BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (LOCAL SERVICES) (Hansard, 6 February 1961)

§ Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
I wish to raise the question of local sound broadcasting expressly to challenge the Postmaster-General to justify the ban which has been put upon the request of the British Broadcasting Corporation to be allowed to go ahead with its plans for local broadcasting, and I wish to show, in the short time available, that this stultifying of initiative and enterprise on the part of the B.B.C. is very short-sighted and, in my view, completely contrary to the public interest.
My concern is to see local broadcasting come quickly to the City of Sheffield. The Assistant Postmaster-General will know of the difficulties we have had in that part of the country in local reception of both television and sound broadcasting. I take a very poor view, if I may say so, of the Postmaster-General's decision to deny to the people of Sheffield the local services which now could be provided for them. There are other areas from which the same kind of request for local broadcasting services has come, but I am principally concerned with the City of Sheffield.
In Sheffield we already have the B.B.C. studio. We shall have a local V.H.F. transmitter because of difficult local reception, and a booster television transmitter. I shall, if I may, raise the problem of local television reception on another occasion. All the basic equipment is there. It has been provided or will very soon be completed. The Postmaster-General has said that this equipment must not be used for local broadcasting. To a large extent, therefore, from the standpoint of local needs, it will be wasted. We shall have to wait for three or four years, he says, before the people of Sheffield can have full benefit from the equipment. He says that we must wait until the Pilkington Committee reports.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that all projected developments in local broadcasting must stand still until the House has debated the Pilkington 168 Committee's report and passed whatever legislation comes out of the recommendations? If that is the Government's view, it is a thoroughly reactionary one, in my view. In our debate today, we have been talking about the need for local enterprise, for national enterprise and for greater initiative. Here is a case where initiative could bring quick results, but the Postmaster-General is saying that we must wait for four years, or whatever it may be, before anything can be done.
Do the Government—I do not think that all the blame should be put on the Postmaster-General—really expect that the Pilkington Committee will recommend that the B.B.C. should not be allowed to enter into local broadcasting or that the public or the House of Commons would accept such a recommendation even if it were made? I do not believe that the Pilkington Committee or anyone else would recommend that all the work of the B.B.C. in research and development should be thrown away and that other people should take advantage of it, the B.B.C. being prevented from going ahead. If the Government do not contemplate the B.B.C. being shut out of the field, why not allow the Corporation to go ahead?
This is not a new proposition Which has been made for the first time. The Beveridge Committee, which reported more than ten years ago, pronounced upon it. It recommended that local sound broadcasting should be introduced as soon as there were enough V.H.F. transmitters to radiate programmes in local areas. It was not then envisaged that that recommendation would not apply to the B.B.C. It was assumed that the Corporation would be the body which would be allowed to go ahead with local broadcasting services.
The request from the Corporation to go ahead is not a new one which has been made in the last few months. The Corporation's ideas on how it thought that local sound broadcasting might be developed were put to the Postmaster-General's predecessor almost two years ago. There was no secrecy about the Corporation's intentions. They were fully discussed in the technical Press, and so on. There were technical questions to be considered, and the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General will know what they were. First, 169 there was the question whether local broadcasting could be developed on medium waves, although it became obvious that there were not enough medium waves to go round. The B.B.C. would not agree to the idea of using medium waves during the day and then switching over to V.H.F. in the evening. I think that this was very sound. The Corporation, for very good reasons, suggested that local broadcasting should be on V.H.F. transmissions, as the Beveridge Committee recommended.
I understand that the Corporation at that time, nearly two years ago, explained how it thought that these services should be organised. It suggested that each station should serve a radius of about three or five miles from a local studio and a local transmitter. It was suggested that, in addition to the local items of news and comment on local affairs and the transmission of local programmes of all kinds, the station manager should be free daily to choose to suit his local audience items from the three B.B.C. sound services put out on the medium wave from the Home, Light and Third programmes. Incidentally, that is a far better prospect than the endless stream of canned music with which we are threatened by the political friends of the Postmaster-General who want to start commercial radio stations.
Therefore, this subject has been examined and recommendations have been made which have not been rejected either by the Conservative Party or by the Government. It could be argued that the B.B.C. could have clinched the situation by going ahead with local broadcasting quicker than it has done. I agree with any criticism on those lines, although it must be admitted that the Corporation had good reasons for not moving quickly. For one thing, the V.H.F. transmitters have had to be used to strengthen the transmissions of the B.B.C.'s medium wave programmes, and the technical reasons for the use of V.H.F. were not so pressing when the Beveridge Committee reported. The difficulties were not anticipated.
In addition, the Corporation had to concentrate its restricted resources on television development for a time. But it can now go ahead if the Government will allow it to do so. As for the scope of the local broadcasting which it suggests, this is precisely the sort of 170 thing that we want within the City of Sheffield. I imagine that the people of other cities similarly situated also want this type of programme—information of local events, local political questions, local political discussions, and so on.
In the last two weeks we in Sheffield have had several important local issues affecting everybody in the city which ought to be more thoroughly debated and discussed than is possible in the local newspapers. We have new plans for a new city centre, which are causing a great deal of controversy, and only last week the council presented plans, which are being hotly discussed, for parking meters in the City of Sheffield.
These are the kind of things that citizens should be allowed to have explained to them, and that they should be allowed to discuss on a local broadcasting service. Such things as shopping guides, road and weather reports, accounts of local entertainments and even programmes for local gardeners—because we have a very peculiar climate in Sheffield, and local information for gardeners would be very welcome on occasions—all kinds of reports of local activities, programmes for the university, the technical college, and so on—these are the news and entertainment items which many people in Sheffield want, and they should be provided for them. They are the very essence of local broadcasting.
I cannot accept the argument that these services have to wait for the report of the Pilkington Committee. If there is any substance in the argument that we must wait for the Pilkington Commitee to report before anything can be done on these lines, surely that is, itself, an argument for allowing the B.B.C. to go ahead with some local services. At the moment the Pilkington Committee—and, for that matter, no one else—has no real knowledge of the technical organisation of local broadcasting services. There are no proven facts about local broadcasting in this country. There are only theories and assumptions to work on, and all are from prejudiced parties, including the B.B.C.
I do not know whether we can accept the technical arguments and views put forward by the B.B.C. These have to be examined in practice. It is completely against the public interest to prevent the 171 Pilkington Committee from having all the facts and technical information about local broadcasting that could be provided as a result of the experience gained in running one or two stations.
We all know that theorists have been proved wrong many times in this business. It would be interesting to go through the list of assumptions that were made at the time the Television Act was going through the House and to see how wrong hon. Members were about the assumptions we were making at that time.
It is important that the Pilkington Committee should have some valid evidence upon which to work. It could be provided by allowing the B.B.C. to go ahead with, at least, its initial plans that it has for putting up—I do not know what the number may be and it would have to be discussed if the Postmaster-General agreed to this suggestion—a number of stations that could be used as pilot stations for the benefit of the Pilkington Committee.
This is not the time to enter into a discussion on the virtues and vices of different kinds of broadcasting, and I do not intend to do so. However, I think that one or two points should be made. I hold no special brief for the B.B.C. As an ex-employee of that organisation I know its weaknesses better than most people. However, I am terribly concerned, not only as a journalist, about the prospect of further closures of newspapers. There are alarming rumours going around, in the City of Sheffield as well as elsewhere, about the possibility of many provincial newspapers being on the verge of closing down. I am sure that no hon. Member wants any more closures, but it is a fact that if some provincial newspapers, because of the way their economies are balanced on a knife's edge, lost some of their local advertising revenue, they would have to close down.
Then there is the question of monopolies. In Sheffield there are two newspapers, both owned by Mr. Roy Thomson. It would be in the public interest to say here and now that, in a situation like that, the monopoly newspapers in a city like Sheffield should not be allowed to have any part at all in local broadcasting services, because it would be utterly wrong for a monopoly 172 newspaper set-up also to have control of local broadcasting. I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General would not quarrel with that.
Here, however, is a case where expression of opinion independent of the monopoly is necessary. We have a city of half a million people. It is one of the busiest, most thriving industrial areas. It contributes far more to the wealth of the country than most other cities of its size, the products that it produces are necessary to our economy and we have a tremendous amount of local controversy about everything. Our only outlets for controversy, however, are the two newspapers, both of which are owned by the same firm and are part of a big monopoly set-up of local newspapers.
Here is a case where, in the public interest, the B.B.C. should be allowed to enter into these fields of controversy, so that all points of view can be expressed without prejudice and without bias. There is a very strong case indeed for the provision of the local broadcasting service for which I am asking.
I must make it clear that we who hold Socialist opinions in Sheffield would not criticise Thomson newspapers today as much as we used to criticise them when they were owned by Lord Kemsley. Nevertheless, we have this monopoly position to deal with. Therefore, as a journalist, I say that by allowing the B.B.C. to go ahead we should be avoiding, at least in the City of Sheffield, a threat of closure of one of our newspapers, if that threat is a serious one and if it came as a result of the loss of local advertising.
The B.B.C. claims, I think rightly, that its local services, particularly its local news services, would encourage people to read their local newspapers. Indeed, that is borne out by my experience. When I used to work as a news reporter for the B.B.C, many of the items that I got into the B.B.C's news services were inevitably so truncated that if they had any value at all it was merely to stimulate people to read a fuller account in the newspapers. Local news of that kind can stimulate newspaper reading, which is something we all want.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not say that there is no 173 demand for local broadcasting merely because there is no evidence of it at the moment. We cannot have evidence of a local demand truly expressed for something that does not exist. The hon. Lady will, however, know of some of the surveys that have been made in this matter, some by the audience research department of the B.B.C., which show that there is a growing demand, particularly where people have V.H.F. sets for local news of one kind or another. I have no great evidence of this myself, but I am told that if the hon. Lady would ask the B.B.C. for some of the results of these surveys, she would find that they provide evidence of a good potential demand for local broadcasting services.
Therefore, we ought to have more experimentation in this direction, not only to help people who will come into local broadcasting at some time, but also to help the Pilkington Committee. In view of the fact that the B.B.C. can go ahead and that in our case, in the City of Sheffield, much of the equipment has already been provided, it is quite contrary to the public interest not to allow the B.B.C. to go ahead with the plans that it has.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike)
I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the way in which he sketched the need for local broadcasting in Sheffield and the picture he gave us of the pattern which sound broadcasting should in his view follow in the country as a whole. If we are looking at this problem, we must first look at what is happening at present, because I do not think it would be wise for hon. Members or people outside the House to be left with the impression that the Government have stifled development by the B.B.C. or have been holding up the activities of sound broadcasting over many years.
Firstly, then, I would remind hon. Members that the B.B.C. is, as indeed the hon. Member has said, extending its V.H.F. sound coverage as far as possible. It reaches 97 per cent. of the population and, stage by stage, it is extending the coverage. My right hon. Friend has already approved stages 1 and 2 which will provide another 21 174 low-power satellite stations, and Sheffield itself will have such a station. There is no question of hold-up here.
The third stage of the B.B.C.'s plan for further stations is awaited by my right hon. Friend. As he told my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) on 7th December, the B.B.C. is well ahead with preparation and has been asked to put it forward as soon as possible. The needs of all areas of poor reception, including those in the remote areas are being reviewed.
The national V.H.F. sound coverage largely duplicates the B.B.C.'s sound programmes going out on long and medium waves, but, as the hon. Member has said, there is this difference. More services of news and information can be put out from the V.H.F. stations, and the B.B.C. is developing this side of its activities as much as possible.
The public do need V.H.F. sound receivers. There are some 3½ million V.H.F. sets in use so far, and V.H.F. sound does give first-class reception, as I know myself. I have no doubt that its advantages will be more and more appreciated as time goes on.
The hon. Member has also pointed out that the B.B.C. and others believe there is likely to be great value in the idea of local stations for self-contained communities set in the framework of the B.B.C.'s national and regional programmes, on which a local manager might draw as and when necessary. I would remind the hon. Member that the Director-General of the B.B.C. has himself said that he would expect this to create the demand rather than the other way about as the hon. Member himself has already pointed out to us.
As he knows, opposition to the idea of local broadcasting has been expressed and the fear has been expressed that it would detract from the value and necessity of local newspapers and reduce their sales. The hon. Member has spoken about newspapers. Of course, all these things are matters for opinion, but these things have been expressed outside the House and there have been many claims in regard to Commercial sound stations put forward to the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting.
175 The hon. Member asked, Why has my right hon. Friend said to the B.B.C. that the Government did not feel able to authorise an important innovation of this kind at a time of a Committee of Inquiry? I think the best way I can answer that is in the words of the Chairman of the B.B.C. Board of Governors, Sir Arthur fforde, in the foreword of the B.B.C.'s 1961 Handbook just published: There are further advances to be made, both in sound and in television. Where you have a medium like this one, in which scientific and engineering advances take place so rapidly and in which so much lively interest is taken by the public as a whole, it seems to the Governors of the B.B.C. that it is a good thing that the national policy should be thoroughly reviewed from time to time so that the right course can be defined for a medium of communication which will affect not only great multitudes of people, but also important minority interests. There have been several most valuable reviews of this kind, for example, the Crawford Inquiry in 1925, the Ullswater in 1935, the Beveridge in 1949. The Government's decision to set up the present Committee on Broadcasting under Sir Harry Pilkington was warmly welcomed by the Corporation. It seems to my right hon. Friend that when we have set up a committee to do what Sir Arthur fforde says, take stock, and see that the right course can be defined on a matter which will affect all of us, it is right to await the views of such a committee on an important new development of this kind.
In fact, as the hon. Member will know, his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) asked the Postmaster-General on 20th July to give an assurance that he would not allow local broadcasting until he had received the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee. The B.B.C. itself pointed out on page 28 of its 1961 handbook that this is a matter which will certainly come within the scope of the Broadcasting Committee. With regard to the experiment which the hon. Member suggested, surely this is a question for the Pilkington Committee. If it wished an experiment to be carried out, surely it is for the Committee to ask for such an experiment.
Perhaps I might dwell for a few moments on the technical possibilities in regard to local broadcasting, because it is not a clear-cut and straightforward matter, as the hon. Member, who has a broad knowledge of these things, will know. The B.B.C. will largely complete 176 its national coverage in the 88–95 megacycles range of V.H.F. frequencies. Other countries use the 95–100 megacycles range. That is not available here because it is used for police, fire and Civil Defence services.
It may be that in years to come these services could be re-accommodated elsewhere. At present they cannot be. That needs examination, and that examination is taking place at the present time. But it must be remembered that the cost of re-accommodating them, if it should prove possible, would be appreciable if it were necessary to make the change before the useful life of the present equipment expired. Therefore, there would be no early prospect of many local V.H.F. stations all over the country even if the go-ahead could now be given. A few stations could be squeezed into the 88–95 megacycle range, but it might be at the expense of the national coverage, and it is felt that the existing service comes first.
I hope I have said enough to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at the whole field of sound broadcasting and to show that in this respect the wisest course is for us to await the deliberations and recommendations of the Pilkington Committee before a decision is made.

§ Mr. W. R. Williams (Manchester, Openshaw)
I will not say that I think there is a 100 per cent. virtue in the points which have been raised in this debate, but there is one aspect which commends itself to my mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to the possibility of having a pilot scheme experiment. The hon. Lady has replied by suggesting that if the Pilkington Committee feels that advantage would come from such a pilot scheme, it is up to it to ask that such an experiment should take place.
Perhaps I might suggest to the hon. Lady that, in view of the controversial nature of the issue and the way in which it is being discussed throughout the country now, she might reverse the procedure and that her right hon. Friend should ask the chairman of the Pilkington Committee whether in all the circumstances he would think that it would 177 be to the advantage of the consideration of the issue by his Committee if such an experiment were conducted. It might be very useful, and it might be less wasteful in time, because we hope that the Pilkington Committee will report in reasonable time. It might be an advantage, therefore, if such a scheme were placed at its disposal as soon as possible. Perhaps the hon. Lady will ask 178 her right hon. Friend whether that could be put to the chairman of the Pilkington Committee.

§ Miss Pike
I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.