§ 38. Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement regarding the future of independent television and the allocation of a fourth channel.
§ 39. Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement 394 regarding the Government committee considering the future of broadcasting.
§ 41. Mr. A. Royleasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the future of local broadcasting.
§ 43. Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the future development of local sound broadcasting stations.
§ 52 and 77. Mr. Bostonasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will make a statement about that part of his review of broadcasting services dealing with the future of local broadcasting stations;
§ (2) if he will now make a statement about the review he has been making of the broadcasting services.
§ Mr. BryanDoes the Postmaster-General recall that we were told in the Labour Party manifesto that Labour was ready poised to swing its plans into instant action? Why are we waiting? Why have we had 18 months of dithering—[Laughter.] Why have we had 18 months of dithering—I say it again—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not say it again.
§ Mr. BryanI am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought that hon. Members opposite were trying to stop my saying it. Does the Postmaster-General realise the seriousness of this dithering to the television companies and to the manufacturers who have millions of £s at stake and cannot get ahead with their plans?
§ Mr. BennI am glad that the hon. Gentleman read our manifesto. He will have noted also our belief that decisions ought to be taken on the basis of the evidence and not just on the basis of hunch. This is one reason why we have spent a long time on this issue. It is much more important to reach the right decisions than to hurry into a decision which may be wrong, and I make no apology for taking time over this matter when the future of broadcasting, the allocation of channels and other important issues are at stake.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopWhile regarding with some amusement the comments made by 395 hon. Members opposite, will my right hon. Friend consider adopting the B.B.C. proposal for an experimental scheme of local sound stations which might very well be carried forward without much further delay?
§ Mr. BennI think that it is better and, indeed, inevitable that We should look at all these matters together rather than deal with them individually.
§ Mr. A. RoyleWhy is the right hon. Gentleman delaying so long on the question of local broadcasting? All he has done over the past 18 months has been to make empty threats against pirate radio stations. Has not the time arrived when he should give the House his interim decision regarding local broadcasting?
§ Mr. BennSignificantly, the hon. Gentleman links local broadcasting with the pirates, which, of course, is what they hope; but it is not at all the Government's view that this issue should decide the allocation of licences for local broadcasting.
§ Mr. BostonDoes my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of us have been rather concerned about reports that advertising on the "Light Programme" is under consideration? Can he say whether this is so and, if it is, to what extent it is being envisaged and what effect advertising of that kind might have on the licence fee?
§ Mr. BennI am aware of many speculations, including one that we would be licensing the pirates, another the one to which my hon. Friend refers, and another that appeared in Monday's Daily Mail about a minimum licence fee of £9. It is tempting to deny, but, if one denies, one tends to confirm what one does not deny, and then, by confirming and denying, one has announced before one has decided.
§ Mr. Hugh D. BrownI am not sure of the significance of that reply by my right hon. Friend, but, in view of the many kites flying about on the subject of financing local broadcasting stations, will he take my assurance that there will be the strongest opposition from many hon. Members on this side to the introduction of commercial advertising, no 396 matter how attractive it may be for revenue purposes?
§ Mr. BennIf my hon. Friend reads, or re-reads, the debate of 13th May, he will see that the Government expressed themselves as ready to consider a whole host of new ideas, and this has undoubtedly created uncertainty, which, of course, will not survive publication of our conclusions.
§ Mr. BessellDoes the Postmaster-General appreciate that the question of a fourth channel is causing serious concern to manufacturers? Will he look at this issue, if no other, as a matter of urgency?
§ Mr. BennThe manufacturers have made their representations very clearly. I cannot think that the need to provide British manufacturers with a market should be a decisive element in allocating a vital medium of mass communication, including, possibly, education purposes; but, of course, my right hon. Friends and I bear this in mind.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunHas my right hon. Friend any evidence of public demand for a fourth channel at all? If there is to be a fourth channel, would it not be better, instead of having a duplication of the duplication we have already got on the two main channels, to devote it to the University of the Air?
§ Mr. A. RoyleIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.