HC Deb 27 June 1963 vol 679 cc1823-33

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 35 to 42.

Paragraph 2 of this Schedule, to which this Amendment relates, is a new provision about the appointment of the chairman and deputy-chairman of the Authority and their remuneration and allowances.

As so frequently occurs in Parliament, I am moving this Amendment in order to discover the Government's intentions. I do not think that the Postmaster-General will accuse me of any impatience in this matter. I have for some three or four months been pressing him to announce, as I think is proper, the name of the new chairman of the Independent Television Authority. I think that, as we are now reaching the end of the Bill, this is an appropriate occasion on which to ask, having undertaken all these labours here, whether we can be informed who is to carry our wishes into effect.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in this matter, but I think it is time that Parliament and the country knew who is going to be the chairman. There are several important reasons why the announcement should not be delayed any longer. In the first place, as he himself has been saying tonight with some force, there are many preparations to be made for carrying this Bill into effect, and I think it is improper that an Authority of this kind, which has such a lot of work before it, should now have been over seven months without a chairman.

The second reason why we should have this information is this. We have had some unfortunate experiences. I am not going to use this late hour to make any offensive remarks, but we have just had a chairman whose last contribution has been to write the most offensive and distasteful article in The Times about the Postmaster-General that anyone could imagine, and, after the very unhappy experience that we have had of the last chairman, it is wrong for this appointment to be pushed through in the Parliamentary Recess and kept from the House of Commons. It is important that we should know now, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and that we should have an opportunity of commenting on the choice which the right hon. Gentleman is apparently to make.

Another reason why it is important to press this matter—and if I speak plainly it is not in any sense from a desire to give offence—is because of rumours that we have heard about the possible person to be chosen. The person most fancied for the job is Lord Hill, the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. I should not have a great deal of objection to Lord Hill being chairman of this Authority. I think we all in the House of Commons have a toleration of each other's points of view on political matters, and we accept people for their individual character and qualities which bring them to high places. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the rumour which is going round is that Lord Hill cannot be appointed to this job at present because of the danger that, in the present difficulties of the Government, it would look as if another former Minister had suddenly been found a nice comfortable job, which would look too unpleasant in the present stage of the Government's unpopularity.

I do not know whether this is true, and I am not casting aspersions, but if Lord Hill is to be appointed it is proper that the appointment should not be secreted through in the Parliamentary Recess. It must not be withheld and then pushed through when nobody can comment upon it in this House and when nobody can make legitimate comments about an ex-Minister being found an appointment of this kind. I am not making such comments; I am only saying that it is wrong to hide this information in this way because it would look bad if it were to happen. I think the right hon. Gentleman must come clean and tell us who is intended to be the chairman, and what is to be the future set-up.

If I may add one minor question, which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman before, to what extent are there to be changes in the full-time nature of the appointments involved at the head of the Independent Television Authority?

One last point. There is a particular reason why we must be very careful about the appointment of a chairman under the application of this part of the Schedule. It is this. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would acquit me of wanting to be offensive—I have not been at all during the passage of this Bill—but I want to speak plainly. I think it is important that we should have the right hon. Gentleman's intentions clearly stated, because there is also involved in this the control of the higher officials of the Independent Television Authority.

If this matter is left any longer, the interpretation of the Bill will be starting, and the preparation of the many measures following the passing of the Bill, without the control of a strong chairman, and I would particularly object to that, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in all good faith, and without in any sense wanting to make a personal attack, I object very strongly, now that we have got an agreed Bill, agreed between the two sides of the House, to the idea of Sir Robert Fraser continuing as Director-General.

He is the man who created commercial television in the form in which we now have it. It is he more than anybody who is criticising the Pilkington Report. I am not going to give chapter and verse or dwell on this at any length. It is he more than anybody who has caused this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has had to admit that this Bill has been introduced because the 1954 Act was never interpreted in the way we had most of us intended and hoped. In these circumstances I think it would be quite wrong, first of all, for this gentleman to continue. He ought to make way, with the new procedure to be followed under this new Bill, and the new régime to be established. In these circumstances if he is still there, as he apparently still is, it is important that the new chairman should be appointed without delay, so that the authority inside this body is clearly found at the top with the chairman. In the absence of a chairman it seems to be largely in the hands of the Director-General.

I have made this statement plainly without intending to cause any offence, but I think these things have to be stated firmly at some time. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use this opportunity, as we are now reaching the end of our proceedings on this Bill, to say bluntly that the appointment is now about to be made, and that he will not hide it from Parliament, and that it will not be hidden in the depths of the Parliamentary Recess, and that he will give every possible and proper opportunity for it to be discussed, once he has made the appointment. I hope that my points are sufficient to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that many of us, who have now reached the point of agreeing this Bill with him almost to the letter, feel that we are entitled to this final act of consideration from him.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Television Authority should be made with all speed. Perhaps I am a trusting individual, but I read in the Daily Mail—I think it was—two or three weeks ago that the late Dr. Hill—if that is the right way to describe him—had been made a baron and appointed chairman of the Independent Television Authority. I am sure that is the way in which a great many of the public read it, and I did not notice that there was any great public outcry against that suggested appointment. I do not know whether he has been appointed. I have not discussed this with my right hon. Friend, but I took it, from what I read in the paper, that this had been done, and I did not notice any public outcry.

I very much regret the way the hon. Member, even with his usual charm, seemed to suggest that if Lord Hill, as I think he is now called, were to be appointed that might look like some piece of political escapism or jobbery, something like that. Surely the hon. Member's mind goes back as far as mine, and many ex-Members of this House have gone to do great work for the State, to head nationalised industries, to serve in Commonwealth countries, and so on. That sort of thing has been going all through this Parliament and before.

I think what the hon. Member said very unfortunate. I am sure he did not want to suggest that there could be any thought in anybody's mind, if this gentleman is to be appointed, that the Government could have had any feelings of that sort.

Mr. Chapman

I accept the contrary view the hon. Member is putting, but I say to him that this is a rather different matter. There has been a lot of criticism about the way in which Lord Kilmuir was found a job, not by the Government but by private industry. This, following hard on the heels of that, a man retired from the Government forcibly—it has been said widely in the Press—would look quite wrong in the present state of the Government's health.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I do not want to follow that point because I might stray from the rules of order. I hope that, whoever the Government appoint to this position, he will be the best possible man for the job irrespective of any of the possible reactions, or alleged reactions, suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevins

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfields (Mr. Chapman) raised this matter in Committee and asked if it would be possible for the Government to announce the name of the gentleman concerned before Report stage. I was very much hoping that that might be possible, but in the event it has turned out not to be possible. All I can say is that I expect to announce the name of the chairman of the Authority early next week.

Mr. Willey

I am sure that the Postmaster-General will appreciate that this is a matter of considerable importance. I was very disturbed recently to read Mr. Clive Jenkin's book, "The Power Behind the Scenes", in which he described the activities of the Prime Minister with the programme companies immediately before the election. That is undesirable. This is a public service and should be regarded as such. I hope that extreme care will be taken to safeguard the position of television as a public service and not subject to any pressures.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, at the end to insert: 9. To the definition of "disqualified person" in section 5(1) there shall be added the following paragraph: — (d) being a body corporate carries on activities which are wholly or partly for purposes other than the purposes of the provision of programmes for broadcasting by the Authority". This touches a matter which was constantly referred to in discussion in Committee. Under this Amendment one could raise the whole question of the association of the Press with television, but the matter was thoroughly debated in Standing Committee. I do not return to it except to say that it is one of the matters we had in mind in putting forward this Amendment. What we have in mind particularly is that difficulties arise once we stress, as we have done, the public service nature of television. Those difficulties arise through the association of television with other interests.

On reflection, I would not press the Amendment too hard because I have confessed in Standing Committee that one should encourage the association of television with the entertainment industry. I think that the programme companies ought to have done far more to assist entertainment outside television. This is a purpose they should recognise as theirs, but what one does not like—and it has developed very much in the last year—is the seeking of profit for the sake of profit.

There has been a very profitable investment in television. It seems that this motive has led to all sorts of strange associations between television companies and other interests. This is undesirable. I can think of instances in which the association with entertainment has been broken largely because television has been so profitable. Other associations with entertainment—which led no doubt to appointments when the companies were selected—have been broken because the other interests in entertainment have been less profitable and profitability has attracted interests far removed from television.

Perhaps our proposal goes too far. However, if the Postmaster-General is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that he will be wiling to consider the matter between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevins

As the hon. Member implied, the Amendment does go a good deal too far, whether or not the principle of it is right. For example, it would exclude the production of programmes for broadcasting outside the United Kingom and the sale of things like the Television Times. I am prepared to look at the matter in principle, but I cannot, in all honesty, say that I am prepared to give any promise at this stage.

Mr. Willey

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is unfortunate that we did not press the matter further earlier. However, at this stage I accept what the Postmaster-General has said and, since it would go too far, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, at the end to insert: 9. In section 5(1,c) the words "otherwise than by virtue of paragraph (a) of this definition" shall cease to have effect. Representations have been made to us that provision should be made to prevent foreign-controlled British domiciled companies from being used as facades to obscure foreign infiltrations. That is the purpose of the Amendment and, with that explanation, I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Mawby

The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the categories of companies which are disqualified from being programme contractors. It would disqualify a company which had among its directors, officers or servants any person who was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

There is no justification for disqualifying such a company. The provision in Section 5(1,c) already disqualifies a company which is under the control of one or more persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. This seems a quite wide enough restriction. Also under the Amendment a company would be disqualified if it employed, for example, just one man who lived in the United States for the purpose of negotiating sales of the company's recorded programmes to United States purchasers, and this would be so even if the employee was a British subject. The Amendment has no bearing on directors of programme companies who are of foreign nationality but who are ordinarily resident in this country.

We take the hon. Member's point and obviously there is great value in it. However, I think he will see that the Amendment does not do what he hopes it would do.

Mr. Willey

I am obliged for that explanation. We are not in disagreement about our intention. While we have obviously not met the purpose we we had in mind, I hope that when the Bill goes to another place we will have another shot at this and get nearer to the mark. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 21, line 16, at the end to insert: 14. In section 16(1)(b) after "health" there shall be added "training". The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that the point raised in the Amendment came up rather late for discussion in our earlier debates on the Bill. I am sure that he will not quarrel with its purpose. I hope that on this occasion my hon. Friends and I will have more luck with the Amendment and that we have met our common intention.

Mr. Mawby

As the hon. Member said, we had an interesting discussion in Standing Committee of the matters surrounding the subject raised by the Amendment. Acceptance of it would mean that the Authority would be called upon to discuss with its appropriate staff associations its proposals for the training of staff.

Reference was made in the Standing Committee to what the Authority was doing in regard to training, and I think that if this Amendment is made it will make quite certain that the Authority is in complete touch with the staff associations, and we would naturally hope that full advantage was taken of the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I beg to move, in page 21, line 16, at the end to insert:

Study and preservation of television material

14. In section 13, at the end, there shall be added the following subsection: — (2A) The Postmaster General may give a direction that the Authority shall make such annual payments as they think fit to the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive provided that they are satisfied that such moneys will be used for the study of the Authority's television broadcasts and for the preservation of television films broadcast by the Authority.

I apologise to the House for bringing up this matter at this very late hour, but I hope that it will none the less receive sympathetic consideration. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are, perhaps, not fully acquainted with the British Film Institute—and the National Film Archive which comes under its aegis—I would say that these institutions receive grants from public funds, and have done for a number of years. At one time, they were confined to the study and preservation of cinematograph films but fairly recently, with the approval and consent of the Treasury, their scope was extended to television material as well. Consideration is also being given to a possible change of name which will make manifest the expansion of their scope.

I am sure that it will be agreed that with the tremendous increase in the amount of television being broadcast, and the fact that we have here a new medium of communication which has its own standards of aesthetic and creative talent, it is desirable that we should have some high-level critical study of the medium of the kind sponsored for a number of years by the British Film Institute in relation to cinematograph films. We also need to preserve outstanding programmes which, with television rather more than with cinematograph films, are in acute danger of being lost unless someone regularly pays attention to what is being broadcast, and makes an intelligent and systematic selection of material that can be preserved for posterity.

The British Film Institute is embarking on a World Television Festival to be held in London in November, with which the right hon. Gentleman is to be associated. We have already had support in cash and kind from the B.B.C. and from some of the independent television companies.

The Amendment would give the Post-master-General power to direct the Authority, if he thought it desirable, to support, and provide funds for work which I consider to be of great value, and I am sure that this should be done by the Authority rather than on the somewhat irregular and haphazard basis of going round from one television company to another. Whether or not the Amendment is drafted in the best possible way, I do not know, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he accepted the intention behind it, but did not care for the drafting, that matter could be dealt with in another place.

Mr. Mawby

We are, naturally, impressed by what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said, but the important point in this matter is the basic difference between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. The Corporation produces its own programmes, whereas, of course, the Authority does not produce programmes. The programme companies produce them. One hopes that all the programme companies will do as the B.B.C. is doing and will contribute and help to carry on this great work which is going on.

The power to direct the I.T.A. is unnecessary. The Authority already has the power, under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the principal Act, to make a payment to any body engaging in activities which are conducive to the performance of its duties. In fact, the I.T.A. is a corporate member of the Institute and pays subscriptions to it and the National Film Archive. Also, it is contributing to and supporting a proposed World Festival of Television Programmes to be held by the Institute at the end of the year.

This shows that the Authority has the power to do what the hon. Lady suggests that it should do. It has already shown its intentions, and it is already making contributions. In the circumstances, it would be wrong, I suggest, for us to do other than try to give it some backing. We should not seek to write into the Bill something laying this duty upon the Authority.

I hope that, with my report of what the Authority is doing at present, the hon. Lady will be willing not to press her Amendment.

Mrs. White

In view of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, I do not want to persist in the argument at this time of night. I must point out that a television archive is an exceedingly expensive matter, and the small subscription made by the I.T.A. is, frankly, irrelevant in that context. Therefore, a completely different basis of subscription will be necessary if anything approaching the cost of preserving the television archive is intended. Having made that proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mawby

I beg to move, in page 21, line 23, at the end to insert:

Capacity of Authority as a statutory corporation

15. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (capacity of Authority to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the principal Act) shall have effect as if the reference to that Act included a reference to this Act.

The wording of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the principal Act speaks of the powers and duties of the Authority under that Act. In order that there shall be no uncertainty, it is desirable to extend the reference to the powers and duties of the I.T.A. to include the present Bill.

Amendment agreed to.