HC Deb 21 December 1966 vol 738 cc1418-30

12.16 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay)

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the proposed transfer of The Times and the Sunday Times to a newspaper proprietor.

I have received the Report of the Monopolies Commission, which is being published today. The Commission concluded that the proposed transfer may be expected not to operate against the public interest. I accept its conclusion and have accordingly given my consent to the proposed transfer.

The Thomson Organisation has formally confirmed to me the personal assurance given by Lord Thomson to the Monopolies Commission about the preservation of the separate identities of The Times and the Sunday Times, and about the maintenance of the independence of their editors.

Mr. Barber

As none of us has had an opportunity of seeing the Report the Monopolies Commission, we obviously cannot comment on it in detail, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three short questions.

First, is he aware that the economic difficulties of The Times are merely a reflection of the problems of the newspaper industry generally, and that other national dailies of all political persuasions are in dire straits?

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the duty of a Government, wherever possible, is to avoid any action which is calculated to make less viable the production of newspapers? I have in mind, for example, the imposition of the import surcharge on newsprint in 1964 and the loss of advertising which is directly due to the Government's deflationary measures.

Thirdly, and lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that editorial costs are only a fraction of total costs and that The Times and other newspapers are bedevilled by restrictive practices in the production and distributive sides which helped to kill the News Chronicle and will kill other newspapers? Does not he agree that these restrictive practices are a national scandal and that the Government, in the national interest, have a clear duty to intervene?

Mr. Jay

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that other newspapers are in difficulties at present, and that we must all feel real anxiety about the situation. There are certainly a number of things which we would like to see improved in the newspaper industry, but the main reason for the industry's present economic difficulties was the introduction of commercial television by the party opposite.

Mr. Grimond

I should also like to ask three questions. First, what is the form of the formal assurances given by the Thomson Organisation? Are they legally binding on that organisation indefinitely? Secondly, is the editor-in-chief to continue in office over the two papers? How is this to be reconciled with the independence of the existing editors? Thirdly, have there been any recommendations about the printing arrangements for other newspapers, which certainly affect the whole matter?

Mr. Jay

The assurances given will be binding now on the Thomson Organisation and not just on Lord Thomson.

Mr. Grimond

Legally binding?

Mr. Jay

I thought that it was not sufficient to have assurances just by Lord Thomson personally. Therefore, we have now obtained written assurances on behalf of the Thomson Organisation.

As for the independence of the editors, the assurance made clear that the two editors will be responsible for political and other opinions expressed in the newspapers and will not be able to be interfered with by the editor-in-chief.

As to the rights—and it is The Guardian and the Observer that we have in mind, which are both to be printed on presses under the control of this organisation—legal arrangements have been made which will ensure these rights for 10 years ahead. In the Commission's view, that was as far as it was possible to guarantee them.

Mr. Dickens

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House very much regret the Commission's findings in this matter, in that they seem to condone a further concentration of ownership in the already immensely strong Thomson Organisation, and that this thus represents a grave threat to democracy? Will he tell the House what is to happen after the death of Lord Thomson? Are we to understand that there will be a limitation on the ultimate disposal of the capital of the Thomson Organisation—at present owned by Thomson International of Toronto—in this new joint venture?

Mr. Jay

It is just because we had anxieties as to what might occur after the death of Lord Thomson that I thought it necessary to go rather beyond what the Commission recommended and obtain these formal assurances not from Lord Thomson personally, but from the Thomson Organisation. They will remain binding after his death.

As to my hon. Friend's views about the Commission's Report, when he reads the Report he will see that the Commission was not by any means without anxieties about the whole situation, but its view was that this was the only firm arrangement in sight which would preserve The Times as an independent newspaper.

Mr. Goodhew

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the restrictive practices to which my right hon. Friend referred have caused the cancellation of two new evening newspapers which were started in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, that 200 people have moved from other parts of the country, giving up their jobs to take employment with these two newspapers, that many of them have bought houses in the area and that they now find themselves without a job?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of the statement.

Mr. Goodhew

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to endorse the importance of looking at the restrictive practices in the printing industry, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do just this.

Mr. Jay

There is no question that there are regrettable practices in the newspaper industry, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, this and other aspects of the industry are being reviewed by the Joint Board for the National Newspaper Industry at present, and we had better await its decision.

Mr. Pannell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that such is the interest in this subject, as is evidenced by all Members who wish to ask questions on it, that we do not think that anything irrevocable should be done until we have had a debate in the House? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when he made this reference this morning to television it seemed to me that he was seizing on a purely peripheral point which hardly affected the principle with which we are now concerned?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a great deal of interest in the subject and that probably we shall all digest the Report over Christmas. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend will redigest it and will consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to having a debate as soon as possible after Christmas. This is a far more important matter than many things which the House goes out of its way to discuss.

Mr. Jay

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has noted those views and I understand that he is willing and ready to have a debate as soon as possible. But it was necessary for us to make a statement, having given the Commission three months to come to a decision, because of the uncertainty of the situation which causes great difficulties for The Times itself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Returning to the assurances on which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the recommendations of the Commission and his own consent were given, can he say whether he or some other Minister accepts Ministerial responsibility for ensuring that these are implemented?

Mr. Jay

I would certainly accept Ministerial responsibility to do all that is in my power to see that they are implemented.

Mr. Orme

Is my right hon. Friend aware that referring the Thomson application to the Monopolies Commission has almost a Gilbertian ring about it? Is it not extraordinary that the Monopolies Commission can award this newspaper to a monopoly? Have my right hon. Friends and the Government not considered that some form of public control running this as an independent newspaper similar to the B.B.C. might be tried by the Government before turning it over to Lord Thomson?

Mr. Jay

My hon. Friend may think it Gilbertian of me to have referred the matter to the Monopolies Commission, but I am bound to do so by the Statute passed by Parliament.

As to wider questions of possible public control, I do not think they arise strictly on this matter, but I would think that the newspaper industry is one of the last, in which the Government would wish to intervene.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many will see the majority Report as toleration by the Monopolies Commission of at least a tendency towards the growth of monopoly in quality newspapers? Is he further aware that there were some well-authenticated versions of this Report available in the Press yesterday? Can he say why the House was not the first to know of the Report?

Mr. Jay

As I said before, we all share the anxieties expressed during the last five minutes about the situation in the newspaper industry, but so far nobody has found a satisfactory solution. As to the publication of this Report, it was made available for the first time to Parliament at 11.30 this morning.

Mr. Allason

In considering the Report, did the Government take account of the difficulties in the newspaper industry over inter-union manning?

Mr. Jay

That is one of the aspects of the whole problem, but it was not specifically raised over this particular issue of The Times.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the situation in Scotland, where Lord Thomson now controls the Scotsman and owns Scottish Television? Further, he has made one attempt to take over the Glasgow Herald, which he may try again. This means control not only of daily newspapers, but of weekly newspapers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I introduced a Bill for the nationalisation of The Times about six years ago and that the House gave it a Second Reading? Why does my right hon. Friend dispose so lightly of the idea of public control when the B.B.C. runs a good successful weekly paper, the Listener, which has more reliability in its news than many newspapers? Why dismiss out of hand the idea of public control?

Mr. Jay

As my hon. Friend knows, the B.B.C. does not express political opinions as the B.B.C., whereas newspapers do. Therefore, there is a distinction. We must all be anxious about this. The Thomson Organisation now controls quite a large section of the quality newspapers in this country. On the other hand, if we look at the total circulation of all newspapers, we see that the proportion is very much smaller.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Should not we be realistic and recognise that 10 or 11 morning newspapers are commercial enterprises? If they are to be adversely affected by economic conditions, some of which have been brought about by the present Government, having regard to the trend of the times, should we not accept further amalgamations and rationalisations among the 10 or 11 morning newspapers?

Mr. Jay

Even though we recognise the commercial realities, we must feel considerable concern about the dwindling independence of the Press. That is the problem before us.

Mr. Buchan

Surely, as my right hon. Friend is worried about the dwindling independence of the Press, he will agree that the last thing we want to do is to hand over one-third of the quality newspapers to one organisation? In Scotland, not only the quality Press but commercial television is in the same hands. Now it is suggested that two out of the six morning newspapers should be handed over. The Government would do better—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Questions please.

Mr. Buchan

Would my right hon. Friend not do better by following the minority Report?

Mr. Jay

As I thought I had already explained to my hon. Friend, on the most important point I have obtained a substantial assurance from the Thomson Organisation which was suggested in the minority Report. I did that for precisely the reasons that he sets forth. I think that we are all anxious to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, the genuine independence of the editors of these two newspapers.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

In answer to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would accept Ministerial responsibility in respect of these assurances so far as he had the power. Since these assurances obviously go very much to the heart of the matter, and the House is at some disadvantage in canvassing these matters without having seen the text of them, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House to whom the assurances are given, by whom they are enforceable, and by what machinery they are enforceable?

Mr. Jay

The original assurance was given personally by Lord Thomson to the Commission. The renewed stronger assurances were given by the Thomson Organisation to myself. They are, clearly, morally binding on the organisation. What I said, and I repeat, is that I will do all in my power to see that they are carried out. I have no reason to believe that they will not be carried out.

Mr. Mendelson

As my right hon. Friend has now three times repeated the term "written assurances and moral obligations", will he tell the House whether, if for commercial or other reasons which perhaps in the future could be justifiably argued by Lord Thomson and his successors, there will be any authority to countermand any change or move away from the position given in those assurances? If there is not, why are the Government in such haste? Why not let the House express an opinion on this before taking final action?

Mr. Jay

I am glad that the House of Commons should express such opinions, but these assurances have just as much validity as any other assurance given to a Minister in a formal written document, and I do not think that we should depreciate the value of such an assurance.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Reverting to the third question raised by my right hon. Friend, is not the overriding problem in this matter the restrictive practices in the printing industry, admittedly assisted, perhaps, by the spinelessness of managements over the years? Surely the Government cannot opt out completely in its consideration of this matter. Should not the Government move on this whole problem of restrictive practices in the industry?

Mr. Jay

I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. We have already had the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press, and there is now a review going on by the joint body in the industry which I have described. When we have its conclusions, we shall certainly consider them. I do not think that the restrictive practices to which the hon. Gentleman referred are the only trouble in the industry. There are many faults going much wider than that.

Mr. Marquand

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is much wider than simply the Thomson take-over of The Times? What we are really discussing this morning is the future of the quality Press and the possibility of the disappearance of any independent quality press in this country.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Government, during the Recess, will come forward with proposals to ensure the survival of independent, dissenting radical newspapers in this country, of the quality of The Guardian and the Observer, possibly by altering the arrangements whereby advertising revenue is now concentrated in a very small number of hands, possibly by leasing presses to independent groups of journalists? I do not know the exact mechanism, but can the Government at least give an assurance that they will think very hard and very radically on these lines during the Recess?

Mr. Jay

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I have said several times today that there are much wider problems than this. We are certainly seriously considering whether there is any possible solution which has not yet been discovered, and I am prepared to consider any suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heffer

In view of the last reply by my right hon. Friend, and the fact that the Commission points out that the apprehensions are not groundless, would he not have a further look at this matter and withdraw his giving of consent at this stage, and let the House of Commons discuss the whole matter? It is of such great importance that I appeal to my right hon. Friend to let the House discuss this at great length before any final decision is taken.

Mr. Jay

No, Sir. I cannot withdraw the consent given, because although we have to consider these wider problems, and the Government will do so, my hon. Friend must really face the fact that we have to ensure that The Times can immediately carry on. After the Commission had three months to consider this, its conclusion, to which I must pay some respect, is that there is no other practical way of doing it which is in sight.

Mr. Rowland

If, as my right hon. Friend says, moral assurances are as good as legal assurances, why should Lord Thompson not be willing to make his moral assurances as legal assurances? Secondly, given that my right hon. Friend is now giving consent, and presumably this is irrevocable, should he not have consulted the House of Commons before giving that consent?

Mr. Jay

As to the latter question, I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that it has always been the practice of all Governments since the Monopolies Act was passed in 1949 that the Government, simultaneously with the publication of the Report, should make up their mind on accepting its decision. I regard the assurances as being as fully binding as any assurances can be.

Mr. Dalyell

Is there contingency planning in the Board of Trade for a potential situation in which my right hon. Friend might be asked by sections of the Press for Government help? Should such help be offered, would he make it clear that any newspaper receiving help is in no way beholden to the Government and will have the inalienable right to spit in the Government's eye—any Government's eye?

Mr. Jay

My hon. Friend is asking a slightly hypothetical question. I would certainly say, as I did, that we are seriously considering these very difficult problems. I do not want to be taken here and now to be offering what my hon. Friend calls help to any newspaper.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Mendelson

I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give such quick assent to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission before giving the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this most important matter. I want to be very brief and to concentrate entirely on the Standing Order involved.

First, the House of Commons is adjourning today for the Christmas Recess and there will be no opportunity whatsoever to use any of the established means of Parliamentary procedure to bring this matter again before the House for almost four weeks.

Secondly, I submit that in these circumstances the exchanges that we have just had place the House at a very serious disadvantage. Because of the publication of the Report, only a few minutes ago, no hon. Member, apart from members of the Government, was in a position to know the contents of the Report. There have been some leaks, but Members of Parliament cannot act on leaks. They have to see the official text of the Report before they can form a considered opinion.

Thirdly, there can be no doubt about the public importance of this matter. There is not only the decision on this particular newspaper, but there are involved a number of general principles which are highlighted by the difficulties in which The Times finds itself.

In these circumstances, although it is pleaded that quick action was needed, a delay of a few weeks in order to give the House of Commons an opportunity to debate the matter would have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is on those grounds that I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision by Her Majesty's Government to give such quick assent to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission before giving the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this most important matter. The House instructed me yesterday to adjourn the House without putting any Question at 5 o'clock tonight. The Standing Order is, clearly, not operable in these circumstances.

Mr. Atkinson

Arising out of that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could add to your knowledge on this situation, in the sense that in view of the advocacy of my hon. Friend in stressing the imminent possibilities that are likely to arise during the Recess—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman, with all due respect, has not understood the Ruling that I gave. May I assure him that I am seized of the important issue that was sought to be raised under Standing Order No. 9. I usually am. The question of Standing Order No. 9 usually comes on important issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning my Ruling.

Mr. Atkinson

No, Sir, I am not. With great respect, I am seeking not to question your Ruling but to try to add to the information which has already been given to the House, because some of the trade unions which are involved in this matter will be asked to negotiate on their future during the Recess. I would like, therefore, with your permission, very briefly to state—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate this. I must protect the business of the House, and the business has been laid down for today. It was because this matter was so urgent that I allowed questions to run for 40 minutes. But I have ruled on the question of the Standing Order, and the matter must be raised by the hon. Gentleman in some other way with the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Atkinson

I am not challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that you allowed questions to run for 25 minutes, not 40 minutes?

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry. I looked quickly at the clock. I withdraw that. It was 25 minutes.

Mr. Mendelson

May we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances? As a general principle, and not on this particular matter, how is the House of Commons to be protected? If the Executive is in a position to move and have passed the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for a Recess, and to do this not just one day, as in this case, but several days in advance of the effective date of the Adjournment, if it wishes, then, if the Executive brings forward a whole series of most important decisions, is not the House of Commons prevented, under the Ruling you have just given, from raising them under Standing Order No. 9 or in any other way? Would not this be an intolerable situation?

Mr. Speaker

I am bound by the practice of the House. I am seized of the importance of the grave issue raised now by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I understand that the House is to consider this issue of Standing Order No. 9 at some time in the new year. I hope that it will give serious consideration to all aspects of the question of Standing Order No. 9 which, I know, troubles the House.

Mr. Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The proposed arrangement of subjects for debate on the Adjournment is set out on the Order Paper. If any hon. Member who has had time allocated to him wishes to waive his right to have the subject opposite his name discussed, would we then be able to discuss the question of the Monopolies Commission's Report on The Times?

Mr. Speaker

The subjects to be discussed are the subjects set out on the Order Paper. Hon. Members have chosen certain topics for discussion.

Mr. Lipton

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. He need not repeat it. The matters for discussion are those on the Order Paper. I must leave it at that.

May I point out that we are now 45 minutes behind the time set for the beginning of the Adjournment debates. For those hon. Members who have debates, this means, roughly, cutting off one-tenth of the allocated time. I hope that hon. Members who have Adjournment debates will be fair to those who follow later.

I have asked the Table hurriedly to draft new timings for the debates, and these are as follows. The first debate will run from 12.40 to 1.30; the second from 1.30 to 2.10; the third from 2.10 to 2.50; the fourth from 2.50 to 3.40; the fifth from 3.40 to 4.20; and the sixth from 4.20 to 5 o'clock.