§ 14. Brigadier Medlicottasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what safeguards are proposed to ensure that the proposed television corporation will be under an obligation to provide television coverage in rural areas, in view of the present situation whereby a large proportion of television facilities are concentrated in urban areas which already enjoy a disproportionate share of other amenities
§ Mr. GammansI would draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to paragraphs 15 and 17 of the White Paper (Cmd. 9005) which refer to the Government's experimental approach to the question of competitive television. It is too early to talk about putting the corporation under obligation to provide national coverage.
§ Brigadier MedlicottIs the Minister aware that owing to the almost entire absence of television reception in East Anglia, many people there do not even know what Mr. Gilbert Harding looks like? Is my hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of resentment which will arise in East Anglia if there is any suggestion that other parts of the country should be given alternative television programmes before East Anglia has even one programme?
§ Mr. MayhewIs it the position that whereas the B.B.C. is expected to give a national coverage, the commercial stations cover only what are from their point of view profitable areas? Is this what is known as free and fair competition?
§ Mr. GammansAs I said in my original answer, the Government's White Paper merely envisaged an experimental approach towards this whole question.
§ 19. Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the proposed strength and coverage of the new television stations in London, Birmingham and Manchester
§ 20 and 21. Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) the frequencies, siting and power of the transmitters to serve the proposed competitive television stations
§ (2) if he will state not only the bands that are to be made available to competitive television, but also the exact frequencies to be employed for London, Birmingham and Manchester so that television set manufacturers can now start manufacture of dual tuned receivers at minimum cost to the public.
§ 22. Captain Orrasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in order that there shall be no delay in the introduction of competitive television the radio industry requires immediate technical informaton, he will now announce the frequencies to be used for this service
§ Lady TweedsmuirCan my hon. Friend say definitely whether these stations will be of high or low power? It is important that there should be an early decision on this matter.
§ Mr. GammansThis matter has to be discussed between my noble Friend and the corporation when the corporation is set up.
§ Mr. RodgersCan my hon. Friend say whether the second corporation, when set up, will have power to rent the masts of 989 the first corporation? Can he give any reason why the industry should have to wait nine months for this information?
§ Mr. GammansThe first point which my hon. Friend raises is under consideration at this moment.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs the Minister aware that it would be utterly inappropriate for the Post Office to answer Questions from questioners who have material interests in the matter?
§ Captain OrrIs my hon. Friend aware that the latest and best technical information would show that television transmitters operating in Channel 8, and probably Channel 9 also, are likely to interfere immediately and seriously with other users in Band III? How does he reconcile this with his statement that it may take seven years to clear Band III? Does my hon. Friend anticipate that we may have to wait seven years before we get competitive television?
§ Mr. GammansIf my hon. and gallant Friend reads my original answer to the Questions, he will see that that point is adequately covered.
§ Mr. Anthony GreenwoodWould it not be helpful to the Minister if the vested interests concerned disguised their impatience and dissembled their greed rather more effectively?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already ruled on this matter of questions by hon. Members. These criticisms are contrary to the spirit of my Ruling, and I deprecate them.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs that to say that it is inappropriate for Members to make comments about certain persons putting questions, in the answers to which they have certain material interests? Do I understand that that is improper?
§ Mr. SpeakerI was asked some time ago to give a considered Ruling on this matter and I told the House, after consulting all the precedents, that there was nothing improper in an hon. Member putting down a Question for answer, even if he had a private interest in the matter. I gave that Ruling and that has been the Ruling of the House for a long time. Therefore, it seems to me undesirable for hon. Members to make comments challenging it. Either it is right 990 or it is wrong. I think it is right, and past Speakers have said so too. It does not conduce to friendly debate in the House that these accusations should be made.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsDoes that mean that under the rules of order it is improper for hon. Members of this House to make comments on Questions which they regard as improper, although you, Mr. Speaker, regard them as proper?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not only I who regard these questions as proper, but all my predecessors, and I would deprecate unnecessary heat in these matters, which does not serve any useful purpose.
§ Mr. JayThere may be no obligation on hon. Members to declare their interests, but is it not perfectly open to them voluntarily to do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf on every separate Question an hon. Member declared his interest it would be very difficult to carry on.
§ Captain OrrIs not this continual slur upon the honour of hon. Members really a device to cover up weakness in argument?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order.
§ Mr. HobsonWith all due respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, are not Questions in a different category where they seek to obtain from the Minister replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the exact wavelengths and frequencies of these stations which are calculated to make profit?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt seems to me that the answers of the Minister are public property, and I cannot see anything wrong in that.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIs it not most undesirable for Members of Parliament, whose election expenses are paid by coal miners, to ask Questions of self-interest about coalmining?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope the House will bear with me. My sole desire is to prevent the introduction into our discussions of matters which are unnecessary and which may give rise to heat.
§ Mr. Anthony GreenwoodI think it is only right to point out that I suggested 991 that hon. Members were not being helpful to the Government and not that they were guilty of any improper Parliamentary conduct. If any hon. Member is affronted by what I said and can give the House an assurance that he or she has no financial interest in this matter, I will, of course, gladly withdraw.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think we ought to pass from this topic.