HC Deb 05 April 1967 vol 744 cc303-10

Nothing in this Act shall apply to broadcasts made over wavelengths of very high frequency.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Channon

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-gate (Mr. Berry) and I have unwillingly moved along this path because the Government have refused to give up broadcasts in daylight hours. The Clause is the most modest thing that anyone in my position could ask the Government to concede.

I believe that the charge the Government levy against the pirate radio stations is that they use medium wavebands and broadcast at high power, so that their transmissions go a long way and cause a great deal of interference. My suggestion that broadcasts should at least be allowed over very high frequencies is a transitory measure, because I accept that it is not a final solution to the problem.

I am glad that it appears that the Assistant Postmaster-General will reply to the debate, because we had some discussions during the Second Reading debate about V.H.F. One of my criticisms then against the Government's new proposed local radio stations was that they would broadcast on V.H.F., which would mean, at any rate at the start, that they would not reach a large number of people.

But that is not an argument for the Government to use against the pirate radio stations, because they do not care whether they reach a large audience or not. Since the Postmaster-General saw a glimmer of compromise in the last new Clause I put forward, I should have thought that he would at least consider favourably this modest proposal to allow broadcasting on V.H.F., which would completely meet the arguments about shortage of wavebands and interference.

I accept that broadcasts on V.H.F. will not reach the same large audience as broadcasts under the previous new Clause, but I believe that it would be possible for those who really wanted to obtain pirate radio services until an alternative is provided to listen to them if they wished. I understand that they would not be able to listen to them on car radios, which is also a criticism that many of us have of the Government's new radio services. Although the Assistant Postmaster-General intervened in my speech during the Second Reading debate, I think that I am right in saying that it will not be possible—or will at least be very exceptional—for anyone with a car radio to receive the new local broadcasting stations.

Mr. Rowland

Has the hon. Gentleman been able to consult any of the pirate radio station operators on whether they will get sufficient advertising revenue if they broadcast only during daylight hours or on the restricted range of the V.H.F. waveband?

Mr. Channon

I have not. I have been very careful during the whole proceedings on the Bill not to consult the pirate radio station operators. I think that even if it makes me less well informed it enables me to speak without any hon. Member being able to tell me that I am contaminated by the views of the pirates, views which they often resent and dislike. I have not consulted the pirate radio stations about this matter. Perhaps they will not want to do this. That may be the case, so that even if the Government were to accept this final modest plea from my hon. Friend and me, and then the pirate radio stations did not want it, who would be happier than the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland)? Surely he should not pray that argument in aid against my argument. He ought to be delighted, and let my Clause go through, and perhaps see his aim achieved just the same. I am amazed that he brings out that argument.

What my hon. Friend and I are seeking is what is the worst and least of all possible concessions, but we are doing it as a final desperate attempt to get some concession from the Government. I hope that if the Government intend to show any spirit of reason, any spirit of compromise to allow the listener to choose the programmes he wants to listen to, they will at least make this extremely modest concession.

I do not move the Clause with any great hope of success of getting the concession because I have learned from bitter experience during the progress of the Bill that the Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General put up a stone wall against every concession asked for. They have taken an almost sadistic delight in depriving listeners of the pleasure which they have had in the last few years of listening to the stations they like.

It is with no feeling of confidence that I put forward this proposal; it is a despairing plea to the Government; but I ask them to concede this request, at this last attempt we make, to allow broadcasts over wavelengths of very high frequency which will not cause all the troubles the Government have outlined in discussions on previous Amendments.

I do hope that even at this late stage of the Bill the Government will be prepared to concede this modest proposal which my hon. Friend and I make to improve the Bill.

Mr. Berry

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), I, also, hope that we may, even at this late hour, obtain some slight satisfaction from the Government by their accepting this new Clause. I follow my hon. Friend again because we had that faint glimmer of hope extended to us through the remarks of the Postmaster-General on the last new Clause, and also because the Assistant Postmaster-General, who, I presume, is to reply to this debate, seemed so sad at the conclusion of our discussions in Committee upstairs that he had not been able to accept any of our Amendments. I feel sure that it would make him tremendously happy this evening, on behalf of the Government, to see his way to accepting this new Clause.

Many of the arguments which my hon. Friend has rightly put forward on this Clause are similar to those which applied to the last. We think we have found a way of allowing these broadcasts to take place without causing to foreign countries that great disturbance which has been the cause of a lot of the discussion and controversy over the present pirate radio stations.

Indeed, I believe that this Clause would cover the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) during our last discussion, because the very high frequency services have an extremely limited range, a range limited to approximately the horizon as seen from the transmitting antennae, that is to say, from about 50 to 100 miles, and with the development of the technique of radio transmission at those very high frequencies modulation of the frequencies can be applied to reduce interference.

It is possible to duplicate the programme assignments of those transmission modulation stations within comparatively short distances without causing interference between them, and we know from the Government's White Paper, if I may paraphrase it, that about 150 towns and cities in the country will in due course, if the Government's plan goes through, be able to be served by it during darkness as well as during daylight by very high frequency stations.

6.15 p.m.

Therefore, in proposing this Clause we are not asking the Government to give a tremendous concession, but it would give great satisfaction to people who have listened to and enjoyed these stations over the past years, and who are now to be deprived of their pleasure by this Government's action, and deprived of it without any alternative being put in its place.

I put this plea to the Assistant Postmaster-General. I know he would like to accept the Clause. I feel it would give great satisfaction to many people throughout the country, not least to my constituents and those in the areas surrounding them and who will be voting in the London elections next week.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I support this new Clause because the case the Government have made against free commercial radio stations rests on a number of charges none of which can possibly be laid against radio stations using very high frequencies.

May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to say, when he replies to the debate, whether he has in his possession any objections from foreign countries about radio stations using very high frequencies? Has he those objections from some of our international partners? Can he show that there has been interference in any way with shipping by broadcasts over wavelengths of very high frequency?

Has the hon. Gentleman got this evidence? Has he got any evidence of interference with our own B.B.C. programmes from broadcasts made over wavelengths of very high frequency? If he has not got this evidence, how can he possibly object to the new Clause?

May I also ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to convey my regret to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who has now left the Chamber, that he indulged, last time he spoke at the Dispatch Box, in a smear and then left the Chamber? This, apparently, is the new technique of smear and run. We have seen a great deal of it from the Prime Minister, and I am sorry to see that the Postmaster-General is following that bad example.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Chan-non) said that my right hon. Friend and I were taking a more or less sadistic delight in turning down Amendments presented by him and other Members, because we were unable to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Channon

No. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I did not say that at all. Ministers have listened to our case with extreme courtesey on practically every occasion. What I said was that they took a sadistic delight in taking away the pleasure of listeners. That is a very different thing. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have taken a sadistic delight in taking away, by the Bill, pleasures of the listeners.

Mr. Slater

I am beginning to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in making his remarks, understands the word "sadistic". Throughout the whole of my public career I have never allowed myself to fall to such a low level of mind or attitude as could be characterised even approximately as being connected with sadism.

However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, in moving this new Clause, talked about it as a modest Clause. He said he was moving along this path unwillingly. All of us concerned with the Bill may say that as well, but one of the main reasons for this legislation is to minimise the amount of radio interference in Europe.

I have to remind the hon. Member that broadcasts on very high frequency are also capable of causing interference. The only difference is that the range of V.H.F. stations is shorter and wavelengths can successfully be shared between countries somewhat closer together than is possible in the medium wave band. I know that this is only a difference of degree, but if people were allowed to operate radio transmitters in the V.H.F. band without regulation, chaos would result.

For example, there would be no way of preventing people from setting up any number of V.H.F. stations just outside the territorial limits and thereby sabotaging almost all the extensive network of V.H.F. broadcasting stations which, during recent years—including under the last Conservative Administration—has been built up by the B.B.C. The same thing could happen to V.H.F. networks of other countries.

Governments have recognised the dangers and wavelengths in the V.H.F. band have been shared out between different countries in agreements similar in nature to the Copenhagen Agreement, which laid the foundation for the present allocation of medium wave lengths. The current agreement for broadcasting stations in the V.H.F. band in Europe is the Stockholm Agreement of 1961.

As my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly tried to make clear during the passage of the Bill, its purpose is to implement the European Agreement and restore the rule of law in broadcasting. The agreement says nothing about excepting V.H.F. broadcasting. Uncontrolled V.H.F. stations could cause all manner of interference with aviation and defence radio services as well as with broadcasting services and could be used for reckless or insidious propaganda.

Finally, the abuse of the copyright law would be as pernicious as it is now, if not more so. It could easily become worse because television programmes can be transmitted by V.H.F. and the proposed Clause would put copyright in films at the mercy of pirate programmes. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the Clause. I know that the hon. Member for Southend, West is very sincere in his presentation of his case, but in the circumstances I must ask the House not to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The Assistant Postmaster-General has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Channon

I am not surprised by the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply. He did not show any obvious delight in rejecting the new Clause, so I will withdraw my words about him, "sadistic delight". Perhaps "masochistic delight" would be more appropriate to him. With respect to him, I have seldom heard a weaker answer to a very modest request. He answered no point that was put to him. It is only to save my right hon. and hon. Friends from the weariness of going through the Lobby that I am led to beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and also because they could rightly say that I was settling not for half a loaf but for one crust if we were to vote for it.

I will only add my disappointment that the new, gritty, purposive approach of the Assistant Postmaster-General, as contrasted with the approach of the Postmaster-General, has failed to produce any significant change in place of the poor, wretched and, in the Postmaster-General's case, sadistic wish to deprive the listener of one of the few pleasures left him in Socialist Britain. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.