TELEVISION (COMMERCIAL STATIONS) (Hansard, 5 February 1953)

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I have given the Assistant Postmaster-General notice that I was proposing to use the Adjournment tonight in order to ask him some questions about sponsored television. These arise out of very unsatisfactory answers he gave to Questions of hon. Friends of mine on 21st January.
On 21st January the Assistant Postmaster-General informed the House that there had already been some 34 applicants for commercial television stations, but he refused to reveal to the House who the applicants were, or to give the House any further information on the matter. I was alarmed when I heard that remark, because it seemed to me to betray a complete misunderstanding of the very great public interest there is in this matter. After all, commercial television is going to be one of the gravest and most critical social problems in the next few years. It is one which affects the public intimately, and, therefore, it is one on which the public are entitled to have the fullest amount of information, as I am sure the House will realise.
Let me first of all ask some questions about the timing. Let me remind the Assistant Postmaster-General that when this matter was discussed in another place last year the Lord Chancellor, in the course of an official statement, indicated that it would be several years—this was on the 26th May, 1952—

Mr. Fletcher
As recently as last May the Lord Chancellor intimated that it would be several years before any licences would be granted for commercial television. In this House on 11th June the Home Secretary was more specific. He said that the B.B.C. would be allotted the resources to complete its programme of lower-power television stations … before any competitor is admitted to a share of the national resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 218.] About the same time, in another place the Postmaster-General had indicated that the B.B.C. programme of putting up five lower-power stations might well take as long as five years.
The first thing, therefore, I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General tonight is for an express assurance that these promises still hold good. We must ask for that, because there have been indications from some quarters recesntly that, contrary to these assurances given last year, the Government are moving ahead with the most unseemly haste. In fact, there are rumours in some quarters that the Government are plotting to grant the first licence for commercial television this year or early next year. In view of the solemn assurances that have been given, I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to deny that there is any truth in that current rumour. There are various indications that make one very suspicious about it.
For example, is it not a fact that the reason why the B.B.C. cannot give complete coverage for the Coronation is that equipment which B.B.C. require is being saved up so as to be available for commercial television? Is it not also a fact that a number of technicians and artists on the B.B.C. Television Service have already been approached by commercial concerns who are hoping to get television licences? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members opposite ask, "Why not?" It is common knowledge that well known figures like Gilbert Harding and Richard Dimbleby will be able to command much higher fees from sponsored television than the B.B.C. can afford.

§ Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon North)
Why not?

§ Mr. Fletcher
I have not time this evening to argue the full case against sponsored television, but the short answer to the question is that sponsored television is a menace to our national standards. Anyone who has had experience of American television knows that it is almost impossible to control it, and that it can pollute the domestic atmosphere of every home, pervert the minds of the children—

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
rose—

§ Mr. Fletcher
I do not want to give way for the moment.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
That is not a simile. The hon. Member must compare like with like.

§ Mr. Fletcher
Unless we are very careful commercial television will pervert and reduce the standards of taste, morality and culture in this country for a generation.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Fletcher
All I am trying to argue tonight is that this is a matter of great public interest, and I do not understand why the Assistant Postmaster-General should try to surround the subject with so much secrecy and mystery. I am inviting him to give the House and the country further information.
Let me now turn to the Television Advisory Committee. Will he please tell us more than we have known before, namely, the functions of that Committee? On what subjects does it advise? Are we right in thinking that its membership consists very largely of persons drawn from the industry? I make no complaint about that, but is it not a fact that there is on that Committee nobody who represents consumers, who represents, for example, parents or teachers, or any other body of recipients? I am sure hon. Members opposite are just as concerned as we are. They want sponsored television, but I hope even they would agree that they want to get it in the best possible form.
Why does not the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us who the applicants are? After all, if we are to have this infliction, if we are to have commercial television day and night, week in and week out, 2169 Sundays and all, surely we are entitled to know to whom and on what principles this immense privilege, this great concession, is to be given.
The Assistant Postmaster-General says that so far there have been 34 applicants. Will he tell us who they are? If he is not going to tell us, may I suggest to him that it is more or less common knowledge who some of them are. Is it not a fact that one of the most prominent of the applicants is a company called the Associated Broadcasting Development Company of which Mr. Stanley, of Messrs. Pye is a director, and that he also happens to be a member of the Advisory Committee? There is no objection to his company applying for a licence, but are other members of the Committee associated with companies which are also applying for licences? There is no reason why they should not, but I think that we should know. Do they know who the 34 applicants are? Are they going to advise whether some of their own companies or some of their competitors should be given licences? Why should not the House know?
Is it a fact or not—it is widely rumoured—that two large newspaper combines have applied for licences—the "Daily Mirror" and, I think, the "Daily Express," but it does not matter which. The point is if they have applied, should all the other newspapers apply equally in self-defence? I am not complaining about anyone applying. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us whether there is any time-limit for applying, and can he give an assurance that if any rival concerns want to apply they will not be too late if they apply next year, the year after, or in three years' time? Can they all rely on the fact that it will be four or five years before any licence is granted? This is a very serious matter.
I do not envy the Assistant Postmaster-General. He is in a position in which he is responsible for discharging this important patronage of granting a concession to a very limited number of people and, therefore, I am sure that he will welcome taking the House fully into his confidence. Is it not a fact that the Television Advisory Committee have already advised the Postmaster-General that the number of licences that can be granted is very limited? Am I right in thinking that there can only be one or 2170 two licences in each region? Incidentally, will he tell us when this Committee will report? Will it report to him'? Will the contents of the report be made public? Shall we be able to debate it in the House? That is the kind of question in which this House is vitally interested.

§ Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)
May I suggest two or three more questions to put to the Minister on this point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)
Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to make his own speech.

§ Mr. Fletcher
Perhaps my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Let me put this to the Postmaster-General. As I understand from reading the debates in another place and here, the only argument for sponsored television was to introduce a measure of competition to the B.B.C. That was the only argument on which it was justified. Everyone knows that the B.B.C. is a very highly-respected institution. It has set and maintained unparalleled standards of taste and culture, and so forth. No one disputes that. What we all fear is that these standards will be grossly lowered by commercial television.
The case for it is competition. When the Assistant Postmaster-General thinks in terms of competition, does he want as much competition as possible? Does he want as many people as possible to apply for these licences? Will he tell us what conditions have to be complied with and what fee is payable? Are people allowed to gang up with a view to getting a licence? Let him remember that unless he is careful he will not find that sponsored television will produce very much competition. He may well find that there are sufficient wavelengths available for only one or two companies, and we may then meet the worse danger of all, something like a monopoly in commercial television.

§ Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing
Will the hon. Gentleman agree that Londoners find it is better to have three evening newspapers than a single evening newspaper? Would not even limited competition provide consumer interest?

§ Mr. Fletcher
That is another matter. The Government are not responsible for the newspapers. The Government are 2171 responsible for allocating licences for sponsored television. We think they have made a fundamental mistake against the best interests of the country in the decision they have taken. They have given us certain assurances that sponsored television will be postponed for a number of years in the interests of the B.B.C., and I am inviting the Assistant Postmaster-General to confirm those assurances. If he does not confirm them, it will be a gross betrayal of the B.B.C.
I am also asking for an assurance that the House will be given the fullest information about this. Obviously, a great deal of money is to be made out of commercial television. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but as the Government have the power to dispense this great concession, the House is entitled to know how the Government are to carry out their powers and on what principle. At the moment the whole thing is surrounded with a great deal of mystery and secrecy. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to come out into the open, place his cards on the table and tell the House what his policy is and give us as much information as he can on the subject. That is the only way in which he can allay the suspicions which exist about what is going on at the present time.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he agree that there is a strong case—

§ Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)
I am glad to have this opportunity—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is asking something of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) before he sits down.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for an independent public inquiry into the handling of commercial television by the Minister? Would he also agree that the following question should be put to the public inquiry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. I thought the hon. Member for Woolwich, East desired to ask his hon. Friend a question and was not proposing to make a speech.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I certainly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said so far.

§ Major Beamish (Lewes)
rose—

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—

§ Major Beamish
rose—

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I am putting a question to Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I think I am entitled to do so. He is certainly allowing it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East gives way, is it not in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East to put a question to him, even if that question happens to be more than one sentence?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member for Islington, East sat down having finished his speech. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East began by saying, "Before my hon. Friend sits down." Normally an hon. Member then asks a short question. To my mind, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East proceeded to make a speech, which I thought was rather too much because we have only half an hour for the debate.

§ Major Beamish
I have only a very few minutes to put one or two points to my hon. Friend. There are four points about which I and a good many of my hon. Friends are anxious and regarding which we should like some reassurance.
First, during the debate on 11th June, 1952, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, winding up for the Government, said that some of my hon. Friends had cast doubts on the sincerity of the Government with regard to their policy in the field of television. In reply to those doubts he said: The Government are in earnest, not only over breaking the B.B.C. monopoly, but also in permitting sponsored television. I should first like to ask my hon. Friend whether he will take this opportunity of confirming that there has been no change in the attitude of the Government on that most important point.
Secondly—and I differ completely from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) who raised this matter—I hope the Government are not under any illusion at all about the so-called priority which has 2173 been given to the B.B.C. I make this point very briefly indeed, and it is that there has not been any undertaking either in the debate or in the White Paper that I know of that the B.B.C. should be able to complete all their plans in the field of television before the stations to be in competition which are outside the monopoly are allowed to begin to put their plans into operation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the debate last June: We intend that the B.B.C. shall be allotted the resources to complete its programme. …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 218 and 328.] I emphasise the word "resources." It seems to me from this and from what the White Paper said that, as soon as the B.B.C. has been given the capital resources and there has been made available the labour and material, then the Government can say "go" and show the green light to stations setting themselves up in competition. I hope I can impress upon my hon. Friend that a good many of us on these benches could not have supported him if the time factor for breaking the T.V. monopoly had been linked with the completion of these stations. It is perfectly obvious that if that were the case the B.B.C. could produce over-long and over-elaborate plans which might well result in a delay of a good many years before competition could enter the field.
Thirdly, why have the Government not appointed the new controlling body to which the Home Secretary referred during the debate last June. I very much hope that that body will be appointed without any more delay. Lastly, in paragraph 10 of the White Paper it is made perfectly clear that the radio industry cannot proceed with its plans at all until such time as it has been provided with certain technical basic information. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he comes to the plan tonight, will be able to tell us that there will be no further delay in providing that information.

§ The Assistant Postmaster:General (Mr. David Gammans)
I have been asked so many questions tonight from both sides of the House that I would require more than 13 minutes to answer them all. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) would not have had to ask so many questions if he had re-read the 2174 White Paper and the debate. There is nothing new about all this, and I have nothing new or sensational to tell the House.

§ Mr. Mayhew
The names.

Mr. Gammons
The Government's policy in regard to sponsored television has been fully set out in the White Paper and in the debates in this House and in another place. There have been subsequent developments since that time which have been revealed as the result of various Parliamentary Questions. The whole thing is perfectly clear and there is nothing new or sensational—

§ Mr. Mayhew
The names.

Mr. Gammons
I will go into the question of names in a minute.
If the hon. Member for Islington, East had studied the various points first, he would not have raised the doubts which appear to exist in his mind as to the Government's intention or the Government's bona fides in this matter. I can put the answer in a few words. The Government adhere to their policy that the B.B.C. monopoly in television shall no longer be allowed to continue. Under certain safeguards and certain conditions an element of competition by television based on advertising revenue shall be permitted.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Shame.

Mr. Gammons
It is perfectly clear that the Government have not gone back on that and have no intention of so doing. I do not need to give all the reasons for this because they were all explained in the debates I have referred to, but as a matter of principle the Government are opposed to a monopoly in television. They do not like the idea of a monopoly, and the reason which led them to come to that decision is that they are convinced that the public can best be served by a series of commercial television stations as well as by the B.B.C. I hope that it is not necessary at this juncture—although judging by what the hon. Gentleman said just now I wonder whether it is—once more to reiterate that this policy does not mean in any way that the B.B.C. are to be interfered with. They will continue to be the sole organisation to draw revenue from licences.
I gather that the attitude of the Opposition is that, without waiting to see what 2175 safeguards are to be imposed on competitive television or on what conditions sponsored television is to be allowed, they are determined to oppose it. They oppose the whole idea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—even though opposing the whole idea means that the public will be deprived of an additional service which they would get as result of sponsored television. I hope that the country will realise that what the Opposition are saying is: "Our attitude is to take something away from you, to prevent your having something which you would otherwise have. We believe in monopolies, and by monopolies we are going to stick."

§ Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)
Just like the Post Office.

§ Mr. Gammans
There are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled—I agree with many of the points which the hon. Gentleman made—before sponsored stations come into operation. The first is that the Television Advisory Committee will have to advise the Postmaster-General on the frequencies that are available for the service which the sponsored stations will operate. The hon. Gentleman made great play with the membership of the Television Advisory Committee, but this Committee is almost entirely a technical committee. It has nothing whatever to do with advising the Postmaster-General who should have a licence for a sponsored station. Its task is to tell the Postmaster-General what frequencies are available.

§ Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)
And how many.

§ Mr. Gammans
Yes. It has nothing whatever to do with selection. Its task is also to advise the Postmaster-General about very high frequencies and whether we shall have amplitude modulation or frequency modulation.

§ Mr. Mayhew
rose—

§ Mr. Gammans
I have not the time to give way to the hon. Gentlemian. I do not know whether the House is aware that there is already a very high frequency station operated by the B.B.C. now at Wrotham I Kent. Any hon. Member who has had the opportunity of listening to Wrotham with the particular type of set which is required to get very high 2176 frequencies will agree with me that this represents a very promising development in sound radio, especially for areas that get bad reception now.
The advisory committee has been reconstituted under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Charles Daniels. It has alrdady appointed a technical sub-committee, and is carrying out its work with very great vigour and energy. It is fair to say that the report of the Television Advisory Committee will be in the hands of the Postmaster-General rather earlier than seemed possible eight months ago. That is condition number one: a technical committee advising the Postmaster-General on wavelengths.
The second condition which must be fulfilled is one to which both hon. Gentlemen referred and that is the obligation of the B.B.C. with regard to the five low-powered stations. I do not want to go over that point again, but I would refer hon. Gentlemen to what was said in the debate and in the White Paper, by which the Government entirely stand.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
When will the report be published?

§ Mr. Gammans
No exact time can be given when this particular obligation can be fulfilled, if for no other reason than that we do not know what resources can be allotted to television in the near future by the Government.
The third condition is that before the licence for the first sponsored station is granted this House will have a further opportunity of discussing the terms of that licence and the nature of the controlling body. There is to be a controlling body. I think the hon. Gentleman was mixing the controlling body with the Television Advisory Committee. It is clearly set out in the White Paper that such a body will be necessary. It has not yet been constituted, but all this means that the House will have a full opportunity of discussing commercial television when the plans of the Government are ready and before they are put into operation.
I need say no more except, as I have told the House in answer to Questions, that there are 35 applications from organisations and bodies of all sorts—

§ Mr. Mayhew
Give the names.

§ Mr. Gammans
Of course I shall not give the names. It would be most 2177 improper. No Government would dream of giving the names when applications of this kind are made.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Surely the Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order, order.

§ Mr. Gammans
That is how the position now stands. My own view is that the majority of people in this country who own television sets are looking forward to the prospect of commercial television and are prepared to give it the fair trial which hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to give. Viewers in this country expect the Government to prevent abuses and this the Government are prepared to do.
I believe this country is turning against monopolies, whether those monopolies be Government or private, whether they are good or bad. The B.B.C. is an example of a good monopoly. It has a record and reputation of which it and the country can be justly proud. That is why the Government are not interfering with it and that is why they are not in any way taking away its powers. All the same I believe that a little competition would not do the B.B.C. any harm, any more than competition does harm to any organisation or to any individual. I hope myself that the time will not be too far distant when this new and interesting development of television will be in operation

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Mayhew

§ Mr. Mayhew
Is the Minister aware that the statement be has made confirms the view of all responsible people that there should be an immediate, independent public inquiry into his handling of commercial television. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Is he aware that the questions being asked are these: First, why does he refuse to give the names of those asking for these licences and why should he be ashamed of it? Second, who are the financial backers of the Associated Broadcast Development Company?
Third, what propositions are being put by that company to B.B.C. officials, does the Minister know about that and does he approve of it? Fourth, to what extent 2178 are the activities of that company known to the Minister? Fifth, why are there no representatives of viewers, parents, broadcasters, religion, sport or entertainment on the Television Advisory Committee and why is there a majority on this committee of private financial interests?
These are some of the questions to which the Minister should reply if he is to reassure public opinion of this question. It is most unsavoury, hole-in-the-corner business, and I declare that there is a case for an independent public inquiry into his handling of this matter.

§ Mr. Gammans
I do not know how the hon. Gentleman expects me to answer the questions he has asked when he has allowed me only one minute in which to answer. And what a ridiculous lot of questions he has asked. How am I supposed to know the constitution and finances of various bodies and corporations and companies who have put in a preliminary application for a licence? Of course I shall not give an answer. Of course I shall not give the names. No Government would dream of giving the names of people who put in at this stage a preliminary application to be considered for a licence when the Government propose to give the licences. What am I supposed to do in regard to talk about B.B.C. officials being approached and all that kind of nonsense? Is it an offence?

§ Mr. Mayhew
It is your policy—

§ Mr. Gammans
Am I supposed to put a ring fence round them or to put in gaol the people who put the propositions to them? The hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly ridiculous lot of questions to which I am sure he does not expect an answer.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Is the Minister aware that it is as the result of his policy that these proposals—