HC Deb 10 February 1953 vol 511 cc373-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Herbert Butcher.]

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

My aim is to secure television for the North of Scotland. The rest of this island has television, but not the North of Scotland. Why should it be penalised and ostracised in this way? I protest and seek to eliminate the present Government's bias against the North of Scotland. They treat the North of Scotland as a foreign country and Scots as foreigners.

This bias is evident in many phases of Scottish life—for instance, in the road and rail services, in Prestwick Airport, in freight charges, in the matter of the Forth and Tay Bridges and many other questions with which I am not concerned tonight. In order to obviate this debate I have asked Ministers many Questions on the subject. I have written to the Postmaster-General to have it attended to at his Departmental level. I have actually written to the Prime Minister and asked him to have it raised to a national level. I did all this without getting the service for Aberdeen and the North of Scotland which that area deserves.

It is only fair to say that the Assistant Postmaster-General has given me facts and figures, but he has not given me the television service which I seek. The facts and figures which I shall quote show that this is unfair discrimination. I shall contrast the treatment of Britain as a whole with the treatment of the North of Scotland. This point is well made by the distinguished Professor A. C. Turner in a recent book on Scottish matters, when he says that there is a widespread feeling that Scotland does not get from the Government or from many agencies and authorities dealing with Britain as a whole, the individual treatment which it believes it deserves. "The Times" which, of course, is not a Scottish newspaper, very fairly devoted a first leading article to this subject last December. In the course of that article it said: For a few the sources of their national sentiment may be `a regret at lost independence' but for most it is mainly the irritation of numerous particular grievances—about Prestwick airport, about the Forth and Tay road bridges, about the inadequate roads and ferries in the Western Highlands and so on. There is, indeed, much justification for these grievances and for the general complaint that Scottish interests and claims are too often given too little attention. I mention that for the purpose of showing that I am slot alone in the case which I seek to put forward in the few minutes at my disposal.

Tonight I am concerned with television, with the Government television negations and tergiversations which constitute an almost incredible discrimination imposing an education and social penalty on parts of Scotland that need television most—parts which the Assistant Postmaster-General has contemptuously referred to as "fringe areas."

I ask the Government to discard this bias and injustice, to rise to far nobler heights and to provide for the North of Scotland, for the Highlands and the Islands a television service at least equal to that enjoyed by England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I ask the Government to cease treating the Scots as foreigners and give them rights, privileges, and amenities at least equal to those enjoyed by the citizens of other parts of this island.

Let us for a moment contrast the position of Scotland with Britain as a whole. Practically the whole of Britain, except Northern Scotland—

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

Except the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Hughes

—has television. At the end of December, 1952, there had been issued no fewer than 1,892,832 television licences for the whole island, and to the end of the last financial year, that is, 31st March, 1952, this cost the nation £3,349,664. Contrast this with the treatment of Scotland, which falls into two classes for this matter; those portions served with television, and those which are not.

Those who are fortunate enough to be served are served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, which covers the whole of Stirling, Clackmannan, Kinross, Fife, Dunbarton, Renfrew, Lanarkshire, East and West Lothian and Midlothian, and Peebles, and substantial parts of Angus, Perth, Ayr, and Berwick. The total population of these areas, according to the 1951 Census, was 4,022,000, and in that figure is comprised 38,000 television viewers at a moderate cost compared with the cost for the rest of the island. On the other hand, the North of Scotland is not served at all. Counties which are not served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, or any other station, are Aberdeen, Caithness, Dumfries, Sutherland, Kirkcudbright, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Bute, Nairn, Moray, Banff, Argyll, Kincardine, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Wigtown, Orkney, and Shetland.

In all these areas, according to the 1951 Census, there are 1,074,000 people, and that means that one-fifth of the population of Scotland is not served at all. A very large proportion of these people are potential viewers because of their secluded and scattered homes, and because of the nature of their social life and the absence of, or shortage of, the urban counter attractions. Indeed, the number of television licences issued emphasises this. In the areas served by the Kirk o'Shotts station, 9.5 television licences were issued per thousand of the population during the short period of nine months after the service became available; while 72.5 licences per thousand of the population were issued 6½ years after the Alexandra Palace service started.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the number of television viewers, in proportion, would be higher in the Highlands and Islands where there are not these counter attractions, than in the larger, more densely populated, urban areas. The present position has several invidious features.

Practically the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland are fully served by television stations at Alexandra Palace, Pontop Pike, Belfast and Kirk o'Shotts, while comparatively small areas such as the North of Scotland, the Isle of Wight, Plymouth, and Cornwall are not served at all. The hardship and unfairness of this are emphasised by the fact that the B.B.C. are actually providing a link between London and Dover to enable foreign countries in Europe to view the Coronation. Why should foreigners be facilitated in this way at the cost of the British taxpayer when Scotsmen are not? Nothing is provided for Aberdeen or the Highlands and Islands whose inhabitants pay British taxes and hold British passports. Why should the British Government treat them with less consideration than foreigners?

What are the reasons for this disgraceful antagonism to the Scots who are good citizens, who are called up for National Service, who fight in the British Navy, Army, and Air Force and help to win British battles, and who indeed govern British colonies? Two reasons have been suggested—cost and labour—but neither of them real nor persuasive. The cost has no weight because money is now being spent on a booster station far Brighton which already has a television service. Money is being spent on the link between London and Dover to enable foreigners to see the Coronation. The argument about labour is not persuasive either, because the television instruments are very largely produced by unskilled female labour and does not compete with skilled labour required for defence. Further, it should be remembered that the money spent on the production of television instruments would not be money thrown away. It would be an investment for the nation educationally, and also with a return in the form of licences.

What are the real reasons for this racial discrimination against Scotland. On 29th January I asked the Assistant Postmaster-General this question: What are the objections of the Government to providing either a television station or even a booster to the areas of Scotland which are not served by Kirk o'Shotts? His reply dated 5th February stated that there are no technical objections to providing a station for Aberdeen and the surrounding districts, and he referred me to a statement made by him in the House on 8th December, 1952, in which he said that: …it would not be in the national interest at a time when important industrial investment is still severely limited on account of our defence and export effort to devote more economic resources to the construction of new stations and still more to the manufacture of the receivers which the opening up of these new services would demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1952; Vol. 509. col. 39.] The House will agree that it is most disingenuous, unpatriotic, and unfair to apply these considerations to 1–50th of the population of Britain and not to the other 49–50th. It is unfair to treat the Scots as foreigners. On 29th January I again asked the Assistant Postmaster- General what it would cost to overcome the Government's objections to serve the North of Scotland. His answer, given on 5th February after consideration was: the overcoming of the objections rests not upon cost, but on an improvement in the national situation. The cost of providing even a temporary and makeshift service for Aberdeen would be some £60,000; a permanent station giving a wider coverage would cost some £200,000 for the B.B.C. station alone. This, again, is disingenuous and unfair. It is unfair to deny the North of Scotland a station at a cost of so trivial a sum as £200,000 compared with the vast sums which are spent on television for the inhabitants of this island as a whole—millions of pounds for the rest of Britain on a booster service for Brighton, which is already served, on a service for Northern Ireland, which is not part of this island at all, and on helping the foreigner. It should be remembered that this £200,000 is capital expenditure. It is not a gift, but it would be a remunerative investment for the Government.

The Government's contumacity on this matter conflicts with their professed policy to re-populate the Highlands and Islands, to which they are now denying amenities enjoyed by citizens in other parts of this Island. It may well be that the Government have some secret reason for penalising the North of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands in this way. If that is so, it is their duty to this nation to disclose it and to keep it a secret no longer. But I hope that the Government have no such secret reason, and hope that they will change their minds and that they will give to the North of Scotland, the Highlands and Islands the television which they deserve.

10.56 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) who opened this very short debate and who represents one half of the city of Aberdeen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who represents the other half, on the persistence with which they have pursued this matter. No Members could have represented with greater vigour and keenness the desire of their constituents to see the Coronation on television.

I wish that I were in the position tonight to say that Aberdeen will have television in time for the Coronation, but, as I have explained in my general statement on 8th December last and in answer to a number of Parliamentary Questions both by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Lady, that will not be possible, much as I regret to have to give this unpopular information. But I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North that it was not the present Government but the previous one which felt compelled to hold up the five low-powered stations, of which that at Aberdeen was one.

They did it—I think quite rightly—because they felt at the time that our economic position was so strained, very largely on account of re-armament and defence, that they were not justified in devoting skilled manpower, raw materials and the resources necessary for the construction of television stations, and also, I imagine, because they did not feel that it was right to devote these raw materials and skilled labour to the construction of the television sets which these new stations would require.

The present Government have felt able to modify that policy by allowing the B.B.C. to put up temporary stations for the North East coast at Pontop Pike and for Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North takes the view that if any exceptions are to be made they should be made for Aberdeen. That is only natural. I would tell him, therefore, why these two places have been chosen.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Is plant being removed from Scotland in order to do this?

Mr. Gammans

No. I have dealt with stand-by equipment before, and if the hon. Member will look up the Questions and answers he will see that no plant is being taken from Scotland.

It was because we have on the North-East coast the largest concentration of population not already covered by the five stations and because, in addition, this area has had for a very long time the disadvantage of having to share the same wavelength with Northern Ireland on the Home Service sound programme. The choice of Northern Ireland for the second station was obvious because Northern Ireland was the only part of the United Kingdom not covered by television at all. There was one other factor, a technical one, which led us to allow the B.B.C. to erect a station at Pontop Pike and which does not apply to Aberdeen. It was that the television link with Scotland already passed through Pontop Pike and it was comparatively cheap to link up the television service in that part of the country.

I want to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman that the North-East coast of Scotland, and Scotland generally, are not being unfairly treated. I would tell him that the estimated populations which the five low-power stations will cover when finished will be, in the case of Pontop Pike, 2½ million, Belfast, 1 million, the Isle of Wight, 2.2 million, Plymouth, 900,000 and Aberdeen, at the bottom of the list, only 400,000. I would remind him of the position of Scotland generally, and I believe I should satisfy him that that country as a whole is not being unfairly treated.

The Kirk o'Shotts station, which opened last March, serves 80 per cent. of the population of Scotland, which is roughly the same percentage as the whole country. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that one person in five in Scotland could not see television, but that is equally true everywhere—in East Anglia, and in the South and the West of England. It is a rather curious point about Kirk o'Shotts, and a little disappointing, that television does not seem to be as popular in Scotland as we had hoped. Although that station has been running for nearly a year there are only 38,000 licences. This compares unfavourably with the Wenvoe station in South Wales, which also serves South-West England, which has been running for over six months, and where there are already 61,000 licences. To give those figures in another form: the number of licences per 1,000 of population in Scotland is only 9.5. In the case of Wenvoe, which has been running a shorter time, it is 13.5. For Holme Moss, which has been running only a few months more than Kirk o'Shotts, it is four times as many as in Scotland, with 34.8 per thousand. I do not know what the explanation is.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

All-English programmes.

Mr. Gammans

It may be that television does not make an appeal to the people of Scotland. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can give the explanation.

He asked me why temporary makeshift arrangements, which could not be made for Aberdeen, can be made for Brighton. The position for television reception is quite different in the two places. Brighton is already within the range of Alexandra Palace, and four and a half thousand licences have been taken out there. In the case of Aberdeen the number is about 40. Also, we should have to open up an entirely new area, which would be contrary to the principles which underlie Government policy which I set out in the House in the statement to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. There is a technical reason, too. All that is required for Brighton is a comparatively inexpensive booster to improve the existing service, but a booster by itself would be of no use in Aberdeen, which would need a completely new plant and one or two relay stations, as well.

One part of the argument which I used to defend Government policy has been challenged, not only in this House but technically. I said that the Government were trying to avoid incurring capital expenditure on stations and on the manpower and raw materials which would be required for the receiving sets which these stations would bring into operation. I have heard it suggested that the radio industry could easily carry these additional demands without in any way interfering with their re-armament programme and without causing an unnatural increase in production which, in the long run, would be the very worst thing for the radio industry. Any hon. Members who hold that view should read the daily papers, because there was an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" today, in the "Daily Mirror" on Monday, and in the "Evening News" last Friday, as follows: If you want a television set in time for the Coronation now's the time to get one.… Why the hurry? … there will be neither enough sets to go round nor enough time to install the ones that are available. That shows that the television industry itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "An advertisement."] If it is advertising, it is pretty poor advertising for an industry which says it could carry this additional burden. They cannot have it both ways. Either the industry can provide the sets for these additional stations or they should not put such an advertisement in the papers. The last thing we want to do, for the sake of the industry itself, is to increase the demand to an unnatural extent.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing

Would my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Gammans

I am sorry, my time is practically over.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

My hon. Friend has made some accusations. Were those advertisements on behalf of one individual firm which may run out of stock by the Coronation, or were they advertisements for the whole industry?

Mr. Gammans

They were put in by two of the largest firms making radio sets.

The hon. and learned Member is terribly disappointed—and so would I be if I represented Aberdeen—that his constituents will not be able to see the television of the Coronation, but I would remind him that they will not be deprived of seeing the Coronation altogether. After all, it is being filmed in both black and white and also in colour and I imagine that those films will be seen in the cinemas of Aberdeen very soon after the ceremony.

I would not like the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Lady to think that what I have said tonight means that the provision of television for Aberdeen is being put off to some far distant date. All I am telling them is that, for the reasons I have stated, they will not get television in time for the Coronation, but I sincerely hope that our circumstances will be such that before very long it will be possible for the Government to allow the B.B.C. to complete their five low-power stations of which Aberdeen is one.

11.8 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir (Aberdeen, South)

The Assistant Postmaster-General has made a most unsatisfactory statement. He has merely repeated every argument ever given from the Government benches since the subject has been raised and has said nothing new. Of course, we quite realise that he is only the workshop for the Treasury, and it is up to him to get Treasury sanction. Whenever we approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either by letter or by Question, we always get these matters referred back to the Post Office. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we never get any satisfaction. It is absolutely up to my hon. Friend to show more energy, more realism, more imagination, more determination in trying to get this service, instead of coming here rather complacently and saying, "I am very sorry but you cannot have a service before the Coronation."

I question the figures he gave in answer to a Question which I put as to how much it would cost to erect a relay station in Aberdeen and at the same time for the Post Office to provide the necessary link. That Question was also put in relation to the Isle of Wight and Southampton. The reply was that the average cost was £200,000 each. Surely that is a very high figure, because that was quoted also for Northern Ireland and Newcastle and, when it was challenged, the figure came down to £20,000.

I want to know whether this is because of excessive building costs or whether it is the policy of the Department not to cover the whole of this country with television because they know that, if they do, they will then have to start granting competitive television lines.

I would say in conclusion that Aberdeen has regularly paid for sound licences for many years. Aberdeen has, therefore, subsidised the spread of television from London northwards. Since 1937 they have subsidised television and after 16 years it is just about time that they had a service of their own. Therefore, I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will go back to the Treasury and personally ask for their support.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.