INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY (NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING) (Hansard, 21 December 1960)

§ Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)
The truest words spoken today in the House were those of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), that time is the essence of the problem, and I have been watching the erosion of time with some anxiety because I wanted to raise with the Postmaster-General what I regard as an important matter, and I hope that my hon. Friends who have been engaged in their speculations about space will not think me rude to them when I say that I am trying now to bring the House back to earth.
Last summer the Daily Worker, an established newspaper in this country, wanted to advertise on commercial television. There was no objection, so far as I know, from any of the programme companies to acceptance of the advertisement, because they had accepted advertisements in 1960 from such newspapers as The Times, the Daily Sketch, the Daily Herald, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, the News Chronicle—the fate of the News Chronicle is an awful warning to would-be advertisers on television, it seems to me—the News of the World, The People, the Sunday Dispatch, Reynolds, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Pictorial, all of these papers, of course, existing for two purposes, one to make profits for their proprietors and, the other, to advance the political aims of the newspapers.
When the advertisement was offered to the programme companies no objection was raised, but an objection was raised—I will deal with it later—by the Independent Television Authority. I must take a moment or two to discuss the political aims of the newspapers because it is the kernel of the argument put forward by the Authority in refusing permission to the programme company to accept the Daily Worker advertisement.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not want to waste the hon. Member's time, but can be satisfy me that there is some Ministerial responsibility for this decision?

§ Sir L. Plummer
Yes. On 7th December, the Postmaster-General replied to my Question asking him what consultations he has had under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954. with 1407 the Independent Television Authority concerning the nature of the newspapers and other journals whose advertisements may or may not be accepted. Replying to me he said: That Section does not in any way prejudice the duty of the I.T.A. under Section 4 (3) which says that no advertisements shall be permitted by any body, the objects of which are wholly or mainly of a political nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1264–5.] In addition to that the Minister has, I think, this responsibility in his oversight of the Authority, which is made clear in Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, which says: Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection in relation to advertisements, it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects.

§ Mr. Speaker
My difficulty is just that. The direction seems to be limited to those respects, goods and services, and the rest of the matter seem to rest with the Authority under Section 4 (3). My difficulty is that refusal of the Daily Worker advertisement would seem to be in the exercise of the Authority's duty under subsection 3.

§ Sir L. Plummer
Yes, but the Postmaster-General also replied to me: After taking legal advice, the Authority made its decision, and it is not my responsibility to interfere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1265.] He does not say he has not the power to interfere. In fact, with all respect, Sir, the Postmaster-General has this authority and power written into the Act.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, but could the hon. Gentleman help me as to where—I am sorry to waste his time but my duty obliges me—the Minister has responsibility to interfere with the duty of the Authority to do these things under subsection (3)? Subsection (5) does not touch this particular refusal.

§ Sir L. Plummer
Yes, but surely in Section 4 (5) there is an incumbent duty on the Authority … to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General 1408 and he can at the same time give the Authority directions. I propose to argue that now is the time for directions to be given, and further to ask in the course of my speech whether in fact those consultations mentioned in subsection (5) were made by the Independent Television Authority.
Finally, I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I am out of order, I was out of order in asking the Question on 7th December and the Postmaster-General was out of order in replying to the Question on that date, which was on the same subject, quoting the relevant paragraphs.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that I have not the Answer before me, but it sounded from what the hon. Member was saying that the Minister said that it was not his responsibility. It may be that the Question should not have been allowed. I do not know without having it before me, but my difficulty on the hon. Member's argument under Section 5 is, as he will see, that the consultations taking place under that Section are specifically limited by the terms of the Statute as to certain matters, namely, … classes and descriptions of goods or services … and the directions are limited as to those respects. That is my difficulty.

§ Sir L. Plummer
I see that, but with respect, may I say that, having had the Question tabled and answered and having announced in the House that I was dissatisfied with the Answer and proposed to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment, and having got from you, Mr. Speaker, an Adjournment debate today, it is disconcerting to find now at this moment with eighteen minutes to go and when already eight minutes of my time has gone that there is now doubt cast on whether I am in order on something which was clearly in order when I raised it on 7th December.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sorry to have to do this, but the hon. Member will realise my difficulty and I have my duty about this. The hon. Member gets his Adjournment de bene esse and I have to try to consider when he raises the topic whether he is in order. I am at present of the opinion that in seeking to raise 1409 the decision of which he seems to complain the hon. Member is out of order in view of the Statute.

§ Sir L. Plummer
There is the fourth paragraph of the Second Schedule which provides that In the acceptance of advertisements, there must be no unreasonable discrimination either against or in favour of any particular advertiser. One of my arguments is that there has been discrimination against a particular advertiser.

§ Mr. Speaker
I quite accept that. The hon. Member will appreciate that the Second Schedule lays down what is prescribed under Section 4 as the duty of the Authority under subsection (3). That is where it arises. It says: It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that the provisions of the Second Schedule of this Act are complied with …

§ Sir L. Plummer
On your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the Authority does in fact show discrimination against any advertiser, those of us in Parliament are quite unable to raise this with the Minister. We have no power under the provisions of the Act which we debated and on which we voted to raise what we regard as an act of discrimination. It seems to me that your Ruling robs us of our constitutional right and our duty to raise a question of discrimination when we think we see one.

§ Mr. Speaker
I sympathise with the hon. Member. It may be that there is a remedy in law because the Statute imposes the duty on somebody else, but the rules of the House require me to limit discussion to Ministerial responsibility.

§ Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich East)
I have searched the Act for the Section—but I have not found it—which entitles the Postmaster-General to amend or in any way alter the Second Schedule of the Act. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that entitles my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) to raise the matter.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike)
I may be able to help the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I think that perhaps under Section 4 (4) of the Act we can find the powers that he is talking about.

§ Sir L. Plummer
The words there are: After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by statutory instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that, for that is better. I am sorry to have consumed so much of his time.

§ Sir L. Plummer
I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am now having to think fast to discover how I can now complete my speech within that framework. Because time is passing and I must give the Assistant Postmaster-General time to put the case that the Postmater-General wants her to put—and she has been sitting here for an hour—I will merely say that what I think has happened here, and what needs some action on the part of the Postmaster-General within that Section of the Act, is an act of political discrimination, because other advertisers have been given the facilities which have been denied to the Daily Worker.
In raising this point about the Daily Worker, one is, of course, always open to being regarded as taking a certain line for a political reason. I should like to tell the hon. Lady that during the height of the McCarthy campaign in America a man wrote a letter to a newspaper, and in the letter he said "Dear Sir, I am not a Communist, I never have been a Communist and I never will be a Communist, but it is still my view that the telephone directory should be printed in a larger type." That was the sort of defence which an American then had to make in introducing any controversial subject.
I am introducing the controversial subject of the discrimination against the Daily Worker for the following reasons. Whether we like it or not, this is a newspaper published in this country. It has political aims like any other newspaper. It should be given exactly the same treatment—no better and no worse—as any other newspaper. It is a journalistic effort. It is small. Under the terms of the Act which debar advertisements of bodies whose aims are wholly or mainly political, it may look more of a political paper than many of its rivals, and I think that that is due to its smallness.
I am afraid that if this decision by the Independent Television Authority goes 1411 through unchallenged it will establish a precedent and work to the detriment of the free Press of this country in the years to come. I should not like to see it used against a newspaper having Conservative views by people who do not share the hon. Lady's political views.
For these reasons, I ask the Postmaster-General—I trust that the hon. Lady will make representations to him—to take advantage of the Section of the Act under which I am speaking to have discussions with or issue instructions to the Independent Television Authority, despite its reasons and excuses, with a view to this discrimination against the Daily Worker ceasing.

§ Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)
If the hon. Lady, the Assistant Postmaster-General, will allow me to speak for two minutes, I should just like to make this comment. This is the first time that the Independent Television Authority has strictly enforced the Television Act. Over and over again, when it has suited the interests of the programme companies, it has allowed the programme companies to ride a coach and horses through the Act. On this occasion it seems that the programme companies wished the Act to be meticulously enforced, and the Independent Television Authority enforced it with a meticulousness which would have pleased a medieval theologian.
I put it to the Assistant Postmaster-General that it is a strange thing that after the interpretation of the Act which the Independent Television Authority has given in matters such as the natural break, the amount of advertising—about which I questioned her today—balance of programmes and the monopoly element in I.T.V.—in all these matters where the interests of the programme companies required that the Independent Television Authority should be extremely lax in its interpretation of the Act, the Authority has been incredibly lax—on this one occasion it appears that the programme companies required a meticulous interpretation of the Act and the Independent Television Authority has taken a totally different view.
It bears out the contention which I think is shared on both sides of the House, if I read correctly a recent report 1412 from a Conservative Party committee, that the Independent Television Authority is not enforcing the Act overall with sufficient fairness and strictness. One gets the impression that the programme companies use the Authority as a kind of public relations office and that the Authority sometimes uses the Postmaster-General—not the hon. Lady—as a messenger boy. If the Act is to be strictly enforced, I should like to see it strictly enforced against the interests of the programme companies as well as in their interests.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike)
The discussion we have had this afternoon I think demonstrates the difficulty we have in this particular instance in discussing this matter. Although I have little time at my disposal, I think that should again state the constitutional position as it affects the Post Office in this case.
The provisions of the Television Act were designed to ensure political impartiality on the part of the I.T.A., both in regard to programme content and in regard to advertisements. Section 3 (1, g) of the Act lays on the Authority the responsibility of satisfying itself that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority. The only qualification on this is in respect of party political broadcasts, and in respect of the inclusion in its programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character. I mention these qualifications only to remind hon. Members—if indeed they need reminding—of those programmes which the Authority does provide, in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have participated, and in which people of declared political opinions which are not represented in this House have, in the appropriate forum, appeared from time to time.
The Second Schedule of the Television Act refers directly to advertisements which the Authority may or may not accept. Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule states: No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the 1413 objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute. This paragraph, though no less specific, is wider in its scope than the one I quoted earlier to hon. Members since its terms are not confined to political parties or to the policies of political parties.
The position of the I.T.A. is therefore clearly defined in this matter. It is, as I have no doubt hon. Members will recognise, in a special position inasmuch as there is no similar statutory restriction on any other advertising media. All political parties can buy newspaper or poster space to appeal for support or commend their policies or to seek increased membership. They may not do so on television; they may not advertise for any purpose whatsoever, however devoid of political content the advertisements may be, or may appear to be.
I shall refer to the special position of the I.T.A. later, but the important point—in fact the crux of the matter—which I wish to make clear to hon. Members is that Parliament has laid on the I.T.A. the obligation of ensuring compliance with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and, indeed, of enforcing the other relevant provisions of the Act. Whatever the content of the advertisement, the I.T.A. must ask itself certain questions, and in the case of advertisements these questions relate to the body or organisation which wishes to advertise. If the objects of any body wishing to advertise are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, the Authority must refuse to accept advertisements from that body, and the decision in such cases rests with the Independent Television Authority.
Hon. Members may ask why the I.T.A. came to the conclusion that it did in the case of the Daily Worker, and, in particular, why, if one newspaper is ruled out because its objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, should not all other newspapers be ruled out for these reasons? I am not in a position to say on what evidence the I.T.A. and its legal advisers came, as they did, to the conclusion that they would be contravening the Act if they accepted adverts from the Daily Worker. I hope that I have explained the position of the 1414 Authority under the Act, and its responsibilities. I can certainly say that the I.T.A. in its considered view is interpreting the words of the Act with strictness and accuracy, and does not feel the slightest doubt that the objects of the Daily Worker are mainly political. Hon. Members are entitled to differ from the I.T.A., but the decision in these cases rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Authority: and Parliament has put it there.
I would, however, like to say this. Although hon. Members, and others outside this House, have suggested that other newspapers besides the Daily Worker exist mainly for political ends, no one has suggested that the real objects of the Daily Worker are not wholly or mainly of a political nature.
Hon. Members have pressed my right hon. Friend to intervene in some way, for instance, under the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Act. Consultation under Section 4 (5) of the Act is not in point, because the Authority has a separate statutory duty laid on it to comply with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and consultation under Section 4 (5) is without prejudice to that duty. I should add that, under the terms of Section 4 (5), my right hon. Friend could in any case only tell the Authority what it must not advertise. He cannot overrule provisions of the Act and instruct the Authority to advertise something which contravenes those provisions.
Hon. Members say that my right hon. Friend should take action under Section 4 (4) of the Act to amend the Second Schedule so as to exempt newspapers from its provisions. But if it is argued that newspapers form a special category, I would ask hon. Members what about publications of all kinds—weeklies, monthlies and quarterlies? Are all these to be removed from the ban under paragraph 6? It is difficult to see how this exemption could be confined to newspapers in any case. There would also be the question of amending Section 3 (1,g). One must ask oneself where this would stop. Would it not involve a radical alteration of the whole Television Act-We believe it would.
Hon. Members have spoken of the freedom of the Press, and, indeed, have made out an extremely good case on this occasion. They have spoken of the need 1415 to allow all shades of opinion if we are to maintain a healthy democracy. But that is surely not the point here. Parliament has decided that we must proceed in certain well-defined ways so far as the television medium is concerned because of the special power of that medium. I must remind hon. Members that at the time of the debate on the Television Bill in 1954, the issues which I have just rehearsed were aired in this House and hon. Members had an opportunity to comment on the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule. There was no adverse comment on these provisions at that time. Indeed, the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House was lest the medium should be abused for political or religious purposes, and the Government paid due regard to this concern by introducing the safeguards that I have mentioned. There is no ban on freedom of expression in general. It is a ban on one medium which is of special application laid down by Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to review it in due course.
1416 Both my right hon. Friend and I recognise the tremendous power of television for good and evil. It seems to me that all these points that have been raised by hon. Members come within the scope of the review of television and broadcasting generally, on which the Pilkington Committee is now working. I am sure that they will have noted these matters, and I will certainly undertake to draw their attention to the views which have been expressed here today.

§ Mr. Mayhew
Perhaps the hon. Lady will give a welcome assurance to viewers at Christmastime that in future other parts of the Act will be enforced with equal strictness?

§ Miss Pike
I should like to say that I hope all viewers of television will have a happy Christmas.