Clause 8.—(NEWSPAPER SHAREHOLDINGS.) (Hansard, 27 June 1963)

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby)
I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out from "that" to the first "the" in line 32 and to insert: the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest". It might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we discussed the Amendment in line 43.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If that is the pleasure of the House, it is agreeable.

§ Mr. Mawby
These Amendments are designed to implement undertakings given by my right hon. Friend in Committee to indicate a little more clearly what the Government had in mind when reference was made to abuse by newspaper interests. He accepted that there was some merit in a reference to where the continuance of newspaper shareholdings was contrary to the public interest. The drafting of the Amendment differs very slightly. It has been the general feeling of the Committee that the word "abuse" has not a sufficiently clear meaning, and we believe that the words in the Amendment are more in keeping with the views of the Standing Committee and will make clearer to the world at large exactly what we mean when we refer to abuse by newspaper holdings.

§ Mr. Willey
I thank the hon. Member for meeting us on this point. It does not meet our major argument against Press interests in the programme companies, but it certainly improves the definition. We had doubts about the word "abuse", and I am certain that the words of the Postmaster-General will considerably improve the Clause.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I welcome this slight clarification, because I feel that this question of Press interests and Press interference might become more dangerous in the future rather than less. There is a move to have more and more localised programmes and news bulletins, and newspaper interests, particularly in some of the smaller companies, might have the very bad effect that the whole news-giving system in a particular area came under virtually one interest. That would have to be very carefully watched by the I.T.A., and I am glad to think that it will do so.

§ Mr. Mawby
I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "to" to insert: rescind, postpone commencement of or". This Amendment does two things. First, it adds the word "rescind" to the proviso to Clause 8(3), which means that the Postmaster-General can make an order 1758 rescinding a period of suspension imposed by an order under subsection (2) before it begins without having to lay the rescinding order before Parliament and to obtain affirmative Resolutions. This is to meet the situation in which an order has been made for the Authority's obligation to transmit programmes to be suspended as from a date some little way ahead, but before that date arises, the matter which has been contrary to the public interest might have been terminated, for example, by the sale of the shareholdings involved.
The proviso, however, as at present drafted, does not apply to such a case where the period of suspension has not yet begun. If the Postmaster-General wished to rescind an order before it had taken effect he would need to lay the rescinding order in draft before Parliament, and it could not take effect until the necessary affirmative Resolutions had been passed. By that time the period of suspension provided for by the original order, particularly if the House were in Recess at the time, might have begun, contrary to everybody's intention. This is clearly wrong.
It is true that the difficulty might be minimised if the Postmaster-General made an order for revocation very soon after the period of suspension had begun; he could do this without laying the order or obtaining an affirmative Resolution under the proviso as it stands. But it would be very inconvenient for the period of suspension to operate at all in the circumstances, and clearly the proviso should be altered rather than have to take the risk of having to use such an expedient.
If we contrast this with the procedure envisaged under Clause 8(1),we find that if the I.T.A. had given notice operative at a future date and the matter contrary to the public interest had been rectified before the notice operated, the I.T.A. could withdraw the notice before it had taken effect, with the consent of my right hon. Friend.
The second thing that the Amendment does is to add the words "postpone commencement of" to the proviso to Clause 8(3), which means that my right hon. Friend can make an Order postponing the commencement of a period of suspension imposed by an Order under subsection (2) without having to lay the 1759 postponement Order before Parliament and to obtain affirmative Resolutions. This is to meet the case where, say, a period of suspension is due to start on 1st September and on 15th August the contractor states that it is not possible to put matters right—for example, to dispose of the necessary shareholdings—by that date but it will be possible to do so within another week or another month. My right hon. Friend would, if he considered the plea for extension justified, be able to make an Order postponing the suspension until, say, 1st October, without going to Parliament.
Thus the procedure for making a rescinding Order and a postponement Order will be the same as the procedure for making a revocation Order which terminates a period of suspension after it has begun. We believe that this is an action that we ought to take to ensure that we can cover the cases I have mentioned and yet not take away from the House what are rightly its rights.