HC Deb 14 March 1956 vol 550 c358
19. Mr. Langford-Holt

asked the Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take following the infringement by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the directive addressed to them by him on 27th July, 1955, in that they caused to be broadcast a recording of a discussion upon the dismissal of General Glubb in which certain hon. Members took part only forty-eight hours before a debate on this subject was due to take place in this House.

Mr. Alport

My right hon. Friend acknowledged on 30th November in a speech in this House that conflicts of view on the interpretation of the existing arrangement were inevitable. No doubt the problem presented by this particular incident will be considered by the Select Committee, and I think that in these circumstances it would be proper to await their report.

Mr. Langford-Holt

Can my hon. Friend say whether, as the directive now stands, this was or was not an infringement of the directive?

Mr. Alport

The original broadcast was made on Friday, 2nd March, which was clearly not an infringement of the existing rule.

Mr. Langford-Holt

But what about the recording? The recording was made forty-eight hours before. Will my hon. Friend say whether that recording was or was not an infringement? Are recordings an infringement or not?

Mr. Alport

It depends upon the interpretation given to a word in the particular directive, and the view of the B.B.C. was that it was not an infringement.