§ 17. Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the breach of the rules relating to the extent of advertisement in television programmes that occurred in the Midlands Independent Television programme on 17th February, 1956; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in regard thereto.
§ Mr. AlportThe amount of advertising is regulated by paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act, and the arrangements in this matter were made by the Independent Television Authority in consultation with my right hon. Friend's predecessor. The Authority slightly relaxed these arrangements in the special circumstances obtaining on the opening night of its Birmingham station. There was no breach of the Act.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerIs the hon. Gentleman aware that in the rules authorised by his right hon. Friend, a copy of which is in the Library, it is said quite specifically that the amount of time given to advertising shall not exceed six minutes in an hour. On this occasion it was exceeded; and was there not therefore a deliberate breach by the I.T.A. of the rules authorised by the Postmaster-General?
§ Mr. AlportThe amount of time involved was four-and-a-half minutes, and I do not think there is any evidence that there was any deliberate intention on the part of the I.T.A. in the matter.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I.T.A. issued a Press hand-out on this matter; that the programme contractor responsible said it had permission from the I.T.A. to depart from the rules for that occasion, and that in fact there were 27½minutes of advertising? As the programme contractor has already announced that, surely that in itself is a breach of the rules?
§ Mr. AlportI am not aware of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman raises with the exception of one. He says that there were 27½ minutes involved and my information is that the figure was 24. If that is an example of his accuracy, I feel that I cannot accept his figure in this matter.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsThe figure which I quoted was that quoted by the programme contractors. If they are inaccurate on this, that is not without precedent as far as they are concerned.
§ 24. Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, to amend the rules as to advertisements covering the point of special charges for special circumstances, with a view to ensuring that any charitable arrangements made thereunder are enforceable at law.
§ Mr. AlportNo, Sir.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsDo I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are going to stand aside and allow the sort of thing that happened recently where the advertisers paid £25,000 which they thought was going to charity whereas all that the charities received was £1,000 each? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the Lord Mayor of London's concern about this matter? Surely it is a matter in which the Postmaster-General should be concerned.
§ Mr. AlportThere was undoubtedly some misunderstanding about the whole of this question, but the fact is that this is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend should, in his view, concern himself, because it relates to the relationship 357 between the I.T.A. and its customers. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the I.T.A. has promised to give £100 to twelve charities to be chosen by the Lord May or of London, including three charities which are related to the world of acting.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that that is poor compensation for the loss of £18,000? Here was an undertaking fairly well understood. A lot of this money was used for the purpose of providing a banquet which many hon. Members opposite attended. Surely that money should have been diverted to charity and not to entertainment.
§ Mr. AlportI am sure the right hon. Gentleman would riot wish to give the impression to the House and the country that he is engaged in a vendetta against the I.T.A. In these circumstances, he and I can be quite sure that no organisation in its senses would willingly allow a situation to arise so early in its career which makes it liable to a question of breach of good faith, particularly in matters of this sort.
§ Colonel Bromley-DavenportIs not all this sniping at the E.T.A. by the Socialist Party due to jealousy at the success of that body and to the fact that twice as many people watch its productions as watch those of the moronic B.B.C.?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not see how the Minister can possibly answer that.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsOn a point of order. Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order for a Minister when replying to allege that a vendetta is being conducted against the I.T.A. when the Question on which that charge is made relates to the programme contractors and not to the I.T.A.?
§ Mr. AlportI did not in any circumstances allege that. I said I was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to give that impression.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerMay I ask the hon. Member if it is his intention to give the impression that he will not defend the I.T.A. however wrongly it may act—because that is the impression he is bound to give?
§ Mr. AlportIt was not the impression which I understand that I did give in any 358 way. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his terminology. He said that I would not offend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then perhaps he said "defend." It is my right hon. Friend's duty to see that there is always fair play, both for the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., in the carrying out of their functions.