programmes and the form of entertainment they want. To the gentleman in Whitehall who knows best they now add the gentleman in Portland Place who apparently know best on this issue. They so misunderstand the economics of advertising that they believe the public will pay more if there are sponsored programmes. That is economic lunacy and nonsense, because the use of effective advertising allows goods to be sold cheaper to the public. Through effective mass selling the public are able to enjoy the fruits of mass production.

The party opposite say that we have no mandate for it. That is nonsense. We believe in freedom and in trusting the people, and we made a point of that at the last Election. I hope the Government will not be deterred from going ahead bravely with their plans. If we are wrong, the public will soon tell us once they have experienced commercial television. But I believe the public will find it a blessing and a boon, and that the alternative programmes can only come from some form of independent commercial television. Despite the gross misrepresentation by the party opposite, the majority of people want these alternative programmes to supplement the very scanty fare now offered by the B.B.C. I hope we shall go ahead with our plans, and that we shall be fortified in doing so by the words of an ex-Director-General of the B.B.C, Sir Frederic Ogilvie, who said: The B.B.C. itself, good as it is, would gain vastly by the abolition of monopoly and the introduction of competition. The dangers of monopoly have long been recognised in the film industry, the Press and the theatre and active steps taken to prevent it. In tolerating a monopoly of broadcasting we are alone among the democratic countries of the world. I believe we have taken the first step in freeing the air. Therefore, I urge the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Government to go ahead without further delay with implementing their proposals for partially freeing the air and providing a better service for the British public.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) began by stating that there had been delay in the Government's plan for introducing commercially sponsored television. There has been no "delay" at all. The Government are pledged not to bring in commercial television for several years. To clear the matter up I should like to read into the record the pledges given by Government spokesmen.

The Lord Chancellor said, on 26th May, 1952: …it cannot but be several years before any licences can be granted…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th May, 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1441.] On 11th June, the Home Secretary said: We intend that the B.B.C. shall be allotted the resources to complete its programme of lower-power television stations and to make reasonable progress with the introduction of high frequency sound broadcasting before any competitor is admitted to a share of the national resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June. 1952; Vol. 502, c. 218.] The Assistant Postmaster-General said, on 30th May, 1952: The limited experiment which the Government has now approved is probably as far as most people want to go at this stage. It will be limited to television only and will not be allowed to start until the B.B.C. have finished their own development plans which were held up by the last Government. Therefore there has been no "delay."

Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe) rose—

Mr. Mayhew

No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Fort

I see that the hon. Member cannot stand controversy. He cannot take it.

Mr. Mayhew

The Assistant Postmaster-General has asked me to limit my remarks to give him an opportunity to reply, and I do not intend to give way.

I suggest that there has been no delay and that the Government are pledged not to introduce sponsored television for several years at least. I think that the Government are wise in their own interest not to hurry too much, and that the Assistant Postmaster-General is beginning to understand the practical difficulties and the weight of opposition which will be aroused if and when he starts this scheme.

We all know of the extraordinary lack of support for these proposals in all responsible sections of opinion in this country. Royal Commission after Royal Commission have reported on this subject and have turned down the views of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. The churches, the trade unions and the Press are against it.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)

The hon. Member is making a deliberately untrue statement.

Mr. Mayhew

It is true that some of the Press have applied for licences. But how many of them in fact want commercial television and how many have been drawn in simply because they feel they cannot afford to be left behind? Noble Lords in another place, including the most distinguished Conservative peers Lord Halifax, Lord Hailsham and Lord Waverley, are all against it. This House is against it. The large majority of hon. Members are firmly against it. I recall particularly the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) speaking most openly and persuasively against it.

The Church of England Newspaper states the position in this House correctly, as follows: Certain vociferous Members want recognition for the principle of sponsoring, and to hold them firm the Government is throwing them this sop. Otherwise there is no doubt that the proposal would be driven out with ignominy. But the Whips were on, and the minority won. That newspaper is absolutely correct.

What about the Government themselves? It is an open secret that the Cabinet itself is divided on this issue. The Assistant Postmaster-General would be very wise to fulfil his pledges not to introduce commercially sponsored television for many years to come. But possibly the Minister will argue that the business world is on his side. I do not believe it at all. From my observations, the great majority of public-spirited business men in this country are dead opposed to commercial television. Most of them dislike it on principle and they would not touch it, even if it paid them to do so. Many of them, however, realise that television advertisement is far too costly for them.

I saw an estimate, which I think is an under-estimate, made by a champion of commercial television, Mr. Macmillan, in "World's Press News." He is a director of Feature Programmes Limited. His estimate for a half-hour play was £2,200. One and a half minutes of advertising— let us say—£2,200. How many businessmen in the country can afford that kind of cost? Those who do not dislike it on principle, as a majority of public-spirited businessmen do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—oppose it because they know it will give a powerful weapon to the big commercial companies against the small businessman.

Who, then, is in favour of this? A handful of the less responsible Conservative Members of Parliament, backed by one of the most powerful vested interests which this country has ever known. Some of the individuals concerned are known, others prefer to remain in the background. It is possible to forgive these businessmen who are pushing it; no doubt, by their lights, they are doing their duty by their shareholders. It is not possible to forgive the Government for not resisting this pressure in the public interest. That is one of the things which disturbs this House considerably.

I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that the Minister has been extremely uncommunicative in the past few months. He will not tell us the names of those who have applied for licences. he has not told us about his plans and the difficulties into which he is getting. What he has stressed in his answers to Questions, and what the hon. Member stressed, was the "controlling body."

The first thing I want to say about the controlling body is what an ironic thing it is that those who tell us so often that the commercial advertisers will, in their own interests, not offend public taste or will not give the highest class of programme, need a kind of cultural Gestapo to keep those advertisers in order. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks proudly insisted that his was about the most rigorous code, the most restrictive and tyrannous imposition that man could devise—

Mr. Rodgers

Not tyrannous.

Mr. Mayhew

What kind of public-spirited broadcasters are these? The B.B.C. Governors do not need a controlling body to keep them in order. They are chosen because they are men who can be trusted by the public. They are chosen because the public knows that they will give broadcasts in the interests of the listeners and not for any ulterior motive

This emphasis on the "controlling body." moreover, shows that the Minister misunderstands the danger of commercial television. It is not the censorable things, it is not the obscenity, it is not the horror. which are the main dangers of commercial television. If one manages somehow to establish a rigorous censorship one can prevent obscenity on the screen. The real danger is the effect of the unending banality of commercial programmes day after day, night after night, especially on children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] —and the irreconcilable conflict between good viewing and good advertising.

Let me give a few instances of this conflict. The hon. Member, in his naive way, said that it was in the interests of the advertiser to give a good programme, which shows that he knows nothing whatever about television—although I do not want to be personal. At every stage the interests of the viewer and the interests of the advertiser conflict—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Take the most obvious one. The viewer wants the advertisement to be as small as possible and as inconspicuous as possible. The sponsor wants them to be as long as possible and as conspicuous as possible. The viewer wants a programme to be a British type—

Mr. Rodgers rose—

Mr. Mayhew

The viewer wants the programmes to be in British taste and in British style; the sponsor does not want a British-type programme. The sponsor wants a television programme which, when it is recorded, will sell well in the United States of America. That is the first important thing the sponsor wants. I can give an instance of this from a quotation which I have. Last year, the chairman of the Beecham group of companies said: Sponsored radio programmes recorded here and shipped round the world could have been heard by huge potential overseas markets. As it is, U.S. operators have seized the opportunity to increase their sales at Britain's expense. It is to counteract this that Beecham's have announced their huge new expenditure on sponsored programmes over Radio Luxembourg. What is the effect of this? It means that from the point of view of the sponsors the test of a programme becomes whether it will suit the American market when it is recorded. That is another instance of the conflict between the interests of the British viewer and the interests of the sponsor.

Mr. Rodgers rose—

Mr. Mayhew

I cannot give way. The hon. Member asked for instances of this conflict and I am giving them. I have a list of six. I have not time to give them all, but I shall give as many as I can. The viewer wants good plays; the sponsor wants plays tailored so that the curtain falls every 15 minutes. I quote from the "Advertisers' Weekly." One of their main contributors—a producer of sponsored broadcasts—wrote on this subject as follows: Writers of half hour dramas are careful to have a curtain line somewhere round the fifteen minute mark There is a tremendous difference between the interests of the sponsor and those of the viewer. Above all. the viewer wants a programme which is tailored to his own tastes and interests, and the sponsor wants one which is tailored to no particular taste and no particular interest, so that, even if nobody keenly enjoys it, nobody feels inclined to switch it off. All along there is this clash between good television and good advertising. I could quote many other instances. Television is bound to be debased when the underlying motive of the programme is not to give pleasure but to sell toothpaste.

To the sponsors the programmes are not ends in themselves but means to an end. This is the lie in the heart of all commercialised programmes. Whether these are high-brow or low-brow, the dividend purpose which motivates them corrupts them in the end.

I would ask the Minister first to state that this Government, who are divided on this issue, and who have no mandate from the electors, and no support from any responsible section of the community, will drop this sordid project once and for a!!. If he will not do that, let him at least reaffirm the pledges which he has given not to introduce it for several years to come.

4.42 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) should feel rather flattered by the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who quite sincerely believes that my hon. Friend and one or two others have managed to persuade a very reluctant Government to adopt this policy. I suppose that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East is suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues are so weak-minded that they are prepared to give way to the pressure of a small group of people behind them. If the hon. Member believes that he will believe anything.

I find it increasingly difficult to understand the attitude of the Labour Party towards sponsored television. I gather that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East would like to make this an election cry, and go barn-storming up and down the country. I hope he does so, and the sooner he starts the better. Nothing could be of greater advantage to the Conservative Party. For one thing, it will be plain to the general public that it is the Socialists who propose to prevent their enjoying a variety of programes.

There is no reason why the new television sets should not have a device whereby they can be switched from one programme to another. Number one programme could be that of the B.B.C. and Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be sponsored television broadcasts. Are the Labour Party prepared, at the next election, to say, "If we get back to power we propose to put a label on stations 2, 3, 4 and 5 so that you shall not hear them, because the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) thinks it improper that you should do so"? If the Labour Party regard that as a good election cry, by all means let them start barn-storming up and down the country. I should be very pleased if they would do so.

Another result of the hon. Member's idea would be to deny to artistes and technicians greater chances of employment. Unemployment exists today among musicians, and I cannot see that any great electoral advantage would be gained by telling these people that they should have no chance of further employment. Perhaps I am an amateur at electioneering; perhaps the hon. Member can see some advantage in saying that, which I cannot see.

Next, the hon. Member sets out as the high priest of monopoly. There are many people in this country, neither Socialist nor Conservative, who hold very strong views on monopolies, and I think they would take a rather poor view if the hon. Member said, "We will decide what you should look at. We do not think you are to be trusted to show your children what they ought to see." If the hon. Member wants to go up and down the country making speeches, by all means let him do so, and as far as we are concerned, the sooner he starts the better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks feels that more progress might have been made. Let me re-assure him straight away—and re-assure the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—that the Government are very much in earnest about sponsored television and that they hope to see it in operation at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope I shall persuade by hon. Friend that real progress has been made in the comparatively short time of 10 months.

There are, however, three distinct factors which have to be kept in view. The first is technical—that of providing radio manufacturers with information about the frequency bands. They require that information before they can make the new sets and the adaptors for the old sets. The task of advising the Government on this matter is entrusted to the Television Advisory Committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Daniel. The Committee and its technical sub-committee have worked with very great vigour and I have great expectations that their first report will be submitted to my noble Friend either this month or at the beginning of May.

This first report will advise on what frequency bands will be available for the sponsored television stations, and I see no reason why manufacturers should not, at a very early date, have available the necessary information to enable them to undertake the development and design of sets to pick up the new stations. In other words, as I said, I imagine that before very long new television sets will have some sort of device whereby they will be able to pick up not only the present B.B.C. stations, but the sponsored stations as well. The present intention of my noble Friend is that the report of the Television Advisory Committee should be published, and in any case the information contained in it will be made available to the radio industry without delay.

The second factor which must be taken into account—and here I think I answer the second point raised by my hon. Friend —concerns the setting up of the controlling body. The need for such a body was set out in paragraph 9 of Command Paper 8550, and I need not go over that again; but I must impress upon the House the vast amount of thought and consideration which must be given to the nature of that body and the functions it will be called upon to perform.

In this country, with commercial television we are entering a completely new field. Let me give some idea of the questions which have to be decided. For example, should any action be taken to prevent monopolies or even partial-monopolies being set up? Ought there to be any regulation concerning the number of stations which can be started in any particular area? Should foreign capital be allowed and, if so, on what conditions and with what limitations? For what number of years should a commercial station be licensed? Is it desirable to control the number of hours during which television of any sort should be allowed during the course of a day?

As to the controlling body itself, how should it be composed and what are to be its powers? What is to be the Ministerial responsibility for the decisions of the controlling body? Finally, how are we to create a healthy code of the air? I am very glad that my hon. Friend mentioned what he called the code of the air which the advertisers of this country have in mind. I sincerely hope that it will be published, and that a copy will be sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East. I believe that, if he reads that, many of his misgivings will be allayed. I hope they will be, that is, if he wants them to be. Incidentally, I should be glad to have any suggestions from any part of the House or any quarter outside the House.

The critics have concentrated, like the hon. Gentleman, almost entirely on the possible abuses of commercial television. That is an argument that has never impressed me. In dealing with the British people we are not dealing with a lot of children. We are dealing with an adult race that can very well look after itself. I am quite convinced that any organisation that set out to debase standards would very soon find itself put out of business by public opinion.

I have given that long list of questions to indicate that a lot of thought has to go to the setting up of the controlling body. I am glad to be able to tell the House that a lot of work has already been done. There has been a working party in the Post Office for some time past, and we have examined all the experience of the United States and the Commonwealth countries that have had sponsored radio or sponsored television in operation for some time.

I would remind the House—and, perhaps, this will satisfy the hon. Member for Woolwich, East on one point—that we are under an obligation to give the House the opportunity of considering the nature of the controlling body and the licence of the first commercial station before it begins to run. I hope I shall reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks when I say, without the slightest hesitation, that by the time that commercial television is in a position to start operations the controlling body will have been constituted. To put it another way, whatever delays there may be in starting the first commercial station they will not be because of the lack of a controlling body.

There is the matter of national economics. I would remind the House that in the original White Paper there was this proviso in relation to commercial television: …when the calls on capital resources at present needed for purposes of greater national importance make this feasible. That must be an overriding consideration, not merely in television but in every phase of our public life—whether we are thinking of new roads or more telephones or the rebuilding of our railway stations. That, of course, is a factor which is not solely within the control of the Postmaster-General.

The late Government took the unpopular step of holding up the building of the five low-power stations for the B.B.C. programme. They did this, quite rightly, because they had to sacrifice non-essentials at a time of rearmament. The Government have been able to relax the ban in two areas, on the North-East Coast and in Northern Ireland. However, as the House is aware, hon. Members from the other three areas and other parts of the country press me every Wednesday about television for their areas, and I have had to say that, while the Government would have liked to have provided it, they have not been able to do so.

I would put this economic argument in all its aspects. Some people may well have criticised us for the fact that at a time when we were fighting for our very national economic existence we allotted any capital resources at all to television. As we go round the country and see these rather ugly aerials on the chimneypots it is not easy to persuade people from abroad that our economic position is as difficult as we all know it to be. However, the decision to restart and extend television was taken, and I for my part am not going to quarrel with it. Today, over 80 per cent. of the country is within television range, or soon will be—a higher percentage, incidentally, than that in any other country in the world.

I am not going to criticise the attitude and the decision that the late Government took. They presumably felt that they wanted to provide people with incentives to increase production. They also probably felt that this country could not afford to be left behind in the technical advance in electronics, of which television is one example. It is an industry with great potentialities for export and an industry which, from a defence point of view, is absolutely vital.

I give these arguments because, judging by the many Questions which hon. Members have raised in the House, I do not believe that all the complexities of the economic aspect of television are realised. However, let me reiterate that in the finality it is the economic argument which must take precedence over all the others—the extent to which the Government feel they are justified in allowing national resources to be devoted not merely to the completion of the B.B.C. programme, but also to the new television stations and the sale of the sets and the adaptors which will be needed.

I have dealt with this matter at some length, because I hoped to persuade my hon. Friend of three things. The first is that, on the technical side, the information which our radio industry needs will soon be provided. Secondly, so far as the controlling body is concerned, a vast amount of work has already been done and the introduction of commercial television will not be held up because of the lack of any controlling body to supervise it. Thirdly—and most important— in the finality, whether it be the extension of the B.B.C. or the commercial stations, this must depend, as everything else must depend today, on the economic resources which this or any other Government can afford to devote to it.

I hope that my hon. Friend has no doubts whatsoever about the Government's belief in this policy and their determination to introduce it at the earliest possible moment. They stand by the White Paper in all its aspects. The reasons why the Government have taken this attitude have been explained to the House on several occasions and all I need to do is to summarise them once more. The Government are convinced that it is only by introducing an element of competition that the public will get the best advantage from television; and, after all, we should remember that it is the interests of the public and not a doctrinaire theory which should guide our policy in this matter.

We are convinced that there will be greater opportunities for both artistes and technicians if there are alternative employers to whom they can offer their services. I believe that from the B.B.C. point of view itself competition will prove to be a good thing. In the last few weeks hon. Members opposite have put questions to me suggesting that artistes and technicians might offer their services to other employers and that the B.B.C. might lose them. If this should happen, and well it may, the B.B.C. are certainly not grumbling about it. They appear to me to be taking a most sensible and robust attitude, in fact, the very attitude which I should expect them to adopt, and that is that, in all walks of life, the public is best served if there is an element of competition and some incentive to greater endeavour.

I hope I have answered the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope, too, that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. I know I have not satisfied him; I do not think I ever shall. I do not know that I even want to try. However, he is, after all, a great artiste on television and perhaps he may find that not only is there scope for him on the B.B.C. but we may also have the pleasure of seeing him performing with his great skill and adroitness on commercial stations at a very early date.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

The whole House will regard the statement by the Assistant Postmaster-General as most unsatisfactory. It is a complete betrayal of the interests of the nation. He has sacrificed the true interests and welfare of the country to a few commercial concerns who are interested in commercial broadcasting: indeed, he has gone back on the promises made in the White Paper.

The Government are pledged not to introduce commercial television for a great many years. They are pledged not to appoint this controlling body until Parliament has had an opportunity of approving the terms and conditions on which the first licence is to be granted—

It being Five o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put till Tuesday, 14th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.