HC Deb 15 February 1961 vol 634 cc1408-11

3.42 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit a newspaper proprietor from controlling or investing in any television or broadcasting service. On 31st January the Prime Minister made a statement in the House in which he said: The position of a free Press in a free society has always presented a certain problem Later, he went on: … it seems wrong to many people that too many media of mass communication should be concentrated under a single control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol 633, c. 782.] We are all told that the freedom of the Press is vital in a democracy. If this is so, then the freedom of the Press must be maintained in practice as well as in theory. It means that all important sections of opinion must have a voice in the Press. I say to hon. Members opposite that to those of us on this side of the House it is a mockery and a delusion to talk about a free Press when large sections of opinion in the country are not represented in that Press.

During the years before the war, the story was frequently told of the unemployed miner who happened to call at the Ritz Hotel and ask for dinner. He was told that, of course, every person in the country was free to have dinner at the Ritz—if he could afford to pay for it! Many of us feel that that position now exists with regard to the Press—that is, it is free to those who can afford to own the Press.

Frequently, during the discussions in recent weeks, the statement made by Mr. Stanley Baldwin in his famous speech on the Press lords has been quoted: What is it they want? Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages While that statement has been repeated quite frequently recently, what has not been stated is the very practical and sensible steps Mr. Baldwin took to try to deal with the matter. He turned the British Broadcasting Company into the British Broadcasting Corporation.

This was not because he had any strong belief in the virtues of public ownership—far from it—but because he believed that, in this matter, there was a very strong case for seeing that the news service offered by the Corporation should be reasonably impartial, and that that was best guaranteed by having it run by a publicly responsible corporation.

In that way, he ensured that his own views and speeches were made known to the public, either on the six o'clock or the nine o'clock news. As a result, Press lords who had neglected to report him found that they had to report his doings and sayings, because what their readers had heard on the B.B.C. news they would expect to read in their newspapers next morning.

Once again, we have an acute problem of Press power. I was interested to note that the Sunday Times, on 5th February, said: Paradoxically, although the influence of the Press is now balanced by independent reporting … on B.B.C. and Commercial Television, it is Commercial Television, with its huge profits, which seems to many to have given the Press emperors their new capacity to gobble each other up. How far can one say that newspapers are at present interested in television? The Daily Telegraph had an interesting article on 31st January, in which it said: Of the ten contracting companies now providing programmes for Commercial Television, six have newspaper interests among their shareholders. One only—Scottish Television—is completely controlled by a newspaper owner, Mr. Roy Thomson. Newspaper interests are also represented in one of the three new companies coming into operation this year. How independent are these television companies? Sir Robert Fraser, Director-General of the Independent Television Authority, wrote in a letter to The Times on 3rd February: The introduction of Independent Television has brought into the field of communication fourteen new companies during the period when anxiety has been rising over the reduction in the number of independent newspapers, and these companies are all independent one of the other. The creation of these fourteen independent companies, rather than the lesser number that could have done the job, is no accident, but reflects the Authority's feeling that the means of communication in a free society should be as wide and varied as possible. I took the opportunity to look in that edition of The Times to see what programmes were offered that day by the various companies. It is a fact that all these 14 companies were showing the same programmes between 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. All save two were showing the same programmes between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. That shows how wide, varied and independent our television companies are.

I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to back my proposed Bill to show the Pilkington Committee the feeling we have that there must not be too much accumulation of power in this way. Pye Radio has launched a big campaign to create locally owned broadcasting companies, linked with local newspaper companies, to apply for local rights if the law were changed. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked to associate themselves with these companies. I have been asked to associate myself with the Dagenham Post, in my constituency, for this purpose.

If the law were changed we should have local broadcasting stations all over the country, linked up with local newspapers, and that would be a very serious further infringement on the freedom of the Press. A good many local newspapers would not be fortunate enough to get local radio rights and would be crushed out of existence. They would not get their present advertising revenue, which would go, instead, to those who had the radio rights, I do not see any real local freedom in these stations. There would be a certain amount of local news and advertisements, but, in the main, the programmes would be syndicated in the same way as they are now syndicated on television.

This would mean a further serious infringement on the freedom of the Press. I should like the Pilkington Committee to look into this as well. Freedom of the Press is an essential part of our democracy. We must not only fight to maintain it, but also to increase it. I am not suggesting that by preventing newspaper proprietors from having an interest in television we would be solving the problem, but we would be taking an important step in the right direction. While we would not be giving them a greater sense of responsibility, we would at least be checking their powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker, Mr. Mayhew, Mr. K. Robinson, and Mr. de Freitas.