§ 9. Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation on the losses they expect to sustain in regard to the services of key television technicians, artistes and other performers if, and when, sponsored television is permitted.
§ Mr. GammansNone, Sir.
§ Mr. FletcherIs not the Minister aware that the mere possibility of commercial television is already making it very difficult for the B.B.C, and will he confirm the assurances given by the Government that there will be no commercial television in this country until the conditions already announced are fulfilled?
§ Mr. GammansIf it is making it difficult for the B.B.C, they have not said so. One of the virtues of the new policy is that it will give a chance of alternative employment to artistes and technicians. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman should wish to restrict that chance, and I am sure that as a member of the legal profession he would have a very genuine sense of grievance if he had only one client.
Mr. C. I. Orr-EwingIs my hon. Friend aware that it would be deeply resented if it were proposed that a ring fence should be put round the B.B.C. or any other State monopoly in order to stop employees going to other jobs where they might get better pay?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a little bit of special pleading for commercial television? May I take it that his failure to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary does not indicate that there is any change at all in Government policy?
§ Mr. GammansThere is no change whatsoever in Government policy. Of course it is special pleading for com-mercial television; this Government happens to believe in it.
§ 16. Captain Orrasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what indication he has given to the Television Advisory Committee as to the date by which he wishes them to report; and when he expects to be in a position to inform the trade about the wavelengths to be made available for commercial television.
§ Mr. GammansMy noble Friend asked the Television Advisory Committee to give first priority to the question of what wavelengths could be allotted for commercial television. I understand that the Committee has made substantial progress and will shortly be drafting its report on this problem.
§ Captain OrrIs my hon. Friend aware that, in order to hasten the provision of brighter and better and more popular television programmes, it is essential that the trade should get this information about wavelengths as soon as possible, and will he urge upon the Television Advisory Committee the greatest haste?
§ Mr. GammansThe Television Advisory Committee has made very fast progress, and, as I have said in my answer, it hopes to be drafting its report in the very near future.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonIn view of what has been said, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the complaints and the grave objections of the Government to the television programmes, which most of us find quite good?
§ Mr. GammansI was not aware that the Government had made any complaint about the B.B.C.'s programmes.
§ Mr. MorrisonIf the Government have no complaint about the B.B.C. television programmes, why are they playing about with this commercialisation that will bring crime and vulgarity on to the television screens?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsCan the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee will be made available to Members?
§ Mr. GammansI cannot say.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsDoes he expect it to be made available to us?
§ Mr. GammansI hope so, yes. It is now being drafted, and I hope it will be published before long.
§ Mr. MorrisonThe capital interests over there!
§ Mr. NallyIn view of the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General's answer shows that no decision has yet been reached on this matter, would he be good enough to consult his colleagues and the Treasury and point out the extent to which large sums of money are being expended by private interests which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are allowing for taxation purposes that ought not to be incurred at all, in view of the fact that the Government have reached no decision on these matters?
§ Mr. GammansWhat the hon. Gentleman has just said has not the slightest relation to the Question on the Order Paper.
§ 28. Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the Government's policy towards political broadcasting on commercial television stations.
§ Mr. GammansI would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 9 of Command Paper 8550.
§ Mr. MayhewHow does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement in the White Paper that political broadcasting will not be permitted with his statement last week that licences are being considered for newspapers of all political opinions? How can any programme financed by Lord Beaverbrook or by Mr. Pollitt be non-political?
§ Mr. GammansA newspaper does not necessarily contain only politics. If it did, people would not buy it.
§ Captain OrrIs not this a matter for the controlling authority envisaged in the White Paper; and can my hon. Friend say when this controlling authority is likely to be set up?
§ Mr. GammansThe Question asked about the political side of the new stations, and that matter is covered by paragraph 9 of the White Paper. I cannot yet tell my hon. and gallant Friend when the new controlling body will be set up.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonMay we know whether it is the policy of the Government in introducing these capitalist interests into television—and I think that hon. Members who have interests in that quarter ought to announce it every time they get up—to extend the already considerable power of newspaper proprietors into the field of television?
§ Mr. GammansNo decision has yet been given as to who shall be given the licences. It will certainly not be restricted merely to newspaper proprietors.
Sir G. LloydIs there any real difference between those who have a vested interest and those who have a capitalist interest?
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerCould the hon. Gentleman tell us how "political" is going to be defined, and by whom? Is it to be defined by the Government or by the controlling board? It is a very difficult thing to do.
§ Mr. GammansThat is quite right, and that is one of the things which has to be referred to the controlling body.
§ Captain OrrOn a point of order. In view of the inference in the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) just now, might I point out that I have no interest whatever.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order.
§ 29. Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General from how many foreign-controlled commercial interests he has received applications for a sponsored television licence.
§ Mr. GammansNo applicant at this stage has been asked to state his nationality, nor has the ownership of companies yet been investigated.
§ Mr. MayhewWhy will the Assistant Postmaster-General not state plainly that he will not permit British television stations to be controlled by foreign commercial interests?
§ Mr. GammansThis is one of the matters—I keep repeating this, but the hon. Gentleman would see it for himself if he were to read the White Paper once more—upon which the Government propose to seek the advice of the controlling body.
§ Sir R. GrimstonWill my hon. Friend take note of the bogies being raised, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in particular, and draw from that the conclusion that commercial broadcasting must be introduced as soon as possible in order that these misrepresentations may be caught up, as was the "warmonger" campaign at the last Election?
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerWe are getting very far from the Question.
§ Mr. SnowOn a point of order. When my right hon. Friend said just now that hon. Members asking Questions should declare their interest, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) got up, I think quite rightly, and said that he had no interest to declare. Now a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, you gave your Ruling on the declaration on interest at Question time. I have read that but, frankly, I have not quite understood it. As I understand it, in these matters of sponsored television there are hon. Members who have an interest— and when I refer to an interest in sponsored television I mean some financial interest in the capital investment issue in putting on a sponsored television programme. Now, in view of that, is it your Ruling that such hon. Members— who, I think, are almost exclusively on the other side of the House—
§ Mr. ManuelAll of them.
§ Mr. SpeakerWithout agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in his statement of the facts, my Ruling certainly meant that there was no obligation on an hon. Member in putting a Question on the Order Paper to declare his interest.
§ Mr. BeswickDid not your Ruling also say that an hon. or right hon. Member having such an interest could not take part in a Division? Do we understand, therefore, that in the event of this matter coming up for discussion again, such hon. or right hon. Members would be expected to declare their interests and would not be allowed to go through the Division Lobbies?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is quite hypothetical, as there is no Division at the present moment.
Mr. J. T. PriceIs it in accordance with the best traditions of this House that hon. Members opposite, who are undoubtedly interested financially in this commercial racket, should put Questions on it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI deprecate these charges of personal interest from either side of the House. It would be very easy for both sides of the House to object to each other on Questions on many occasions. I hope that the House will now proceed with the Questions in the ordinary way.