§ 11. Mr. Chapmanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act so as to secure that the Postmaster-General has power to secure that there is adequate competition between independent programme contractors under the Independent Television Authority.
§ 21. Mr. Shackletonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to enable the Postmaster-General to take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of the Television Act, 1954, Section 5, with 365 regard to the selection and appointment of programme contractors, are fulfilled, with particular reference to the securing of adequate competition.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir. My noble Friend sees no reason to doubt the will and ability of the Independent Television Authority to carry out their obligations under Section 5 (2) of the Television Act.
§ Mr. ChapmanIs it not the case that, quite contrary to Section 5 (2) of the Act, which insists on real competition between really independent programme contractors, the Independent Television Authority is giving monopoly positions, and not competition, to a group of enormous big-business interests, some of which may well be and probably are inter-linked? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to see that that Section of the Act is being carried out with regard to competition between the contractors and their real independence?
§ Mr. GammansI think that the hon. Member is expressing a personal opinion. This is a duty which is laid upon the Authority and not upon my noble Friend.
§ Mr. ShackletonHas the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press and, if he has not, would he look up the appropriate sections and draw the attention of the I.T.A. to those sections where it is clearly laid down in an unequivocal way that the Royal Commission would deplore any extension of the activities of certain Press chains, particularly Associated Newspapers and Kemsleys?
§ Mr. GammansI remind the House that this is an obligation which is not laid upon my noble Friend. It is laid entirely upon the Authority.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that two programme contractors have a financial link and that there is an obligation on the Postmaster-General to see that there are no tie-ups between programme contractors? How is the Postmaster-General going to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out by the Authority?
§ Mr. GammansThe Question I was asked was whether I am prepared to amend the Act, and the answer was "No."
§ Captain OrrIs it not a fact that with only three transmitters it is very difficult to carry out the provisions of the Act, and that the better way to ensure that there is sufficient and adequate competition is to encourage the Authority to set up more transmitters and for the Post Office to make frequencies available for these?
§ Mr. GammansThat is entirely a matter for the Authority.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerDoes the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is really against the spirit of the Act that there will be important newspapers which will have an interest in not criticising the commercial programme, thus tending to undermine that independence?
§ Mr. ElliotWill my hon. Friend——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House is not entitled to demand an answer, and interrupting another hon. Member is disorderly.
§ Mr. ElliotWill my hon. Friend take note of the great desire of the Opposition for political interference with so-called independent boards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will he bring it to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power as an example of how the Opposition would like to treat the Coal Board?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsWill the hon. Gentleman take note that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has always defended him and now wants him to acquiesce in a breach of an Act of Parliament?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is for the House to judge, but I think that we ought to get on.
§ 22. Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will take powers to control the Independent Television Authority in its choice of programme contractors to ensure that the persons providing programmes are not influenced by political or industrial 367 interests which may result in programmes not conforming to a proper degree of impartiality.
§ 24. Mr. Shackletonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act, 1954, so as to give the Postmaster-General powers to intervene if he is not satisfied that the control of programmes in this new service rests in the hands of persons who are politically impartial.
§ 38. Mr. Wyattasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to enable the Postmaster-General to exercise supervision over the choice of programme contractors for the Independent Television Authority so as to obviate the possibility of political bias in the allocation of programme time.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir. Subsections 1 (f) and 2 of Section 3 of the Act recently approved by Parliament made full provision for this point.
§ Mr. EdwardsDo I take it from that reply that the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend take the view that no matter what the I.T.A. do, whether in breach of the Act or of undertakings given by responsible Ministers on the Floor of the House, he has no responsibility?
§ Mr. GammansI have no responsibility whatever for the selection of programme contractors.
§ Mr. ShackletonDoes the Assistant Postmaster-General understand that that is why we are asking him to introduce legislation? Will he further say whether, in his opinion, certain of those who have been seeking and some who have obtained programme allocations are politically impartial, whatever their party may be, in particular the "Daily Mirror"?
§ Mr. GammansIt would be improper for me to give a personal opinion on a subject for which I have no responsibility to this House.
§ Sir R. GrimstonDoes not my hon. Friend think that a great deal of this agitation is stemming from the "Daily Mirror," which made no application to become a programme contractor and is now endeavouring to smear the I.T.A. because it has not got a contract?
§ Mr. GammansI have only seen what the "Daily Mirror" itself has stated.
§ Mr. WyattHas not the hon. Gentleman read the article in the "Observer," by Randolph Churchill, who cannot be accused of political bias against the party opposite? Is he not aware that many people in his own party are disturbed by the fact that the Government set out by pretending to abolish a monopoly and in fact have brought about a situation in which monopolies are inevitably strengthened and now the situation has arrived in which the powerful business interests supporting the party opposite are being allowed unlimited use of the air?
§ Mr. GammansHon. Members of this House should be very careful about making a serious charge of political partiality against a statutory body set up by this House.
§ Mr. MarloweOwing to the manifest dissatisfaction of hon. Members opposite, does not my hon. Friend think he might reconsider the arrangements made whereby the Authority is in the hands of a Socialist Director-General?
§ Mr. SpeakerA great deal of that is ironical.
§ Mr. MayhewInstead of trying to get an equal balance of political partisanship, would it not have been more sensible to put the provision of programmes into the hands of people with no ties in party politics at all?
§ Mr. GammansThat is exactly why we set up the Independent Television Authority.
§ 23. Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many programme companies applied for licences to the Postmaster-General before the passing of the Television Act, 1954.
§ Mr. GammansNone, Sir. Selection of programme companies is a matter for the Independent Television Authority, and I assume the right hon. Member has in mind individuals or organisations who made preliminary inquiries of my noble Friend. These numbered 52.
§ 30. Mr. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to enable him to require the 369 Independent Television Authority to give information on the capital resources of programme companies.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HobsonIs the hon. Gentleman aware that under the existing Act there is nothing to prevent a change of ownership of these programme contractors? Is it not desirable that we should know who are the owners and sponsors? Does the hon. Gentleman associate himself with the remarks of the Chairman of the I.T.A. that £2 million capital is required to start a programme contractor?
§ Mr. GammansThe question of capital is not for me. I think the Authority has all the power necessary under Section 5 (5) to call for all the information it requires from the contractors to ensure that all the requirements of the Act are carried out.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonSurely these matters go beyond the powers of the Authority? Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that high issues of public policy and national interest are involved in the nature of the contractors, the amount of capital resources they have got and where they come from; and if we are to get to the position in which great newspaper proprietors—some with chain monopolies—are to extend their public influence into television, is it not a matter of public interest? Is the Government to be entirely indifferent to these things?
§ Mr. GammansMy noble Friend is only called upon to exercise those powers given to him by this House.
§ 31. Mr. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will make alterations to the appropriate section of the Television Act regarding the formation of programme companies to ensure control by the Postmaster-General.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HobsonDoes not the Assistant Postmaster-General think that those people who have already been allocated programmes are not independent in any way, and that they are already powerful opinion-forming organisations? What step is he considering to rectify that, and to guarantee their independence?
§ Mr. GammansThe hon. Gentleman is, I think, by implication making a charge of political partiality against a statutory body set up by this House, and we are not prepared to alter the Act to effect what the hon. Gentleman wants.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonOf course we are making a charge of political partiality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The charge is against the Government and it may be the case that it is against the Television Authority. Can the hon. Gentleman say why these first contracts should be let to the proprietors of Conservative newspapers? Is not that in line with the whole policy of the Government in public relations; that they are using public relations, and now commercial television, to further the political interests of their party?
§ Mr. GammansI take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he does make a charge of political partiality against the Independent Television Authority, and he has suggested by implication that undue pressure has been put upon it by Her Majesty's Government. I deny any suggestions of that sort.
§ Mr. ElliotIs it not characteristic of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, that when they are dissatisfied with the verdict they try to bawl out the referee?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsTo come back to the Question on the Order Paper, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a financial tie-up has already occurred between two programme contractors? Is not that in contradiction of the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman at that Dispatch Box, and is he going to do nothing about it?
§ Mr. GammansThe hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) is asking whether I will make alterations in the Television Act to ensure control by the Postmaster-General. This matter was debated at great length by this House during consideration of the Television Bill, both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage. The answer to the question is, "No."
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsYou have betrayed this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat did the right hon. Gentleman say? I did not hear; there was so much noise.
§ Mr. EdwardsI am quite prepared to repeat what I said. The hon. Gentleman has betrayed his promise to this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that the words were strictly un-Parliamentary, but I would ask the House to refrain from language of heat so far as possible.