HC Deb 21 June 1967 vol 748 cc1674-9

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) This Act shall not come into operation before the expiry of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed, but subject thereto it shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by Her Majesty in Council.

Lords Amendment divided.

So much of the said Amendment as proposes to leave out words agreed to.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from 'operation' to the end of the Lords Amendment and to insert: when an order for that purpose has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Are we taking at the same time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the third Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, at the end to add: Provided that any such Order in Council shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The third Amendment is consequential on the one that the hon. Gentleman has moved and can, therefore, be discussed with it.

Mr. Channon

This is the last substantial point for the House to consider. I have several times expressed my grave doubts about the Bill, and other hon. Members take that view, but the Government have used their majority and the Bill has now almost completed its stages. I therefore do not want to discuss the merits of the Bill, even if that were in order.

The point raised by the Lords Amendment and mine to it is that the operation of the Bill should be delayed until the Postmaster-General makes a Statutory Instrument bringing it into force. As the Bill was originally worded, it would come into operation automatically, one month after the Royal Assent. The Lords Amendment would provide that, after that period, the right hon. Gentleman would have to make an Order.

My Amendment is because of the remarks made by the Government spokesman in another place, Lord Sorensen. The Bill is to stop pirate stations. There are different views about this, but there is no justification for stopping this entertainment for tens of millions of people until a decent alternative has been provided. The Government's proposed alternative is Radio 247, which I think will be inadequate. I hope that I am wrong, but the pirate stations should not be stopped until it is operating. The Lords Amendment did not go far enough to achieve that purpose, which is the reason for my Amendment.

It would be disgraceful if the Government permitted what Lord Sorensen estimated to be 10 million listeners to be deprived of their favourite programmes with no possibility of an alternative for several months. Without my Amendment, the Government could make an Order after a month and a day without debate or check in the House. Lord Sorensen said: Your Lordships have just carried an Amendment to this Clause. So that there shall be no dubiety in the minds of those who are operating pirate radio stations, I think it is right to inform your Lordships' Committee, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that it will be their intention, if the Bill is enacted in this form, to advise Her Majesty to make an Order bringing the Act into operation on the day after expiry of one month from the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 1st May, 1967, c. 735–6.] I think I am entitled to ask the Postmaster-General if those words of Lord Sorensen still represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government. If they do, there is no purpose in the Lords Amendment, which we shall subsequently debate, because it will make no substantial difference to the position.

I would have preferred to have amended the Lords Amendment to make the Bill come into operation at the end of a year and not to have pressed my present Amendment. I am not allowed to do that, so I propose the alternative. There should be a check on the actions of the Executive in this way. I do not think that what I am asking is unreasonable. The two Amendments I have put on the Notice Paper are alternatives. If the Government bring in the Act to ban pirate radio stations they should do so by way of Statutory Instrument in the form of an affirmative Resolution. Then the Government would have to have the matter discussed in the House and to justify their proposals.

If that would be going too far, the alternative I propose, the Amendment we are now debating, would provide for negative Resolution procedure. If the Government reasonably waited until the alternative Radio 247 is in operation they would not be likely to need a debate at all, but if we had the negative Resolution procedure the Government would have to justify the Resolution. I hope that I have moved my Amendment moderately although I feel strongly about this matter.

If the Government intend to operate the Bill in the manner outlined by Lord Sorensen, I shall have no alternative but to ask some of my hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby. If, on the other hand, the Postmaster-General says that he is prepared favourably to consider the Amendment and gives an assurance that he will not bring the Bill into operation until there is a decent alternative programme, I would be happy to withdraw my Amendment. My hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to take what action they believe fit, but I would be prepared to consider any reasonable assurance the Government are prepared to give.

Unless some such Amendment as this is made, this House will have no further say in the matter. Unless the Government give a reasonable assurance, at least 10 million listeners—that is the Government figure, but I think the number is higher—will be deprived by Government legislation of the right to listen to stations which they enjoy and to which they have listened with impunity for several years. The minimum which the Government should do is to provide the alternative programme before this Bill becomes law. I do not want the Bill to become law until a reasonable alternative has been proved to work. The minimum the Government should do, and it is a reasonable request, is not to take these powers until Radio 247 has been launched.

I ask the Postmaster-General if he can give the exact date when Radio 247 will start operation so that the House may be seized of the information of how long the gap will be if the Government do not favourably consider my Amendment. I hope that they will give the right to debate this matter by Statutory Instrument before a final decision is made. Then hon. Members can put forward their views on this very important matter which affects millions of people.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I have much pleasure, as I had in Committee, in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). In Committee the Government pushed ahead with this Bill against public opinion and against the interests, it is estimated, of 20 million who listen to pirate radio station broadcasts. Now, apparently, the Government are prepared to put forward an Amendment which is not only against the interests of the public but also against the spirit of an Amendment which was fully and carefully considered in the House of Lords.

It is quite disgraceful that immediately after that Amendment was put forward and it was agreed that an Order should be published a month before the Bill could come into operation, the Government said that on the day following that month they could go ahead. All that has been achieved after long discussion and consideration is one more day for the pirate stations to be in operation. That is entirely against the spirit of the discussion. I hope that the Government will say that, in view of the discussions which have taken place since then and in view of public opinion, they will reject the point of view put forward on their behalf in the House of Lords.

The argument behind the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved is that we do not share the blind faith which the Government and the Postmaster-General apparently have in the B.B.C. to replace pirate radio broadcasts with a popular programme which will appeal to the mass of the people. Unless we can have a period in which Radio 247 and the pirate stations are in competition with each other for listeners, we can have no guarantee whatever that Radio 247 will provide the kind of programme which is needed. We are asking that once that is introduced there should be a discussion in the House either by negative or affirmative procedure. This might not take place if negative procedure is used and if Radio 247 is acceptable, but we have no guarantee that the British Broadcasting Corporation can provide a programme with the same appeal as that of the pirate stations.

Are the Government convinced that the difficulties over the needle time are resolved? We have heard that 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the Radio 247 programme will consist of records. We do not know whether the problem concerning the Musicians' Union has been resolved. We do not know whether programmes consisting of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of records will be acceptable. I am sure that the millions who enjoy pirate station broadcasts would not agree.

The Government are wrong, quite apart from the legal position, to consider that the content of the pirate radio programmes is to be deplored. There is nothing harmful or weakening in these programmes. They bring a great deal of enjoyment to a large number of people. It is wrong for the Government to put themselves in a position of suggesting that they know best what is good for the majority of people. That is why we support this Amendment and why we need the greatest assurance before accepting what the Government propose.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I very nearly divided the House against considering the Lords Amendments now because they came on after 12.15 p.m. It seemed quite wrong that we should try to get through this important discussion in the limited time available. There is certainly not time for the Postmaster-General, even if I were to resume my seat immediately, to reply to the points which have been made by my hon. Friends. There are also other matters which should be brought into this argument and a particular question which I want to ask.

There is the difficult question of resolving the needle time and the rights of copyright holders. There are very grave difficulties there. The Government have not been very full in their explanations about whether the B.B.C. can provide by Radio 247 a comparable service to that which is provided illegally by the pirates. That is still in doubt. We would want to know a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's thoughts on the future of really genuine competitive radio—

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Commercial radio.

Mr. Cooke

The B.B.C. is making a considerable effort to produce local radio stations which to some extent may fulfil an alternative to the pirate programmes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."]—but certainly there are difficulties over these experiments.

It being half past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.