RADIO BROADCASTING (WHITE PAPER)

HC Deb 26 May 1971 vol 818 cc391-511

Mr. Speaker

Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

4.9 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636). The White Paper proposes something less than a revolution for British broadcasting. It can be argued that it is indeed less important for broadcasting than the action which we have already taken to restore the finances of the B.B.C. and of I.T.V. to a firmer footing. There are probably larger decisions which will have to be taken in the course of this Parliament about the future of broadcasting in the post-1976 period after the expiry of the B.B.C. Charter and the I.T.A. licence. Nonetheless, the proposals contained in the White Paper are a logical and, perhaps, overdue development of our mixed system of broadcasting and represent a considerable opportunity for improvement and diversification in the services of sound radio.

Any set of proposals from the Government is open to criticism from one or two directions. It can be said that too much has been decided in too great detail by the Government and that too little is left for public discussion and participation. Or else it can be said that the proposals are too imprecise and vague, and that they ought to have been worked out in greater detail before being put forward for public discussion. This White Paper has had its share of criticism from both directions, so perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that a fair balance has been struck.

The White Paper describes in clear outline the service that is proposed. At the same time, as I have made plain, it is the Government's intention carefully to consider the views expressed upon the White Paper before proceeding to legislation. I hope particularly in this debate to hear views about matters, such as news provision, which have been felt open.

I welcome the debate, too, as the occasion when we shall, presumably, have the proposals of the Opposition. The only Opposition contribution to the discussion about the future of radio so far has come from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He recognised very fairly in his New Statesman article in July of last year that a purely negative attitude from the Opposition would not do on this occasion, that it would be ridiculous to go through the performance of the early fifties about commercial television all over again, on the one hand arguing for a monopoly and opposing a commercial competitor, and then later welcoming it. A repeat performance of that simply would not be sufficient on this occasion.

Equally, it would not, I am sure, be the intention of the Opposition simply to argue that more services ought to be put on by the B.B.C. with the frequencies that are available, without admitting that if that were to happen an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee would be inevitable. Therefore, as there is an Amendment to the Motion, one looks forward to the alternatives which the Opposition are to put forward for a commercial service.

The plan advanced in the New Statesman article by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was that Radio 1 and the B.B.C. local radio stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and given to a new corporation, to be financed largely by advertising. I shall return to that proposal. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing whether it is that plan which the Opposition have adopted.

There will, I am sure, be a wide measure of agreement in the House that an alternative radio service, in competition with the B.B.C., is highly desirable. The existence of commercial television is, after all, no longer a matter of controversy between the parties in this country. At the opening of Yorkshire Television in 1968 the then Prime Minister declared that Britain's two television services were the envy and objective of broadcasting authorities everywhere. It was a remarkable speech. In it the right hon. Gentleman gave the clear impression that, among the almost sacred things of life, he rated commercial television in roughly the same category as motherhood.

If I may give the House one or two extracts from that speech, the right hon. Gentleman said: Britain is perhaps the only country in the world which could have achieved, because of its democratic sophistication, a national television service based on two diametrically opposed philosophies … Many who foresaw disaster and predicted a widening gap between puritanical paternalism on the one hand and an indulgent, not to say permissive, avuncularism on the other, have seen instead an inter-action or an inter-reaction which has benefited and broadened the philosophies of both. The very existence of a mass audience stimulated by independent television prevents the withdrawal of the B.B.C. into a cloistered retreat. The very attractions of esoteric programmes put out by the B.B.C. for minority audiences … have forced I.T.A. to cater for similar minorities. Perhaps not all hon. Members would see commercial television in quite such radiant terms as the Leader of the Opposition. There may, here and there, be a reservation about the existing structure of our television service but, nonetheless, there are, I am sure, very few who would want to restore the monopoly in television.

There are some advocates of commercial broadcasting who argue that if the B.B.C. had never been brought into existence, commercial television alone—and commercial radio presumably—could have catered as effectively for minorities and achieved just as high standards. 1, for one, do not happen to believe that. On the other hand, there are a few at the B.B.C. who can still be heard to argue that the striking improvement which occurred in B.B.C. television after the introduction of I.T.V. would have occurred anyway. Personally, I find that equally hard to believe.

Having worked for the B.B.C. in the mid 'fifties, in the period immediately after commercial television started, I have not the least doubt about the beneficial effect of competition upon the Corporation. It became more outward looking, more adventurous, less self-satisfied, less bureaucratic; enterprise and creativity were to an even greater extent valued and encouraged.

I should not have thought that one needed to labour the advantages of competition in broadcasting, and those who accept the value of having more than one source of programmes in television—let alone more than one source of news and influence in newspapers, more than one proprietor for cinemas, theatres and other media of entertainment—will presumably accept that there ought to be competition, that there ought to be more than one source of programmes in radio.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

The hon. Gentleman appears to be equating opposition to monopoly with commercialism. Surely it is possible to envisage competition without necessarily envisaging commercial competition? The case that he has to make is not against monopoly, but for commercialism.

Mr. Chataway

Indeed, and I shall be interested to hear it argued that there would be some other way of satisfactorily financing an alternative. Perhaps it would be by means of a greatly increased licence fee, part of which would be given to an alternative service. The only point I make is that, as I understand it, the existence of commercial television—the existence of an alternative that is commercial, and financed by advertising on television—is no longer a matter of controversy between the parties.

I referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition appears to have a passionate belief in that system of broadcasting for television. The main argument that is deployed against commercial radio—and perhaps this touches on the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—is the generalised charge that it will lower standards. It is a theme on which some delightfully bizarre nonsense has been circulated. The vision that is conjured up is one of the British people, now subject to the benign improving influence of B.B.C. radio, being suborned by evil commercial operators who will lure them away to the depravities of popular entertainment.

It is a picture which has given rise—I must be careful not be unkind to some who spoke during the debate in another place—to some splendid denouncements by people who, one suspects, are not altogether familiar with the programmes to which the majority of the radio audience listen at the moment. I think that it may be helpful, therefore, to pause for a moment to consider what part of the existing radio audience could be held to be most at risk from the introduction of commercial radio. The radio audience now divides into the following proportions, according to the B.B.C.'s last annual report: 45 per cent. listen to Radio 1, 35 per cent. to Radio 2, 2 per cent. to Radio 3 and 18 per cent. to Radio 4.

What is the main source of anxiety about competition? Is it the effect which it might have upon Radio 1, which is devoted almost exclusively to pop music? Is it a fear that the cultural standards of the "Jimmy Young Show" will be undermined, or that the disc jockeys whom the B.B.C. brought ashore from the pirate ships will be unnerved by having to face some competition again?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead(Derby, North) rose——

Mr. Chataway

I do not want to detain the House too long. I hope to have the opportunity of winding up, so, if I am not to bore the House intolerably, I do not want to give way too much.

The competition against Radio 1 can be competition only for a part of the day. The commercial stations will not be able to put out non-stop pop even if they want to, since they will not secure from the Musicians' Union and other parties concerned a 100 per cent. needle time agreement. The B.B.C. can average out its allocation of needle time to produce pop music for most of the time that Radio 1 transmits.

The Musicians' Union has made it clear to me in a recent letter that it has no intention of trying to frustrate the introducion of commercial radio or its effective working, but it will wish to see considerable opportunities for live music provided in return for a needle time agreement.

Does anyone seriously suggest that the pop music which the commercial stations will be able to broadcast for some part of the day will lower the standards of Radio 1 or deprave that almost half of the radio audience which is now tuned to Radio 1? I do not find among those who I think know about pop music any unanimity of view that Radio 1 is of such a uniquely high standard that there is no place for an alternative.

Is there any more serious argument for suggesting that competition could have a harmful effect on Radio 2 and the 35 per cent. of the audience which it attracts? Does anyone believe that the Palm Court Orchestra or Mr. Eric Robinson will play any less sweetly because there may be music of a similar kind for part of the day on an alternative channel?

Even more unlikely, perhaps, is the idea that the new service could harm Radio 3 and the 2 per cent. of the audience who listen to it—that they would be likely to be lured away by commercial radio and that the B.B.C. would lower its sights with Radio 3. One has only to pose these questions to realise how silly are some of the suggestions that allowing people a choice will necessarily lead to lower standards.

There is, of course, Radio 4. In its treatment of news, the news service will certainly compete with Radio 4. Here, I should have thought that all the experience of television suggests that competition will be unquestionably beneficial in the news field.

For example—I shall not carry the whole House with me in this—I am an admirer of the World at One programme and its numerous offspring. But it seems that the development of more personalised current affairs programmes of this kind accentuate the need for an alternative. One can have a high regard for Mr. William Hardcastle without necessarily believing that the public interest demands that he should have a monopoly of current affairs coverage in peak daytime hours.

News, local and national, is bound to be important in the news service, because news is a larger ingredient in radio than it is in television. The White Paper sets out three alternative means of providing a national and international news service for commercial radio. There are some attractions in each of the three proposals.

Independent Television News, with its high reputation, could be expected to provide a very good service, but it is difficult to envisage that the radio companies could become part owners of I.T.N. alongside the television contractors, so there might be difficulties—I do not say that there would be—if I.T.N., owned by the television contractors, were supplying news to radio, which would to some extent be a competitor.

The alternative concept of an independent radio news jointly owned by the radio companies, operating on the same principle as I.T.N. and working in close conjunction with it, has much to commend it. It is also possible that an I.R.N. or an I.T.N. could also supply an "all-news" service in London, and perhaps in one or two other major centres of population, thus earning revenue directly and perhaps being to some large extent self-financing.

Many people have been impressed by the development over recent years of "all-news" stations in a number of American cities. A big demand has been shown to exist there for a news service to which one can turn at any time. In New York, Washington, Los Angeles and many other major cities there are today successful "all-news" stations providing a very high standard of service. Here in Britain, too, there is interest in an "all-news" station on the part of some who might be qualified to run a high-level operation.

I should welcome views about the relative merits of these three alternatives, and I have certainly reached no conclusion as to which might be preferable. But I believe that it is right that commercial radio should by one of these methods aim at a good central service of international and national news—and that means, at least at the outset, one central news service, as in television, taken by all the companies. Only in that way can sufficient revenues be generated.

I turn now to the general structure proposed in the White Paper. Some who accept the case for competition doubt whether it should come from local stations. Some have suggested that there will not be the resources to finance anything like 60 stations. Others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) have argued that 60 is too few and that there should be an opportunity for many more to cater for smaller communities. Others argue strongly for a national service in addition to the local stations.

But I am sure that it is right to base the service upon local stations. This is, of course, to follow the pattern of commercial television. Many of the commercial television stations have served their regions with distinction. The difficulty which is arising over the redrawing of the boundary between Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television as a result of the changeover to u.h.f. has brought home to many the regional loyalty which has been generated by some of the regional television stations.

Hon. Members in the transmission area of Yorkshire or Anglia—whichever side of the argument they have taken and whichever part of the House they sit in—have left me, and the Authority too, I am sure, in no doubt about the strength of feeling which now exists in their constituencies about any proposal to withdraw or change the local I.T.V. service. I have no doubt that commercial radio will engender the same loyalties in its localities as some commercial television services have succeeded in doing within their regions.

There will, of course, in radio be much greater disparities in the size of area covered than there are in television, and 50 per cent. or so of the United Kingdom population will probably be covered by the first 20 commercial radio stations; those in the major centres of population will cover areas with a population ranging from, say, 300,000 to 8 million or more in London. There can be very few doubts about the viability of these stations, which, of course, will cover much the greater part of the area proposed.

Indeed, as the White Paper explains, the stations serving the largest centres of population will almost certainly generate revenue considerably greater than the expenditure required by their immediate programming needs, and the contracts that are negotiated between the authority and the programme companies must obviously take this fact into account. We want to see good profits being made and able people attracted into radio, but we do not want to see undeserved excessive profits; the contracts must, therefore, be designed to achieve those ends.

I cannot foretell how many stations outside the conurbations will prove to be commercially viable. This will depend on the services that they provide; in other words, on their success. It may be that some of the smaller centres of population can best be served by satellite stations which would originate their own programmes for only a small part of the day, otherwise relaying programmes from a nearby centre of population.

There is room for up to 60 stations—it is impossible to say that 60 will prove to be viable—and that would involve going down to populations of under 150,000. In my view, this is at this stage the smallest area which could reasonably be expected to sustain a worthwhile service, but perhaps in future, when the spread of v.h.f. sets no longer requires duplication on the medium frequency, the opportunity will occur for more stations, if the revenue was forthcoming.

I come to the proposals which were advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. Arguing, in the article to which I referred, that radio was too important to be left in the hands of the B.B.C., he was anxious, as I am, to set up an alternative commercial system.

Mr. Whitehead

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the attack that has been made on his proposals from these benches before dealing with the remarks of my right hon. Friend? In other words, if he has completed his comments on the White Paper, I find his speech astonishing.

Mr. Chataway

As a serious proposal was advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who a year ago was the official Opposition spokesman on these matters, I thought it would be discourteous of me not to pay attention to what he said. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have not completed my comments about the White Paper, though if he has specific questions to ask I trust that he will do so, if he has the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I will do my best to answer his queries and comment on his views.

There are, as the White Paper suggests, a number of strong arguments for entrusting the Independent Television Authority, renamed, with the task of supervising radio, and in the White Paper those advantages are spelt out.

Mr. Buchan

The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he had completed that part of his speech dealing with the White Paper and was intending to come to other arguments. Is this so?

Mr. Chataway

No.

Mr. Buchan

If so, I want him to know that he has not sufficiently explained the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway

I trust that the hon. Gentleman will, if he has an opportunity to speak in the debate, state his views. I do not want to detain the House for too long, though I have a good deal more to say about the White Paper. I was intending to allude in the process, although my doing so may be painful to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to some proposals that have been made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who was at the time the Opposition spokesman on these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman wanted to take away the local stations from the B.B.C., together with Radio-1. They were suggestions which were carefully argued and which were carefully considered by me. It seems, however, that there is a place for both a network of commercial local stations and the B.B.C. local stations. The commercial service must, of necessity, appeal—I use the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used about commercial television—to a "mass audience".

The principal competitors of the new commercial service must, of course, be Radios-1, 2 and 4, to which all but a fraction of the existing radio audiences now listen. If it can give local information to such a mass audience and involve that mass audience to a greater extent in the local community, the commercial service will have fulfilled an extremely valuable social function.

It was represented to me very forcibly by those interested in B.B.C. local radio that commercial radio would not be able to cater to minorities, particularly at peak hours, in the way that the B.B.C. stations, operating on a set-up of five channels, are able to do. Their audiences may as yet be small, but there is little doubt that the B.B.C. stations have put out fare which will be much appreciated by the wide variety of minorities to whom they have sought to appeal.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Is it accepted that B.B.C. local stations should not be provided to cover minorities in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales—and, indeed, in Cornwall, which also seems to regard itself as somewhat separate? If so, why?

Mr. Chataway

My hon. Friend may recall that there are regional versions of Radio-4 prevailing in those areas. It has been represented that Scotland and Wales would prefer to have the frequencies used for the national version of Radio-4 rather than have B.B.C. local stations.

I hope the House as a whole will agree that there is room for both services. I have been able to agree with the B.B.C. the outline arrangements which will, in due course, provide medium frequency back-up for the B.B.C. stations. It will be necessary to apply for the use of frequencies allocated to other countries to supplement the medium frequencies we have available in this country, and this cannot be a quick operation. International negotiations are involved.

The siting of the independent stations will need to be considered and a frequency plan will have to be drawn up that caters for both the commercial stations and the B.B.C. I hope that the whole process will be completed in time for the B.B.C. local stations to have their medium frequencies at least by the time the commercial service is starting to go on the air.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's idea of, so to speak, transferring Radio-1 to the commercial side of the road, there is, of course, much to be said for having a national commercial channel in addition to the network of local stations. We decided against it principally because the national channel, which would probably have attracted more revenue than the local stations, would have been a direct competitor for advertising with the national Press. It might, at a difficult time in Fleet Street, have had a harmful effect on national newspapers.

The effect of the local network alone on the provincial and local Press is likely to be much more slight. It is, I believe, right to carry out the pledge which we gave in our election manifesto to give these Press interests an opportunity to participate in their local radio stations. By an accident of our broadcasting history, they have up to now been protected from competition from radio. When, by Government action, one changes this situation, it seems right to give these highly-valued newspapers a degree of priority in the new radio set-up. I have no doubt also that they can make a great contribution to the development of the new service. I am sure that no efficient newspaper has much to fear from commercial radio. Nor does the Newspaper Society, with which I have been in close consultation, take the view that they will be bowled over by commercial radio.

It is generally estimated, for one thing, that the total revenue of commercial radio is unlikely to exceed £10 million. That compares with over £100 million spent on television; about £112 million spent on the local Press; a total national advertising expenditure of nearly £550 million. Much of that £10 million will be drawn from money spent on "point of sale" material and the like. A good deal of it will be new advertising expenditure, because what radio will do will be to give new marketing opportunities to the small and medium sized firm which cannot afford to advertise on television.

Such evidence as there is suggests that local newspayers may positively benefit from commercial radio. Radio and the local Press are held in many other countries to be commercially complementary. At their peak, the pirates were drawing about £2] million annually in advertising revenue. I have only come across one newspaper which claims to have even noticed the effect on its advertising revenue. The Isle of Man is the one place in the British Isles where radio is financed by advertising. Since it started in 1964, the circulation of the local Press has increased by 50 per cent. and its advertising revenue has steadily improved.

There is no doubt that competition in radio will be welcomed by the public—every poll taken on the subject suggests so—and particularly welcomed by young people. There is, I am sure, plenty of room for improvement and development in radio, and room also for expanding the radio audiences. Our mixed system of television, so much lauded by the Leader of the Opposition, has achieved about the highest figures for penetration of television sets in the world. Viewing figures during the hours of general television programming are somewhat higher than in North America. All this is an indication that, whatever other criticisms one might wish to make, our television service must be admitted to be pretty efficient in meeting the demands of the viewing public in putting out programmes which people want to watch.

The position in radio looks a little different. The 25 per cent. that was suddenly added to the listening audience by the pirates has vanished again. In radio, the average person in this country listens for just over eight hours a week. In America the comparable figure is 17 hours. In part, this is accounted for by a greater number of cars in the United States, and by the five hours of average car listening a week there. I certainly would not want to exchange our radio service wholesale, even as it is, for the United States radio set-up, though the range of services given in the majority of American cities is vastly better than the popular conception of it here.

One of the reasons why there is apparently a listening figure in the United States of double that of ours, is that radio in America is more useful than radio here. Radio is a quick and flexible medium which people want to use today for some quite utilitarian purpose: to get all sorts of information that they need; to hear about the state of traffic; the sale at the store in town; the price of goods; the length of the queue outside the football stadium, and the main that has burst in the high street. There is no reason why British radio too should not have helicopters directing motorists home by the most trouble-free route.

I make no criticism of the B.B.C. It is an organisation that is far from perfect, but I have always regarded it as the best broadcasting organisation in the world, and that applies to radio and to television. I should certainly not make any proposal which I thought would endanger the B.B.C.

It would be odd, though, if one organisation in radio, with no outside criterion by which to measure itself, were able to react as successfully and efficiently to changing needs as the two organisations in television. It is not surprising that those in B.B.C. radio, unable to justify new developments by pointing to the enterprise of a competitor, have sometimes complained of being treated like "the poor relations" of television.

In other countries radio is staging quite a come-back. The same could happen here. I have no doubt that the new IBA stations proposed in the White Paper can contribute to that, and I have no doubt that the fairly modest degree of competition with which the B.B.C. will shortly be faced will do the Corporation nothing but good.

I commend the White Paper to the House.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: disapproves of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for commercial radio as set out in the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No 4636). I begin by apologising to the right hon. Gentleman for missing what I believe to have been the first 30 seconds of his speech. I assure him and the House that for once it was not my fault. The cab that I was in was unfortunately involved in what one would call an "incident" at this stage, which delayed me for some time.

Apart from the first 30 seconds of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I did not hear, the part that I did hear seemed to be trivial and below the level that this subject demands. The right hon. Gentleman was asked some specific questions by two of my hon. Friends, particularly about the degree of control which is to be exercised by the Independent Broadcasting Authority over the individual programme companies. This is a subject which the right hon. Gentleman will know has caused a great deal of concern, not only in the House but in the Press and in other informed circles. But the right hon. Gentleman chose not to deal with that point. I trust, therefore, that he will take note of the fact that we on this side of the House want from him and from the Government some details of the type of control that they envisage that the I.B.A. will exercise over the individual programme companies, the way in which that control will be enforced, what sanctions it is envisaged that the I.B.A. shall have in order to enforce its standards, and, finally, what guidance the Government propose to give to the I.B.A. so as to maintain what the right hon. Gentleman professes to believe in; namely, high standards in broadcasting.

When he winds up the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman chooses not to answer those questions, which are not put in any carping spirit but in a genuine attempt to try to clarify some parts of his White Paper which are vague and imprecise, I fear that the House and the country can only draw the obvious conclusions.

In many ways this is a most extraordinary Motion. After all, it is the Government's White Paper. It is not a document which is put before the House or the country for the purpose of general discussion. It is not a Green Paper. It is not even—as one noble Lord described it in another place recently—a White Paper with green edges. From time to time during the last six months, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we on this side of the House have been pressing him specifically to produce a Green Paper. Indeed, I remember asking him at Question Time specifically whether he would produce a Green Paper, saying that if he wanted to produce it on white paper, let it be a White Paper, but it should be clearly understood that they were to be proposals for general discussion and were not to be firm and definite proposals by the Government for the implementation of their policy.

The right hon. Gentleman refused. He said that the Government would do it in the usual way, and that when the Government had made up their minds they would put their proposals to the House of Commons in the form of a White Paper.

There has been a slight change in the position. In another place the other day Lord Eccles, in a rather elegant and expansive way, said that this matter is not … to be decided on some dogmatic position. Lord Denham, in winding up for the Government in the other place, said that a White Paper such as this is designed as a talking point …".—OFFICIAL REPORT House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 464–505.] We are entitled to ask the Government whether the White Paper is designed to be a talking point around which the debate shall rage—if one can use that expression with the House as full as it is at the moment—or is meant to be a set of firm proposals by the Government on the introduction of commercial radio into this country and for the implementation of what we on this side of the House believe to be a foolish pre-election pledge. Up to this moment we must, and indeed do, treat these as firm proposals by the Government. Are they so or not?

Mr. Chataway

This, alas, was the part of my speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman missed. What I said at Question Time was that the Government would put forward proposals in a White Paper and would then take a very careful note of whatever views were expressed on them. The point I made in my introduction was that, whereas I thought we should be criticised for putting in too much detail, or too much decision or too little, we would take very careful note of whatever views were advanced on matters deliberately left open or the propositions in the White Paper.

Mr. Richard

I heard that part of the speech and, even though the right hon. Gentleman has repeated it, it does not shake me in the views I have just expressed. I am asking whether these are firm proposals by the Government? Is this the structure of commercial radio which the Government wish to see introduced, or is it merely a set of proposals which the Government are putting before the country for general discussion? If the answer is the latter, I suspect he may find that some of his hon. Friends may not be in total agreement with the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to anticipate what will be said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) but, judging by past experience of the hon. Member, I suspect that his views on the White Paper will not be wholly in agreement with those of the right hon. Gentleman. But, until the Government are prepared to say that their minds are open about the future structure of commercial radio, we must take this White Paper for what it is; namely, as a document which incorporates the Government's proposals. Therefore, we shall divide the House against it.

It is extraordinary that when the right hon. Gentleman produces a White Paper of this nature setting out these matters for discussion, and when he has listened to everybody's views and taken notice of none of them, in the way Governments usually do, he then puts before the House not a proposal to approve the proposals in the White Paper but the most pathetic of all motions by a Government—a Motion which merely asks the House to take note of the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway

It is normal.

Mr. Richard

It is not normal, when the Government have gone through a period of gestation almost as long as the proverbial elephant and have laboured to produce a document which is supposed to be the basis for the introduction of commercial radio, to put this somewhat pathetic Motion on the Order Paper asking the House to take note. This is a ludicrous situation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attitude of the Labour Party? I will tell him, though he should know all about our proposals on local radio because we have spelt them out in considerable detail. We would have continued with the proposal to extend B.B.C. local radio. That was our policy when in Government and it would have been our policy had we been returned to office at the last election. We do not approach this subject rigidly or dogmatically. At this stage our minds are open on the future structure of broadcasting; and so they have to be.

Mr. Chataway

Ah.

Mr. Richard

The right hon. Gentleman says "Ah". Of course they have to be, since the charter comes up for renewal in 1976, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.

The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the Labour Government set up a committee under Lord Annan whose task was to look at the future pattern of broadcasting. It was a most hasty and ill-considered move that when the Conservative Government came into office the right hon. Gentleman decided to abolish that committee. In other words, he decided to do away with any overall national look at the future pattern and structure of broadcasting in Britain. We condemned him for it at the time. We said that the Government would regret that decision. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman deep down, though he cannot admit it, now regrets that there is no body in existence at this stage which is capable of looking at the future pattern and structure of the broadcasting services. We believe that this needs to be done. Therefore, we would like to see a major committee of inquiry established to look at the whole pattern and shape of future broadcasting in this country.

One of the main reasons, why we on this side of the House are opposed to the White Paper is that we feel that by introducing this form of commercial radio at this particular time the right hon. Gentleman is closing one option which should remain open until after 1976. It may well be that at that time various other options may have to be considered, but until then we would condemn any closing of such a massive option by the introduction of local commercial radio in this form. We regard this decision as hasty and ill-considered. If the Labour Party is returned to Government at the next election and this structure is still in being, we should view it with the gravest misgivings. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if I have anything to do with the matter it will be subjected to the most searching examination.

The right hon. Gentleman at one stage said that it was his wish to safeguard the existing services of the B.B.C., and he went on to say something about v.h.f. and m.f. I hope he will this evening be able to give one undertaking which his noble Friend in another place was unable to give. Although the noble Lord was asked specifically in the other place whether the B.B.C. could have its medium-wave back-up without waiting for the introduction of commercial radio, he said: I cannot, I am afraid, give this undertaking. We must wait for a comprehensive plan embracing both, and it would be wasteful to do it in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 510.] That, broadly, is what the Minister is saying this afternoon.

I should like to have an assurance in respect of B.B.C. medium-wave back-up that there will be no holding back the B.B.C. in order to advantage the commercial stations if and when they are set up. It may be that there is an agreement, although I would not totally accept it, to look at the two together so that one can examine a medium-frequency back-up when the v.h.f services are set up. We should be greatly disturbed if the commercial stations were put at an advantage in this matter compared with the B.B.C. existing medium-frequency stations.

There is also the point that has been raised outside the House that the White Paper proposals run counter to the whole ethos, background and history of British broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a quirk or accident of history that we had never had commercial radio in this country. I do not accept that statement. It was due to no accident of history. It was fortunately due to the fact that some rather perceptive people, at the time radio was introduced, took a long hard look at what was happening to the commercialisation of radio in other countries and thought that Britain's broadcasting would be better run, and that the British people would be better served, by public service broadcasting rather than commercial broadcasting. The whole history of the last 50 years bears out that principle rather than destroys it.

We on this side are not defenders of the B.B.C., although, compared with this ragbag of ideas in the White Paper, it seems almost to approach perfection. But it has a number of great advantages which the commercial service, if it is ever set up, will not have. First, it is a public service organisation. We on this side of the House regard that as extremely important. Secondly, it consciously tries to preserve a balance. Thirdly, it consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards—and what on earth is wrong with that? To try to maintain high standards is an expensive and not necessarily popular thing to do. It will not necessarily attract large audiences. But in dealing with something as important in the life of the nation as our broadcasting service we should welcome rather than denigrate an organisation which consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards.

Fourthly, the B.B.C. has another great advantage in that it sets out deliberately and consciously to cater for minority tastes and interests, as well as for those of the majority. In some ways this should be the real test of a good broadcasting service—it is not over-difficult to produce a broadcasting service which can put out programmes consisting purely of pop, which many people may want to listen to. If the Musicians' Union were prepared to agree, it could be done for a relatively small amount of money. Whether it is good or bad pop is another matter. A service which deliberately sets out to cater for minority taste in the community should be welcomed and not denigrated.

Finally, the B.B.C.'s great advantage is its independence and undoubted and recognised integrity, and the fact that it can and does experiment.

These advantages have arisen in the B.B.C. not because broadcasting has gone on in this way by an accident of history, as the right hon. Gentleman said, over the past 40 to 50 years, but because some people who were in charge of broadcasting in this country took deliberate decisions to try to organise it in that way. In our view, they were right.

Mr. Gorst

The hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead us in any way. Is he saying that commercial radio would not perform a public service function? If he is, I would point out that in Canada, where there are both public and private systems, one of the largest stations in Toronto provides 26,000 free announcements of a public service nature per annum.

Mr. Richard

The hon. Member for Hendon, North has anticipated me by three paragraphs and five minutes. In a few moments I shall tell him why I think commercial radio will move in the opposite direction from that in which the B.B.C. has consciously and deliberately tried to move.

The distinction between the commercial radio structure envisaged in the White Paper and the one which the B.B.C. envisaged, and which the last Government sanctioned, is that the pressures on commercial radio must all be to maximise audiences. That is what it is there for. Let us take what is perhaps an absurd example; let us imagine Radio Scunthorpe under the right hon. Gentleman's plans. What is it in business to do? It is in business to get revenue from people who wish to advertise their goods, and then to try to maximise the number of people who will be told about those goods by the manufacturers and the advertisers. Therefore, the whole pressure on commercial radio is bound to be in the direction of maximising audiences. Once it is in that situation, standards are bound to fall.

I cannot imagine that Radio Scunthorpe, faced as it will be with a battle for a slice of what now seems to be admitted to be about £10 million-worth of advertising revenue that may be available to commercial radio, will offer many plays to the good people of Scunthorpe, the burgesses. I do not imagine that there will be any great current affairs programmes on Radio Scunthorpe. I do not imagine that even the 3 per cent. of the population of Scunthorpe—or whatever figure the right hon. Gentleman used—who at present listen to B.B.C. Radio 3 will hear from Radio Scunthorpe a great deal of minority classical music programmes. I do not think that they will hear many political discussions. What they will hear is as much pop as the Musicians' Union can be persuaded to disgorge.

It is an appalling reflection that the responsibility for maintaining standards in the new commercial radio set-up will be left to the Musicians' Union rather than be placed where it ought to be—on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

The hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of the purposes of local radio can be exactly applied to local newspapers, and yet we know perfectly well that the results are completely different from those which he has postulated.

Mr. Richard

The right hon. Gentleman made great fun of a speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I commend to the hon. Gentleman these words: that commercial broadcasting is to be condemned because it distorts—that is the phrase—the purpose of broadcasting by reason of the fundamental purposes for which the vehicle is used—not broadcasting for its own sake but its use as a medium in which advertisements can live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Vol. 176, c. 1349.] I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with that. [Interruption.] It was not meant to be a very good performance. But when the present Lord Chancellor used those words——

Mr. Chataway

When were the words used?

Mr. Richard

A long time ago. The Lord Chancellor used those words in relation to the ethos of commercial broadcasting. Whether they were said in 1922, as they might well have been by the first Director-General of the B.B.C., or by the House of Commons when it was then considering the structure of broadcasting, or in 1942, 1952 or today, the principle is still valid, and is one that we on this side accept.

If the pressures are to be to produce larger and larger audience figures, because otherwise commercial radio stations will not get the revenue, what will the result be on programme content? Unless restraint is applied, by the Musicians' Union or the I.B.A., or some other force, the pressure will be to maximise audiences by putting out trivia. I accept that there is a distinction between good pop and bad pop, but anyone who thinks that local radio commercial stations will put out good pop is making an extraordinary mistake. What the listener will get is something on the lines of what many people in the United States have to suffer—an almost undigested diet interrupted far too often by advertisements of bad pop and what is loosely believed to be that which appeals to the largest audience.

The fact that one can produce, free, something which is essentially trivial, does not make it necessarily non-trivial, nor does it make it desirable. The thought of 60 Radio Scunthorpes all producing the same type of programme for their own localities, all aiming at an audience of housebound housewives, car commuters and possibly schoolchildren or students, when they are available, does not appeal. Apart from its not appealing on aesthetic grounds, what a waste of a national asset ! It is not as if this country had a superfluity of wavelengths.

The right hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the United States. He told us that American broadcasting was not as bad as many people thought. I once sat down in Los Angeles with a wireless set and started tuning it, literally going around the bands. I tuned to about 15 stations. They were all broadcasting on a medium wave because in this respect the United States is fortunate in not having Europe 22 miles off its coast. Each one was putting out almost exactly the same kind of programme. One had a choice at that moment of no fewer than 15 pop stations. I regard that as essentially trivial and a waste of the wavelengths available in that part of the world.

Mr. Chataway

All the arguments the hon. and learned Gentleman has used up to now to condemn commercial broadcasting apply just as strongly to commercial television. Are we to take it, from his general denunciation, that the Labour Party now is entering into an undertaking to wind up commercial television?

Mr. Richard

The right hon. Gentleman cannot read that into what I have said. If he does his capacity for crystal-gazing is only equalled by his capacity for evasion. In a few moments, I will tell him the advantages, as he himself saw them—although his proposal was overruled by the Cabinet—that a national commercial organisation might have had as opposed to a set of local organisations.

In the debate in the House of Lords the Bishop of Coventry expressed what I think is the real question. He said: What is the purpose? Is the purpose, as the White Paper states, 'to combine popular programming with fostering a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement in the local community'? Or is it to be only a further electronic extension of the marketing of goods and thereby the enrichment of certain private pockets?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 481.] I think the bishop expressed the antithesis exactly. If this was a proposal for, as Lord Eccles said, re-invigorating a local community so that the butcher could ring up and say, "My sausages will be sold at 32p a lb. this afternoon", or if the local fishmonger could ring up and say, "We have nice sole today", or if the local dramatic society could put out some kind of radio play, it might combine popular programming with a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement of the local community. But does anyone imagine that that is the type of programme that will take place under this scheme?

Are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) in the business to make sure that the Scunthorpe dramatic society gets a fair crack of the whip on Radio Scunthorpe or that the local butcher in the High Street gets a fair crack of the advertising revenue They know as well as anyone else, and recognise it, that they are in business simply to try to get as much advertising revenue on that commercial local radio station as possible.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough) indicated assent.

Mr. Richard

The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough admits it. So be it !

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North) rose——

Mr. Richard

I have been generous in giving way, and I do not want to detain the House too long. I have some specific points in the White Paper to put to the Minister, and if the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will forgive me, I want to get on now and put them.

In the While Paper the right hon. Gentleman has spelt out a structure for commercial radio. He says that … the Government proposes to entrust the new service to the I.T.A., which will be renamed the 'Independent Broadcasting Authority'. What is to happen? Exactly how is the I.B.A. to maintain standards? We are entitled to know how much advertising it is envisaged should be allowed on commercial radio stations. We want to know what the ratio of musical to non-musical programmes is to be. We want to know what the ratio of local to national programmes is to be. Mr. Hughie Green said recently that he envisaged that approximately 50 per cent. of the output of local radio stations would be national network programmes. Is that the sort of proportion that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind? Is the Authority to get strong guidance from the Government as to the type of programming it will permit? We and the country at large are entitled to know.

Further, we want to know a little more how the I.B.A.'s control is to be exercised. There were various enigmatic remarks in the debate in the House of Lords, particularly in the speeches of Lord Eccles and Lord Denham. Referring to the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Eccles said: He believes that although the techniques of control may well differ from the control of television advertisements, the I.B.A., as it will be called, has the experience to work out and operate a system of control applied after, and not before, the programmes are produced. What does this mean? Does it mean, for example, that once every two or three years, or whenever the franchise is reviewed, the I.B.A. will review the sort of programmes put out by Radio Scunthorpe in the preceding period? What are the managers of commercial radio to be told about the sort of programme that, in the opinion of the I.B.A., it would be appropriate for them to put out?

Lord Eccles went on to say: If you study how it will work, you will see see that there really is a grip on the parties who have the contracts to make them maintain the standards set by the I.B.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 468.] That is an act of faith, not a statement of policy, because the policy has not been spelt out, and until it is the Government can not expect much support for the White Paper.

I want to say something about the possibility of news programmes. I accept utterly that the development of I.T.N. has been nothing but good. It has produced a first-class news service. If we have to have commercial radio, I would like to see the I.T.N. take over responsibility for providing a national news service for it. Of course—and the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do—the difficulties of producing news for radio broadcasting are much greater than the difficulties of producing news for television. It has to be done far more often, and more people are needed. Who, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, will do the news gathering? I suspect that, unless there is a strong, central, national organisation like the I.T.N., it will be done for these local stations by tapes, wire services and—dare one say it?—the B.B.C. I have a feeling that Radio Scunthorpe's news will take place about 20 minutes after the B.B.C.'s news. What it will need, therefore, is a very good sub-editor.

If the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals with which to back up his extraordinarily pretentious and absurdly over-ambitious claim in the White Paper that these stations will be sources of national and international news which will in time stand comparison with the B.B.C. service, I should be delighted to hear them.

Lord Eccles gave one of the most extraordinary justifications for a separate commercial news service I have ever heard. I trust that the Government will disavow his words. I quote the passage because it is necessary for the House to get the full flavour: Lord Eccles said: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications … is strongly of the opinion that the British public ought to have more than one national news service, and I was very glad that the noble Baroness touched on this matter. I realise from my own experience how easily we get used to the pattern and choice of news that comes to us on radio, year in and year out, from a single source. Here may I say to the noble Viscount that it is in the morning when you want the radio news. You do not get television news at exactly the same time. Then Lord Eccles used words which even for him seem to be somewhat strong: I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less well educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as, say, the Members of both Houses of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.] I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind that educated, middle-class people like Lord Eccles should continue to listen to the B.B.C. and that commercial radio should, as it were, provide one-syllable news broadcasts for the plebs. It would not be wholly inappropriate if the right hon. Gentleman were to breathe one or two gentle words of disapproval or dissociation from the sentiments expressed by his noble Friend in another place.

To justify a national news service of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind, the amount of news that will have to be broadcast will need to be very great. Mr. Hughie Green has recently been giving voice to some of his views upon the sort of news he would like to hear commercial radio stations broadcasting. He said: We will give the public the news they want to hear. I am not quite sure what that means but it is ominous. He then said: We cannot afford to educate. We will be commercial from beginning to end. I am bound to say that if this is really the way in which potential or prospective operators of this service see the responsibility of putting out the news, then it is the most fatuous statement of all.

Mr. Whitehead

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Hughie Green has also said that the news service must be provided and presented by actors and not real people as this would give a more exciting presentation?

Mr. Richard

It only illustrates——

Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Richard

I have given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman has views which I have no doubt he is bursting to express. I hope he will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It seems that there is a sentence in the Pilkington Report which aptly and appropriately——

Mr. Gorst

Ah !

Mr. Richard

It is a very good sentence, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it and expected it to be quoted at him. It is very apt when we think of Mr. Green and "We'll give the public the things they want." Pilkington said this: Those who say they will give the public what it wants begin by under-estimating public taste and end up by debauching it. These statements by potential operators, such as Mr. Green, are really saying "What the public wants equals what we reckon we can give it cheaply so that we can make the maximum amount of profit."

I had intended to say one or two words about the Press but I am conscious of the fact that I have detained the House long enough. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) will deal with this in winding up.

Let me sum up our objections to this White Paper. First, I think it is imprecise and vague in its most important details; namely, the way in which control is to be exercised, and the relationship between the I.B.A. and the programme companies. Secondly, this White Paper has all the hallmarks of an enforced compromise between what I believe the right hon. Gentleman knew the service really demanded—namely, a national network with a strong public service commitment, even if financed by advertising, and, therefore, a real alternative to the B.B.C.—and the Cabinet's perception of how to fulfil what was in essence a very foolish pre-election pledge.

Mr. Chataway

This, as I understand it, is the kernel of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. What kind of national network, in the sense that this is not a national network, is he advocating in place of what the White Paper proposes?

Mr. Richard

What I am saying is that the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put to the Cabinet—and which leaked like a sieve up and down Fleet Street—would have been very much better than the ones the Cabinet overruled and produced in this White Paper.

Mr. Chataway

Monstrous !

Mr. Richard

It may be monstrous but it is true.

Our third objection to this White Paper is that the structure it proposes cannot cater for minority interests. Although majority interests ought to be catered for and ought to have priority, nevertheless minority interests are entitled to be considered. All the pressures are in the opposite direction, away from catering for minority interests, in the direction of maximising audiences. Fourthly, this is a waste of what is a precious national asset; namely, the available wavelengths. We are not well off for wavelengths in this country. We shall have to renegotiate the Copenhagen Convention at some time, and to waste wavelengths in this way is, in our view, quite wrong.

Finally, I do not believe that the structure proposed in the White Paper is in any way genuinely local. It will not provide the nice, cosy, local picture which Lord Eccles tried to paint in another place. It will not answer what he called the central question; namely: Will it re-invigorate local communities? I do not believe it will. In essence our attack on the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper is that it is basically a trivialisation of broadcasting. Therefore, we shall vote against it tonight.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts (Conway)

Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), it might be thought that everyone on this side of the House has an interest to declare. The only interest that I have to declare is that of a person who has worked in radio and television for 15 years. During that time I developed a great deal of respect and affection for these media, and I am concerned about their future and the future of the people who work in them.

I welcome the Government's proposal in principle to introduce an alternative service of radio broadcasting. The word "alternative" was very much in use in the 1950s, both here and in another place, when we were considering the introduction of commercial television. Much has happened since, not all of it commendable. After all, one of our main criticisms of television is that the two principal services are not true alternatives at all. They are too similar in content and approach to the public and programming.

It is clear that the White Paper shows the Government's anxiety to avoid the same kind of mistaken development in radio. I wonder whether we have gone far enough in defining the different rôles that the Government expect the B.B.C. and the new I.B.A. to play. The proposed commercial radio network will have to secure a sizeable audience to survive. We must do more than hope that the B.B.C. will not ape whatever tactics the new radio companies may devise. We know that when I.T.V. began the B.B.C. surreptitiously changed its motto to "Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor". We hope very much that this kind of development will not happen again.

Mr. Richard

Translation, please.

Mr. Roberts

"I see the better and follow the worst".

We hope that this kind of development will not happen again to the B.B.C. on the introduction of commercial radio. Both Parliament and the public value the service which the B.B.C. alone can provide, because it is, or should be, unaffected by viewing and listening figures. I urge this most strongly in the interests of the public and of broadcasting.

We have heard a lot this afternoon about giving the people what they want. I stress that there is scope for the B.B.C. to give people more of what they ought to have, even if the I.B.A. services give the people what they want. Let us not forget that Shakespeare gave the people what they wanted, but he also gave them what they had not dreamed of. There is scope for both the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. to give the public what they have not dreamed of.

I want to concentrate briefly on two aspects of the Government's proposals. The first has to do with the relationship between radio and television. I understand and approve of the Government's proposal that the alternative radio service should be the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority, which is to be transformed into the new Independent Broadcasting Authority. This is a sensible proposal, and I feel sure that the new I.B.A. will do the job well, but we should be forewarned against developing too close a link between television and radio in practice, because there is and will be a tendency to regard radio as the poor relation of television. Radio is a distinctive medium with its own potential excellence. Its economics are different, its methods less cumbersome. It is my considered view that in practice the new radio service should be allowed as much freedom as possible to develop on its own and, especially, be free of television influences, which will tend to dominate it.

Those of us who worked in B.B.C. radio during the period when the B.B.C. was developing its television services will know that, despite protestations and denials at the time, radio suffered "Cinderella" treatment. I, therefore, do not relish the prospect of the existing I.T.V. contractors having any stake whatsoever in the new radio companies. The independent television contractors' influence can only militate against competition both in advertising and in programme content. There is no real need, as there may be with the Press, for participation by the independent television contractors.

The White Paper suggests three alternative ways of securing a national radio news service, one of which is that it should be provided by Independent Television News. Although I am sure I.T.N. could do the job very well—I have the highest regard for I.T.N.—I object to this in principle and favour the setting up of a separate independent radio news service which will exploit the linked potentialities of radio, unhampered by television considerations. There is no other medium which can bring news quicker to the public, and, given professional people dedicated to this task with dynamic organisation behind them, the news service will quickly gain authority, respect and affection. We need more independent sources of news and a greater variety of comment and commentators. I regard this variety as the best safeguard we have for our democratic processes, and as an essential part of those processes.

Secondly, the Government are not very specific in their proposals for Scotland and Wales. I hope that this does not mean that the advent of the alternative service to Scotland and Wales will be unduly delayed. My right hon. Friend may have a proposal for an alternative to the national services on Radio 4 in Scotland and Wales. We must not miss a great opportunity to add to the variety of community life in our national regions. I can speak only for Wales in this context, but I am sure the same is true of Scotland.

Wales has at least four conurbations capable of supporting viable radio companies, two centred in the South at Cardiff and Swansea, and possibly two in the North at Wrexham and Llanddudno. All these areas have special characteristics and a special contribution to make to Welsh life. The people in these areas feel that they have not been fully represented and reflected in the broadcasting media in the past. I am not arguing against a Welsh network, but I hope that it would not be dominated either by the South or by the North and that parity would be given to contributions from all parts of the area.

Mr. Buchan

With respect, the White Paper was clear on that point. There will be no such station suggested for Scotland, nor will there be a B.B.C. local radio station for Scotland. The answer, quite specifically, was to use Radio 4, as at present. The answer is "None".

Mr. Roberts

I understand that there will be, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be contributing to the debate.

I end by stressing the importance of radio and television to Wales in connection with the survival of the Welsh language. I pay tribute to the work already done by B.B.C. radio and television, and by I.T.V., in the promotion of the language. We very much hope, too, that the new alternative service for radio will make its contribution to the survival of the most ancient spoken language of this land.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

The Minister referred to discussion about the ideal number of commercial local radio stations. For my part, the ideal number would be nil. I as strongly in favour of public service broadcasting in principle. Its motive is to serve the public. The motive of those who argue so strongly in favour of commercial local radio is to line their own pockets, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) pointed out.

On the Minister's own argument, the existing 20 stations of the B.B.C. are not enough. There is disappointment that for the time being there are to be only 20 public service local radio stations instead of the 40 originally planned.

Mr. Buchan

And none in Scotland.

Mr. Morris

There are many criticisms which can be advanced on behalf of Wales and Scotland, and there are many English regions which feel strongly on this matter.

The Minister missed the opportunity today to pay a well-deserved tribute to the existing local stations of the B.B.C. I expected him to say that they have been remarkably successful since their inception. Local public service broadcasting from its beginnings has become increasingly broadcasting of a very high standard.

I hope that the Minister will remedy what I regard as a major gap in his speech and will pay a timely and just tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the B.B.C. through its existing local stations. At present, not more than about one-third of radio set owners are equipped to receive v.h.f. It is, therefore, very important that the B.B.C's. local stations should have the use of supporting medium-wave frequencies as soon as possible so that the B.B.C. may immediately extend its local service to those living within the respective coverage areas who are not yet equipped with v.h.f. receivers.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 31st March asking when he expected the British Broadcasting Corporation Radio London service to receive … the medium-wave back-up transmission facilities". the Minister said: It is too soon to say. But I envisage that the provision of medium frequency back-up for B.B.C. local radio stations will keep broadly in step with the commencement of the I.B.A.'s service as its stations come on the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 410–11.] The effect of this will be that a very large number of people who could have access to B.B.C. local radio programmes will be deprived of them for a considerable time. They will be so deprived for much longer than would be the case if medium frequencies were allocated to the stations which are already fully operational as soon as they become available. I ask the Minister to reconsider the position.

One further matter of real importance that I wish to raise with the Minister is the White Paper's comments on the rôle of B.B.C. local radio in the dual system. It will continue, in the words of the White Paper, to attach first importance to serving a wide variety of minority audiences, including local schools and colleges". It will not exclude such broadcasts from peak listening hours.

As the House knows well, the B.B.C's plans for local radio have always emphasised that form of public service, but B.B.C. local radio must not cease to cater for larger audiences. Competition will not be genuine if commercial radio virtually ignores minorities and B.B.C. local radio has to deal with nothing else. So the B.B.C., in my view and that of many other hon. Members, must not allow itself to be elbowed out of the way at peak listening hours or deterred from providing proper community services to the large audiences that are available at certain times of the day. Nor should the B.B.C. abandon the minority interests which it has cultivated at those times of the day when a maximum audience is potentially available, even though they may be generally thought of as minority listening periods for radio.

We shall be watching the right hon. Gentleman very carefully on this deeply sensitive part of the White Paper. Nor shall we be alone in this. To their honour, there are right hon. and hon. Members opposite who not only respect public service broadcasting but also wish to see it prosper. In recent debates there have been several right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have detached themselves from the commercialism that is associated with other right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

I apologise to the House in advance if I am not here for part of the rest of the debate. I must leave the House to address a national meeting on disablement, but I will return as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will address himself seriously to the points I have raised with him.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

Like my hon. Friends, I begin by declaring that I have no interest whatsoever and that my enthusiasm for commercial radio could fairly be described as excessively moderate. None the less, I shall support my right hon. Friend, but I want to raise with him a number of uncertainties which I think I have discovered from reading his White Paper.

First, my right hon. Friend has called for a widespread debate upon news in commercial radio. Ever since the publication of the White Paper I have scoured the newspapers, but I have seen no evidence of such a debate. Indeed, I hoped that I would be asked by some editor to make my own contribution to this subject, but, alas, there has been no such request.

One suggestion which has been made is that commercial radio will be obliged to accept a service such as I.T.N. Like everyone else who has spoken so far, I believe that I.T.N.'s record in broadcasting is unparalleled. Another suggestion—which is more sympathetically regarded by the commercial radio lobby—is that commercial radio should have access to national and international news from news agencies on the basis of rip and read, as this would be less expensive and would impose a lesser burden upon commercial radio's finances in the early stages.

In an effort to carry this non-existent debate a stage further, may I ask why there is this curious obsession with national and international news? Were I to be unfortunate enough to be driving in a motor car with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in the vicinity of Scunthorpe or in any of the 59 other areas, I should like to hear details of municipal scandals, not of national and international crises.

It is a curious view which my right hon. Friends holds, and which perhaps we all share, that commercial operators—for this is what they are—should be obliged to bore us at regular intervals with national and international news. This view should be challenged.

I must quarrel, too, with my right hon. Friend in his admiration for William Hardcastle. One can have several views about Hardcastle. I do not share my right hon. Friend's admiration for the sort of approach which has now become current on B.B.C. radio and the way in which it treats the news. I do not like it. I like my news straight, especially on radio. I fear that whether we have an I.T.N. or, indeed, a newsagency solution to the news problem on commercial radio, we shall be bored to death with all these views of people whom we have no wish to hear expressing opinions on the wave-lengths, as they do at the moment.

Hardcastle is bad enough. For a long time we had Anthony Howard, an excellent journalist whom I read every week in the New Statesman. He appeared on Sundays, but I made certain that he did not come between me and the roast beef of old England.

Leaving news on one side, what about the whole concept of commercial radio making excessive profits? How does my right hon. Friend define "excessive profits", and how, once he has stumbled upon a definition, does he intend to go about restricting them? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not fall into the error that the previous Administration made of slapping a levy upon commercial radio but will, instead, immediately license more stations so as to introduce into this sphere an element of increased competition.

The uncertainties in the White Paper are legion. What is to happen about needle time? When will my right hon. Friend sit down with the Musicians' Union? When will some agreement be reached? Manx Radio has an agreement to have six hours' needle time a day. I am told that the six hours is the minimum figure that any viable commercial radio station should need.

I come, then, to the I.B.A. In my view, the I.B.A. should not be the spokesman for commercial radio but the watchdog of the public interest. It should not repeat the mistakes of the I.TA. which for far too long has been locking stable doors.

My hon. Friend has put the B.B.C. local radio stations in a very curious position by suggesting to them that they have to concentrate——

Mr. Richard

The hon. Gentleman says that the I.B.A. should not repeat the I.T.A.'s mistake of bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the two quotations which I put to the Minister from Lord Eccles and Lord Denham in which they said clearly that the control of the I.B.A. over commercial stations should be ex post facto, after the programmes have gone out. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is desirable?

Mr. Critchley

That is not an unreasonable suggestion about the way in which the output of commercial radio might be monitored. However, I think there is general agreement between those who have thought about the I.T.A. that it has had a history of shutting the stable door both in terms of violence on television, to which it has reacted far too late and once an offence has been committed, and in terms of bias.

To return to my point about the unnatural restrictions which my right hon. Friend has placed upon the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, he seems to suggest that they are not to compete and that they are to limit themselves in some degree to providing the kind of minority programmes which no one wants to hear. But the B.B.C. is highly competitive. It is the most competitive of all the broadcasting authorities. The way in which the B.B.C. has reacted to the challenge of Independent television has been marvellous and incredible. It is a very sanguine view to expect the B.B.C.'s local radio stations not to compete with commercial radio stations in the same areas.

There will be a natural desire on the part of the B.B.C. to compete. In addition, it has access to nationally-raised licence-fee money which it can use as it wishes to meet any challenge in any given area. Were it to fear that competition in any area threatened to become excessive, it could use its licence money to concentrate on that area. The real point is that the commercial radio stations possibly should be protected against the degree of competition which, if it wished, the B.B.C. would be able to deploy against them.

There must be a middle way between the strictures of Hughie Green and the Whiggery of the 1976 Group. I always thought that the Whigs were attractive people until I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. At the end of the day, if my hon. Friend manages to find a middle way between two such awful extremes he will have my support.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I have no doubt that the Minister is feeling that with friends like the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) he has little need of enemies on this side of the House. I noticed him wince a little as he listened to what his hon. Friend was saying. I have some sympathy for him since I played a slightly critical rôle, though I hope not so sharply, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in office.

Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Jenkins

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. However, I hope he will allow me to get at least a few words out of the way before I do so. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind for a later intervention if he can possess his soul in patience for a while.

Mr. Richard

The hon. Gentleman will probably give my hon. Friend what he wants !

Mr. Jenkins

There is an evident lack of enthusiasm for the White Paper which has made itself felt on the benches opposite as well as on this side of the House. The problem stems from the fact that it is extremely difficult for Governments to form a coherent philosophy on what they should do about broadcasting. The Minister is in the unfortunate position of having been forced to change his mind, and to bring forward proposals about which he has not been able to convince us that he is wholehearted. When my party was in office, we had a different method. When the Government found Ministers who did not share its views, we used to change the Ministers. The party opposite makes Ministers change their minds. The Minister in this case is in a difficult position, and we have considerable sympathy for him. He is bringing forward proposals in which he has no doubt worked himself up to believe. He has had some difficulty in getting there.

The uncertainty about what the Government should do shows through in the White Paper, and the media have seen it. The Financial Times has described the White Paper as "vague and imprecise", and so it is. That is why the Minister tried to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that he was a member of the Government and that it was his White Paper. The Minister talked about my hon. and learned Friend's policy. However, I must explain to the right hon. Gentleman that he is a member of the Government, it is his policy, and we are discussing his White Paper.

Mr. Richard

Whether he likes it or not.

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, whether he likes it or not. Therefore, I propose to talk about the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper and not about the theroetical policy which no doubt my hon. and learned Friend one of these days will follow when he succeeds to the right hon. Gentleman's position.

As I say, the problem stems clearly from the uncertainty of the Government about what they want to do. They gave an election pledge without working out how they proposed to implement it. They have still not made up their minds about what they want to do.

I ought perhaps in passing to refer to the problems that my right hon. and hon. Friends faced when they were in office, since they are relevant to the current problems. There were differences of opinion on our side about these matters. The 1966 White Paper proposed a plan of local broadcasting which in practice has not proved to be quite as local as was intended. The reason is that there was no detailed working out of the finances that were proposed for the local stations. Consequently, when the B.B.C. was put in charge of local radio, the local radio stations did not entirely fulfil the plans put forward in the 1966 White Paper. It was hoped, for example, that they would play a wide cultural rôle in local communities. They have fulfilled a very important rôle, but it has not been a cultural one. They have not engaged performers of even local importance. The employment that they have given has been mostly in terms of news and local current affairs. They have undoubtedly contributed to the community, better in some areas than in others, but they have not done what the 1966 White Paper hoped they would do.

The difficulty in the present White Paper is to discover what the Government hope to do other than provide a lucrative sideline for their friends who are already well off. In the first paragraph of the White Paper there is a reference to the advantage of more than one form of employment. I am all for that, since I have an interest in the amount of employment provided by this medium and in performers generally. As hon. Members know, I have a connection of long standing with British Actors Equity Association, and I am not unconcerned about employment. What type of employment is commercial radio likely to supply?

Although I am concerned about employment, I recognise that it cannot be the primary consideration. However, I put it a top second. The public must come first. What plan is being put forward in the White Paper? What will it do for the public? Will it provide real competition with an alternative service? Is it a genuine alternative service of radio broadcasting or is that mere verbiage? In the White Paper we do not get a great deal of support for the hope that this will be an alternative which will make a real contribution to the public interest. Will it extend the boundaries of broadcasting? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite who are most in favour of it ready to admit that it will do no such thing, that it will not examine new possibilities of broadcasting?

Will it provide real competition? Will it be a real service? Will it enlarge the experience of anybody who listens to it? Will it provide a genuine degree of employment? Will it provide a wide range of output for a variety of tastes? These are the real questions. Will those who listen to these stations discover on them a worth-while degree of choice? The answer to these questions is: will it hell !

Mr. Proudfoot

Surely the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say that the pirates increased the audience by 25 per cent. and that 25 per cent. has been lost.

Mr. Jenkins

I think that statistics about the increase of audience by pirate radio are suspect. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that it is possible for any legal radio service to do the kind of thing which the pirates were doing illegally, he is mistaken and in for a great disappointment.

I remind the House that it is not only the Musicians Union which is concerned, but the record companies. There is a collective interest to make sure that the radio stations do not undermine not only the basis upon which the Musicians Union rests but the basis upon which British music rests. Therefore, it is not merely a trade union interest to make sure that the needle time agreements are not breached; there is a wide general interest.

In my view, it is inevitable that any addition made to any one of the media affects the others. This is relevant to something said by the hon. Member for Conway. I agree that the arrival of commercial television had an impact upon the B.B.C. I believe that on the whole it had a good impact; it also had some bad effects. It had the effect of making the B.B.C. a bit over-conscious of the number of people watching; it became over-concerned with the charts.

I do not say that the arrival of commercial television was damaging to the B.B.C. I take the opposite view. But the question arises whether, because that happened with commercial television, we are entitled to assume that a similar generally beneficial effect will arise from what is proposed in the White Paper. There is no evidence to show that we can expect that effect.

The modification of the media applies not only in broadcasting, but elsewhere. The arrival of The Sun newspaper, the disappearance of the Daily Sketch and the maiming of the Daily Mail will affect not only the national dailies, but indirectly, in time, radio and television. They will affect not only their advertising revenue, but subtly their presentation and outlook. Therefore, we shall make a mistake if we do not think of the media as a whole.

My regret about the proposal contained in the White Paper is similar to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). A particular section has been taken out of context when in fact the time is ripe for an examination not only of the broadcasting media, but of the whole media of public information and entertainment. Until we take this broad look at the whole scene we are likely to come to wrong conclusions about the various parts of it. If I were asked to say over the last few years where successive governments have gone wrong in their appraisal of these issues, my answer would be that no one has ever recognised that our media of information and entertainment are a collective whole and cannot be looked at objectively and usefully except as a collective whole. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this proposal. We cannot ask them to withdraw the White Paper, because we would not know what it was they were withdrawing; but we can ask them to take a fresh, wider and more complete look at it and to set up, if not a Royal Commission, at least a Departmental Committee. If they prefer to call it a Departmental Committee, or describe it by some other phraseology, we are not worried, so long as it is a high-powered and real examination which extends over the whole sphere.

The impact of I.T.V. upon B.B.C. television was not wholly good. It brought about an obsession with audience ratings and the wretched idea of programme matching, so that the question at a certain time of the day is which Western one will see, rescued to some extent by the arrival of B.B.C.2 for those who can get it.

What distresses me, and probably some hon. Gentlemen opposite from the remarks which they have made, is the rather irritating adolescence which characterises the presenter, as he is now called, with his insulting bogus enthusiasm and apparent ignorance of the very existence of such things as values. I fear that the arrival of commercial radio will not take us away from, but will accentuate, this development of presentation performance. It worries me to think that just as the B.B.C. reacted badly in some ways to the arrival of commercial television, so the arrival of commercial radio may have the effect of sharpening the descent into jollification of presentation which some of us find extremely irksome and hard to bear, whoever does it.

The history of legislation about the media suggests that we in this House propose certain laws, that we carry them into legislation, and are rather surprised, after a few years, that what we proposed in the law has not been carried out in effect. We find that commercial forces which operate in these areas have a habit of moving things in the direction in which they wish to go. Therefore, whatever is proposed in the White Paper has to be backed by pretty tight legislation if the Government wish their proposals to be fulfilled and carried out.

It is interesting to recall—many people may have forgotten—that it was originally thought that I.T.V. should primarily be a regional organisation. We have heard it said in this House that the regional stations still possess a substantial regional loyalty. But the degree of networking which takes place has ensured that the network programme is the norm and the regional programme is the rarity, which is the opposite to what was originally proposed. It was originally believed that the regional programme would be the norm and that the network programme would be the unusual.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

The reason for the regional programme not being the norm is entirely due to lack of money which prevents the regional programmes taking more hours. It is nothing to do with what they want to do; they just have not got the money to do any more broadcasting.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. Gentleman is accepting my point, but standing the argument on its head. He is saying that more money can be made on a network programme than on a regional programme. That is true. Television companies have sometimes found themselves in difficulty, and they are now going through a more difficult time than in the past, but huge fortunes have been made out of television, and surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this is a question of lack of funds. That is far from being the case.

I now propose to return to the White Paper. The Government's proposals, in so far as it is possible to understand them, fall short of what some of us expected from the right hon. Gentleman. I have little hope for the type of project which the Government have put before us in the White Paper. It is difficult for local stations to make the sort of impact which the White Paper suggests, and I share the view that the idea that local radio will concern itself with national and international news is something that we should not even want.

That illustrates the confusion in the White Paper. There is national thinking behind these local radio stations. It is proposed to have 60 local radio stations, but it is interesting to note that although the White Paper refers to B.B.C. local radio, it refers not to I.R.B. local radio, but to I.R.B. radio. These stations are being thought of as a network before they start. I am sure that the commercial gentlemen who will bring these stations into being think about them as a network, because they cannot think about them in any other way. The reason is that the advertising that will finance these stations will be national rather than local.

That is the sort of problem which the right hon. Gentleman has to consider when he introduces his legislation. He has to ask, "What do we want here? Are we creating a national commercial network under another guise? Are we going to introduce the sort of legislation that will provide a genuine alternative at local level?" I doubt whether it can be done. The White Paper will not produce a local radio service. If anything, it will introduce a national advertising chain.

It may employ some musicians. I hope that it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) will have something to say about this. I say that it may employ some musicians because I doubt whether commercial radio will get enough needle time unless it agrees to do so. Collectively, therefore, there may be some employment for musicians.

I do not think that the new stations will be pirates legalised, because what the pirates were doing will not be permitted. If local radio is not local, but is centrally controlled and financed, the Government will not have faced the real problem.

Commercial radio cannot be local radio because the advertising to finance it must seek a national market. Therefore, just as the previous Government failed to fulfil the full intention of their White Paper, so I wonder in what degree it will be possible for this Government to fulfil any part of the intention of their White Paper. I wonder whether it will get off the ground at all.

There are one or two other problems. The first is that advertising is not infinitely extendable, and expansion in one medium is sometimes undertaken at the cost of contraction in another. If, as is suggested in the White Paper, the compensation that is given to local newspapers which feel themselves threatened by the arrival of commercial radio, is an interest in the new medium, if they are told that they can have a share in the local commercial radio station, all that we shall succeed in doing is reducing the number of sources from which the public get their information. That seems to me to be reducing freedom. It seems astonishing that the White Paper proposes that the local Press should be given a statutory right to abrogate the most essential competition of all—the competition of ideas.

Competition in communications, and in the arts, is the most essential form of competition. It is this form of competition which the Government say shall, by law, be allowed to be eroded. Local papers can come in and say, "We shall have a single voice, one on the radio, and one in the local paper, but it shall be ours". The Minister shakes his head. The White Paper says that there is to be a degree of control, but I think that that will be got round fairly easily, and if the Minister would like to see precisely how it can be got round—I shall not take up the time of the House by elaborating on this—he should look at the Financial Times, which spells out fairly clearly how these protections can be avoided, and how local papers which are part of national chains are likely to establish command of what, in turn, will become a national radio chain. If we are not careful, the net result will be that our total body of information will come with a less varied voice, and I suggest that variety of voice and variety of source are of the essence.

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman does not want commercial radio anyway. There can be no question of what we are proposing producing a more limited voice than he would like to see.

Mr. Jenkins

I am coming to that. I shall, in my final words, suggest a real alternative to the B.B.C. programme. I do not think that the Government's proposal is an alternative. It seems to me to be an irrelevance.

There is a possibility of a real alternative, and this was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in his article in the New Statesman, to which the Minister referred. Not everyone may wish to agree with every word of my right hon. Friend's article. I have quarrelled with my right hon. Friend on more than one occasion, but in this article—I had some discussion with him about it—he made a good point when describing what had happened in the early days of television. He drew attention to the fact that at one time is was the Labour Party's view that there should be a single financial pool, consisting of the revenue from advertising, and licence revenue, and that from that pool should be financed both the broadcasting authorities.

My right hon. Friend also drew attention to something to which I have drawn attention more than once, because it is the key to the whole problem. It is the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee that the advertising revenue should go, not to the programme companies, but to the authority. I think that we should look at that plan and draw it into the commercial radio situation.

We should look at the possibility of having an independent broadcasting authority which could be the recipient of the total advertising revenue, which could have responsibility and discharge it, which would have the duty of preserving variety in radio, and which would have the job of redistributing and making sure that programmes were comparable, over the whole range with B.B.C. programmes. If that were done, we might have what the White Paper says is an alternative radio service, but is not. I believe that any other Committee which examines this sphere is likely to return to this recommendation and that of the Pilkington Committee. The separation of the source of revenue from the control of programmes is of the essence.

It is not necessary for us to put forward a detailed alternative to the White Paper. I circulated some recommendations of mine to the Communications Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party some time ago, and I have implied that these were not far removed from the proposals which my right hon. Friend made in his New Statesman article.

In short, all broadcasting—radio and television—should be the responsibility of non-profit-making bodies like the B.B.C., but a controlled advertisement element should not be excluded from among the sources of income available to the media. Further, this matter cannot be considered properly unless the media are considered together.

That is why the Government should withdraw the White Paper, reconstitute the Annan Committee or one like it and charge it with the duty of examining the organisations in this area, their revenue, and the means of public information and entertainment. In the meantime, since the White Paper is totally irrelevant to this task, I trust that the House will vote against it.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

In the normal course of the proceedings of the House, it is usual to declare an interest in a subject. In pursuance of that, I should like to point out that for more than 10 years I have been pressing for the introduction of commercial local radio and that for more than half that time I have been Secretary of the Local Radio Association. Nevertheless, I hope that this does not mean that what I say will be taken as reflecting the views of that association, although our views may at many points coincide.

I should like to welcome—the Labour Party would be surprised if I were not—at least three things in the White Paper. The first is that it provides an alternative to the B.B.C. I hope that, in doing so, it will not erode the excellent service which has been provided by the B.B.C. for so many years. Second, I welcome enthusiastically the acceptance of the principle that we should have an alternative which is commercial. Third, I welcome the obvious fact that my right hon. Friend has a mind which is open to argument and suggestions for improvement. So I hope that some of my remarks will fall on fertile ground.

I should like to examine what, in my view—I do not suggest that there are not plenty of other opinions on this subject—local commercial radio is for, and the major aspects which seem to call for comment in the White Paper, and to propose some questions which require answers, even if they may be awkward questions.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), referring to my hon. Friends the Members for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), suggested that with friends like that we did not need any contribution from him. I might point out that with friends like Mr. Hughie Green we do not need anyone from the Opposition either.

It is reasonable that anyone considering road conditions should mention the dangers of having cars on them and also the advantages of cars. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that hon. Members opposite should concern themselves with standards and with what they see as the dangers and the horrors of commercial radio—in so far as they have ever heard it. But I hope that they will forgive me if I concentrate on what I believe to be the true nature of local commercial radio and its advantages and do not show so much concern about the dangers, which are left in very safe hands with the Opposition.

There is a popular misconseption that commercial local radio is an ugly, audio wallpaper which is to be hoisted on unwilling and sensitive members of the public by hard-boiled, greedy businessmen, solely for profit——

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Member could not have said it better.

Mr. Gorst

—that it will be tasteless, squalid—as the Leader of the Opposition once called it—undecorous and valueless to the community. But the reality, if hon. Members were able to study rather more than cursorily the performance in other countries, is not infrequently very different from this.

Community news and information in general, supported by music, is often to be found—if it is not the rule—certainly in those areas of foreign countries with commercial radio stations. Indeed, it is axiomatic that all stations producing bad programmes do not make profits and that sub-standard programmes do not make substantial profits. Indeed, the reverse is true: a broad based and comprehensive social service invariably reaps financial rewards.

In studying the performance of both good and bad stations recently in Canada, which is a much better example than the United States because it has a public service, State-owned broadcasting system, it is clear that in order to succeed the ingredient for commercial success—I heard this time and again from both large and small stations—is based on two factors. The first is involvement with the community and the second is concern and care for the affairs of that community.

One might wonder how this involvement and concern are demonstrated. One way is through news. Contrary to the expectations of many people, news value goes in the order, first local news, then regional news, then national news and then international news. All things being equal, local news will be the lead story in any news bulletin.

A second way is community contact. By this I mean not only open line interviews with listening members of the public——

Mr. Neil McBride (Swansea, East)

The Minister said that news should be personalised. I do not know what the Minister meant, but does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Gorst

In many instances the personalisation may taken the form of the personality of the reporter on the local scene. This is welcome when it happens because it reveals the concern and involvement of the station with the local community.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

The hon. Gentleman said that the first priority in this form of broadcasting would be local news. How does he know that?

Mr. Gorst

Because I have seen it happen. One can hear local radio stations throughout the United States, Canada and Australia and be certain of this. The same is true of local newspapers. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of a local newspaper that could survive on news stories concerned solely with national or international affairs? The local event captures the headlines and thereby captures the readers. The same applies to local radio.

The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made great play with the public service content of commercial radio. One station in Canada donated 23,335 free advertisements of a public service nature in 1969 and increased the number to 26,686 last year. The value in free advertising time, if it must be quantified, was 1,670,000 dollars, or £700,000, and this is not untypical of large and small stations throughout Canada.

The content of any local radio station will include music. Much has been said about the possibility of it being nasty, cheap pop, with many local stations demanding 100 per cent. needle time. Hon. Members may be interested in this comment by a successful Canadian local radio station: Music is complementary to everything else and not a reason in itself. If the news is heavy, we try to make the music lighter and more fun—and at all times the music tries to reflect or counterpoint the mood of the station and the listener. That results in a variety of music which moves from the classical, through the middle-of-the-road—what some might call "sweet music"—to what I have referred to as "acid rock". By this means stations are able to acquire an identity, varying from the serious to the all news and on to the less serious—in other words, from "foreground" stations, which require concentration in listening, to "background" stations.

The basis on which any plan for commercial local radio in this or any country must rest is obviously the question of the availability of frequencies. In this connection, I would like to know from where my right hon. Friend's advice has come. For many years the B.B.C. and Post Office have been opposed to the setting up of commercial radio. Have they been the source of his advice?

Why has there been this death-bed repentance from the B.B.C. which has enabled it only now to find the necessary medium-wave frequencies? Has the advice on which my right hon. Friend's plans have been based been determined more to prevent more than 60 stations from coming into existence than to facilitate his plans?

This whole question of frequencies is vital because dependent on it is not merely the size of the audiences which these stations will have, not to mention the range and number of stations, but, most important, the extent to which there will be competition between them. In my view, competition between a B.B.C. local radio station and a commercial radio station is incomplete. It may be competition for listeners, but it can never be competition for advertising.

We should, when considering how many stations we should have, consider the number of stations in other countries, and the comparable figures seem extraordinary. The United States has, for a population of 196 million, 6,263 local radio stations. In the Commonwealth, New Zealand, with a population of 2.7 million, has 28 stations; Australia, with a population of 11.9 million, has 146 stations; and Canada, with a population of only 21 million, has 388 stations.

Mr. Whitehead

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to say what the association of which he is secretary now regards as the viable number of stations for this country. This number has varied as his association has grown older and wiser. Does it now consider that, in the different conditions of Europe, these stations could receive backing on the medium-wave?

Mr. Gorst

I will come to the question of viability shortly.

Leaving aside Manchester, London, Birmingham and Glasgow—the major centres of population—the proposal to provide up to 60 local stations will result in our having a sort of macro-regional situation. The average population per station will be between 300,000 and 8 million. In my view, populations of this size are too large to be meaningful in terms of local radio. They could certainly be described as regional, and while I would not argue against regional radio, stations catering for populations of this size cannot be called local in character.

In the United States the average population per station is 33,846, and in Canada it is 58,474. In the view of the Local Radio Association, with which I am connected, the starting point, at least from the frequency planning point of view, has been suggested at a minimum of 70,000. It is clear, from a study of how and from where the advertising to support local stations comes, that a station serving a population of 150,000 or fewer will be primarily dependent on local advertising.

A station serving a population of more than that will, if it is at the bottom of the rating league, be likely to get the majority of its advertising from local sources, but any station serving a population of over 150,000—and in this country it might be a population of over 250,000—will undoubtedly have more national than local advertising, and from that point of view it will be regional or national in character. It will certainly not be local.

I should like to look at the possible advertising revenue and make a very rough calculation, because on this basis some very important conclusions will have to be drawn. Taking some 16 countries, world wide, in which there is commercial radio, the proportion of advertising expenditure devoted to commercial radio tends to be about 10 per cent. of the gross advertising expenditure. During the most recent year for which gross advertising figures in Britain are available, the expenditure here was £535 million, so on this basis it might be assumed that £53 million would be spent on a fully developed commercial radio system. However, initially we are told that only 70 per cent. of the population is to be covered, so the potential, therefore, is not to be £53 million but, say, £37 million. If one allows a further reduction because local radio will be, as I have suggested, regional radio, about 45 per cent. of the £37 million will be coming from national sources. I fix on the figure of 45 per cent. because it is clear from studying the figures in other countries that this is approximately the ratio of national advertising expenditure to local advertising expenditure on the medium. That, therefore, cuts the possible expenditure on commercial radio in this country to £16½ million.

However, there will undoubtedly be a number of large regional advertisers who may get a look in. On the basis, again, of what has happened in other countries, it would seem that regional advertisers might take up about a quarter. Therefore, one has about £20 million, perhaps £25 million, that might be available for spending on the 60 commercial radio stations in Britain.

Whether or not hon. Members care to accept these figures, if anything like this happens we shall see that a very large sum of money, perhaps £300,000 to £400,000 a year, will be available on average to each station—considerably more for some, possibly slightly less for others.

Faced with that sort of income and the sort of expenditure on commercial local radio—assuming that it were the same as the B.B.C., in other words, £100,000 a year—what will my right hon. Friend do about the excessive profits? Whether we find a satisfactory definition of excessive profits or not, £200,000 to £300,000 a year profit could, by anyone's judgment, be regarded as excessive.

I hope that my right hon. Friend's answer will not be that we will have to have a levy, as we have seen in commercial television, but that we will have more competition between stations. I hope that he will say that v.h.f.-only stations will be permitted and that, as is the case throughout the North American continent, they will be v.h.f.-stereo stations. I hope that he will also say that we will have infinitely more stations and that they will be serving infinitely smaller communities.

Mr. Whitehead

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the White Paper has said that there will be medium-wave back-up for all these stations. Commercial profit lies with the transistor audience and so on. Does he seriously believe that once it has got its hands into that gravy bowl any commercial radio station would give it up voluntarily and go back to v.h.f. only?

Mr. Gorst

I believe that the thickness of the gravy to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be served out in quite that liberal a proportion.

I come now to the subject of the I.B.A. itself. I have only one observation on this. From the contents of the White Paper it seems that far too many decisions will be left to the I.B.A. It may well be argued that there is a great deal of detail that is purely administrative in character. But a great deal of that administrative detail is also political in character. It is the political matters which this House ought to be discussing. For example, if 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom will not be covered by these stations, that is a political matter of great interest to 30 per cent. of our population. But the I.B.A. will apparently be the judge of which parts of the country will or will not be able to have commercial local radio, which areas are to be selected, and whether certain areas will be grouped together or separate. These are administrative matters, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend will get an awful lot of Parliamentary Questions in due course as to why there is not a radio station at Scunthorpe or wherever it may be.

Questions such as the limitation of hours and the limitation of the amount of advertising are administrative matters. But they are also limitations on the right to communicate, and this is another reason why the House should also be discussing such matters.

I come to the central news organisation. I do not believe that any of the three choices offered in the White Paper are in the least acceptable. The function of local radio is to highlight local matters. Why impose an expensive national structure which is appropriate to a national service? Radio is a medium for hot news. Warm news, if I may coin a phrase, belongs to the pictorial and printed media. Radio needs hot news, and not only in the morning; it has to be different hot news at noon, in the afternoon and at night. It has to be updated all the time. "Man Dies", is hot news, but the effect of his death upon his family and information about where he was born and so on is warm news which belongs to the newspapers.

In Canada, nine out of ten people first hear major and international news on the radio. It may be 20 years since Canadian newspapers regarded it as their job to get news scoops. They leave that to radio. This is one of the prime responsibilities of the radio medium. So why impose what is basic to commercial success, namely, the provision of a news service? Why impose it legislatively when it will be good business anyhow? Without a good news service, local radio stations in other parts of the world fold up. Above all, why impose a national and international news service on a system which is parochial by its nature, or ought to be parochial if it is to be called "local".

Mr. Chataway

I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Since he is expressing admiration for some of the aspects of North American commercial radio and a number of the American stations, would he not agree that the best local stations in the United States draw their national and international news from such first-class news organisations as C.B.S., N.B.C. and Westinghouse? Would he not want to see local stations here with equal access to news services of that kind much more than to the rip-and-read services?

Mr. Gorst

I would agree with that. The only area in which I would disagree with my right hon. Friend is as to whether these sources should be imposed on the franchise holder or whether he should be free to choose the arrangements he makes. I do not see why a station operator should not go to the Press Association, Reuters or any of the other news agencies. It would not be possible in any bulletin to contain more than the news headlines and it is the rôle of radio to give those headlines. The Press will follow with the details. This can come from a rip-and-read service without detracting from the quality of the service, because the quality involves immediacy, flexibility and accuracy.

My right hon. Friend and the Government are rightly concerned with the effect of these proposals on newspapers. The Press has a valuable contribution to make. I have always been one of those who have urged that they should be involved up to the point of there being no monopoly of the media communications, but that is different from saying that the Press should be involved because they have a contribution to make. It is a very different thing to give them a right as is outlined in the White Paper: … local newspapers with a circulation which is significant in relation to the population of a local station's transmission area will have the right to acquire an interest in it, whether or not they form part of the company awarded the contract. I fear that we shall create, not a right, but a privilege. I should like to mention some of the questions which arise. What will be the cost of purchasing this right? Who will decide at what price the right is to be exercised? Will it be the seller, the authority, or the newspaper seeking to acquire it? Will it be transferable and, if so, on what conditions? When can the option be exercised—before the process of application, during it or afterwards; and, if afterwards, for how long? If this right and privilege is to be accorded to the Press, why not to the cinema whose advertising will be affected? Why not to the billboard owners? Why not to the television companies? Why not to the musicians? After all, if work opportunities lie significantly within a station's transmission area the musicians' livelihoods will be affected. Why should they not have a right to acquire an interest? I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully at this new right which is being conferred upon the Press. It is certainly not a right which was conferred on the Press at the time when television was first opened up to competition.

There is another point on the subject of rights which I should like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind. This is the adverse effect it is already having on a number of people who, in a very modest way, have an interest in applying for a franchise merely in one isolated area. Most of the arrangements in the case of the people to whom I am referring have been established for some time, and for reasons we all understand, have included a local newspaper group, but these consortia are now finding that their arrangements are coming unstuck. The previously mild Pressmen are now regarding themselves as the aldermen of radio. The Press lords, indeed even the Press squirearchy, have become the self-appointed second-tier radio station selectariat. They are standing aside and saying, "We will pick and choose who are to be our colleagues because the thing cannot go ahead without us." They are choosing, sifting, appointing and dictating terms. In a short space of time we shall find that the I.B.A. will inherit a fait accompli. The I.B.A. will be told who is to be the successful applicant for Radio Scunthorpe.

Mr. Robert Cooke

What is to prevent a consortia putting in for the franchise of one of these stations and saying, "We have not tied ourselves up with the local Press. We are going to provide a first-rate service". If the right hon. Gentleman gives them the franchise, why cannot they come in?

Mr. Gorst

Look at the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway

What my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has suggested is possible and intended under the White Paper. Just as the winning franchise for Yorkshire Television was subsequently required to include the Yorkshire Post because the I.T.A. believed that the Yorkshire Post should be involved, so in this case it is envisaged, that the winning franchise would thereafter be required to release a certain proportion of the equity to local newspapers.

Mr. Gorst

I hope that what my hon. Friend says is exactly how the matter will work out, but there is a strong feeling abroad among the less powerful people who wish to be involved in local radio that Messrs. "Associated-Thomson-Beaverbrook" have already got the situation sewn-up.

On the subject of media, one wonders how the television companies will do. Despite the assurances that have been given, it is hard to resist the feeling that the Newcastle Radio Ltd. of the future will be a mixture of Thomson and Tyne-Tees or that the Voice of London will be our old friends Father Thames married to Associated Newspapers or somebody similar. Equally, it is very hard to believe that Birmingham Broadcasting Ltd. will not be our old friends A.T.V.-cum-Post. Will these notional tie-ups precede the I.B.A.? The newspaper dominance which is now beginning to be felt at this stage will continue, in my view, as long as the rights issue mentioned in the White Paper remains a part of the proposals. By all means let the Press and television take part in this new medium, but let it do so on its merits and not as of right.

Mr. Proudfoot

Would my hon. Friend also agree that certain companies are able to hide what can be called market research in getting ready to apply for licences, whereas the absolute beginners in the field, the small people in other parts of the country, would have to use their own capital to undertake the same research?

Mr. Gorst

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am grateful to him.

I should like to turn to the unanswered questions. First, there is the question of needle time. Even if music is to support news and not news to support music, there must be a solution to the problem of needle time and it is a solution that is required before we have to consider legislation—just in case, as a long-stop, it is necessary to legislate on this matter. I urge my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to how the matter is to be dealt with. I also urge him not to leave it to the I.B.A. to negotiate on behalf of programme contractors.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a back-bencher to make a winding-up speech so early in the debate? The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order; but it is a point.

Mr. Gorst

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion as rapidly as I can. Nevertheless, it might be helpful if I were to enumerate the unanswered questions.

On the question of hardware, there is no explanation of why it is necessary for the I.B.A. to own a transmitter when, in mobile radio, it is not necessary for the Post Office to own transmitters. I hope the answer will not be that the B.B.C. needs all the best medium wave sites because this will leave out, for example, what happens to v.h.f., which may well be in the hands of private owners. If my right hon. Friend already knows the sites, perhaps he could tell us which areas they will serve, although I understand that this is a matter to be left to the I.B.A.

Can he also tell us how much advertising will be permitted on the new medium? Is it to be six minutes, as on independent television, nine minutes as permitted in the Isle of Man; or will it be up to a maximum of 16 minutes, as is the case in other parts of the world? Unless we have an answer on this subject, it will be difficult for anyone to do any sums to know whether it is worth making an application for a franchise.

What precisely does the White Paper mean by limitation of the number of stations in which any one person can have an interest?

Finally, I would deal with the suggestion which is sometimes heard that commercial radio is a pollution of the ether; that it is some form of evil public nuisance. This country is a democracy. In a democracy people have the right to choose whether leisure will be spent culturally or less culturally. One man's poison is another man's pleasure. If radio is a pollutant, it is the only known form of pollution which can be eradicated at the flick of a switch.

I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they live and let live; that they let listen or just switch off.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) if I do not follow him in detail, or perhaps quite so much in length, into the points he made. I take very much the lesson of what happens when one runs out of needle time in the House.

The Times, on the appearance of the White Paper, described it as a bad case for a bad policy. I very much regret that that description can also be applied to the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in opening the debate. It seemed to me that he was attempting to throw the onus of proof on some alternative system—and it was an interesting slip that he asked us to justify an alternative commercial system, when we have no intention of doing any such thing—rather than defending the White Paper.

None of us on this side is necessarily wedded to the present set-up of sound broadcasting, nor to the present monopoly of the B.B.C But we particularly feel that in this area, with rapid technological change, there is a need to make haste slowly. That is why many people involved in broadcasting, who were especially concerned about the aspects of change which were rapidly altering the whole structure of broadcasting technology, pressed for a committee of inquiry, and I speak as someone who was professionally broadcasting for over 10 years before entering the House. That is why we welcomed the death-bed repentance of the previous Government in setting up the Annan Committee. That may have been very late in the day, but I prefer repentance on the death bed to a betrayal from the cradle, which is what we have had from the present Government. One of the most foolish and short-sighted actions of the right hon. Gentleman was so peremptorily to wind up the Annan Committee.

We are not looking merely at the future structure of television—whether the present system of commercial television is viable, what future form the B.B.C. should have, is the B.B.C. now too large, is it employing the licence as it should? We are also looking at the whole disposition of radio. The question of television and the renegotiation of the Copenhagen Agreements for wavelengths all must come to a head by 1976.

Therefore, it is absurd to echo, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the opinions of the Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the proposals, "Broadcasting in the Seventies", that there was no need for a committee of inquiry, that we should not always be pulling up the tree to look at the roots. That is not in the ruthless, abrasive, radical tradition that we are told this Government are attempting to set. The machinery of central Government and great Departments of State appears to be overhauled and knocked about every day of the week, but the system of broadcasting and everything to do with it, and with that scarce public asset of the wavelengths is sacrosanct, at least when it looks as though some people will be able to get in on this scene to make a profit. We deplore that. The White Paper fortifies our belief that argument, discussion and investigation should have come before the ideology of profit and notions of private cupidity in this matter.

What is wrong with the White Paper? As many on this side have said, the assumption that competition provides all the virtues, and has done so in television, which is mentioned in the introduction, seems to us to be dubious. There should be other forms of competition. As we were challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall mention later just what they might be.

We are also somewhat shattered to see that the White Paper assumes—and this is news for the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts)—that there will not be the further 20 local radio stations for the B.B.C., and, therefore, the minority services so extolled in the White Paper and so recommended to the B.B.C. are not to be extended to the Principality of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—or Cornwall, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North said in one of his more powerful remarks. We feel that the B.B.C. is thus not only being deprived of producing its minority service all over the country but also unfairly deprived of extending the advantages of back-up on the medium wave.

I take the view of Mr. Hughie Green that medium wave is important. That is not the view now expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon, North, though some of his publications take that view. The medium wave should not be kept as it is until such time as the commercial stations are in being. There is suspicion on this side of the House. It may be that the commercial stations will be launched on the medium waves first. I should not like that to happen. We want to see those facilities which I believe are already available utilised for medium-wave transmission by the B.B.C. local radio stations. I believe that there is already at Derby a low-power medium-wave transmitter awaiting assembly, and that at Leeds there is a low-power medium-wave Third Programme booster station which is not used. That unused transmitter could be switched to the medium wave now.

We are told that we must wait for international applications and negotiations. But what we are really waiting for is for the commercial stations to get on the air. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, we are slightly suspicious of the motives of some of those who want to get on the air in the commercial network so quickly.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) extolled the virtues of competition. I want to quote a pamphlet on commercial radio published by that excellent organisation which has good premises and usually muddled conclusions, the Bow Group. The pamphlet quoted one of the leading figures in the campaign for commercial radio as saying: Paternalistic systems are all designed to prevent people who like pap from getting it. The vast majority of listeners are morons. That, in essence, is the alarming philosophy of many of the people who are wanting to get into commercial radio, who have put up a great deal of money and have put a great deal of time into investigating the most feasible commercial propositions for commercial broadcasting.

One thing that we would like to see, therefore, is a much clearer definition from the Minister than he has given so far—and this applies to Lord Denham as well—of precisely what the network situation is to be. Is it to be a situation in which the back-up facilities and syndicated facilities being assembled by Mr. Hughie Green and his associates are to provide the sustaining flow of programmes, so that only a modicum of local news and effort will be provided by the various radio stations? The White Paper is not specific enough about this.

I hope to show that there is not the endless fountain of revenue in the commercial set-up which is believed by some of those who wish to get into it. I believe that once they are in a position of financial squeeze, there will be great pressure on the network system from people like Mr. Green for what he calls the "patronage system"—which is just another name for sponsorship, which has been a deplorable system wherever it has occurred. I want to see much stronger guarantees that we shall not eventually have a "patronage system".

The hon. Member for Hendon, North talked optimistically of a figure of advertising revenue approaching £35 million. I do not believe it will be anything like that. I believe there is grave doubt whether it will even come to £10 million—perhaps even £5 million or £6 million. The Financial Times, which is a newspaper more concerned with keeping the gravy train on the rails than with its destination, has referred to a figure of 25p per thousand. The hon. Gentleman quoted no figure between 10p and 25p or so which would give us the revenue he suggested from six minutes an hour for advertising, which perhaps we would find more acceptable than the 12 minutes an hour which gives the lucrative revenue in Canada. On that basis, the small town station would gross about £27,000 annually, and that is not the sort of revenue on which one can run anything like a decent local service.

Mr. Gorst

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I referred to a figure between £20 million and £25 million after doing the subtractions—not £35 million.

Mr. Whitehead

I apologise for the mishearing. I still feel that the hon. Gentleman is greatly exaggerating the possible revenue.

When we look at the kind of proposals being assembled for this new medium of local radio, we see that what is involved is quite different from the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, which cost roughly £100,000 each to run annually. The local radio station in Derby, which has just begun, has a staff of 23 and has on the whole a balanced output. Yet even that is operating on a shoe-string, as the main union at the B.B.C., the Association of Broadcasting Staffs, never ceases to point out. These stations do not pay fees and operate on a low scale in terms of what I think operating costs should be. For commercial radio stations a much lower operating level with far fewer people is proposed. What is involved is not the kind of station which could be used for the balanced programmes which in an ideal world the hon. Member for Hendon, North would like to see.

I want to quote the brochure recently issued by the Marconi Company. I believe that the Pye Group has issued a similar circular. The Marconi brochure says, in its introduction to the basic set which it is offering for under £5,000, including all the accessories and bits and pieces, Basically the broadcasting time will probably be devoted to records and announcements with minimum programme staff. It is essentially a one-man operation of programmes. With their high quality, design and performance, our machines are robust enough for the disc-jockey type of operation. Is that what we really want? It is obvious that that is what the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) wants. But I do not believe it is the kind of ideal being presented to the House by other hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Robert Cooke

The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Obviously, some of the larger centres will have stations on the scale of the B.B.C.'s stations, but for a radio station at, for example, Penzance, one would not expect to employ 23 people. Yet surely some of these smaller stations would be just as good and balanced as the larger.

Mr. Whitehead

We shall learn what "Radio Brighouse" will do from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.

I want to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, North, in his extolling of the commercial radio station par excellence. I do not believe that any station can be run in a proper manner and give a proper balance on the basis of a disc jockey rushing around doing everything, perhaps with a trained chimpanzee putting on the records. Even Manx Radio operates on conditions which are not acceptable in this country or to the union. It has been operating on minimum needle time. Its example is not a healthy one for its audience or for any areas with 100,000 people or fewer. I do not believe the money is there.

We have been painted a picture of a helicopter hovering over traffic and giving reports. I wonder whether hon. Members know how much it costs to hire and maintain a helicopter in operation. I do not, in any case, think Mr. Hughie Green will be in a helicopter over the traffic giving reports. Doubtless, he will be in a studio assembling an array of talent for his syndicated programmes to the network.

Again I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, but when we come to the question of the new service I remind the House that he said that with Mr. Hughie Green as a friend one does not need enemies. But he is inextricably wedded in this business to Mr. Green. They are propagandists in the same cause.

Mr. Gorst

I am going to get a divorce.

Mr. Whitehead

The hon. Gentleman may be tired of Mr. Green but what we are trying to see is that Mr. Green's concept of local radio is not extended to the country. I quote Mr. Green's proposals in which he poured scorn on the idea of I.T.N. He said: I.T.N. is a pale imitation of the B.B.C. Surely all of us agree that one of the things which have undoubtedly been a success in Independent Television is the I.T.N. One of the reasons for its success is that it has been largely independent of the programme companies and, therefore, not dependent on the profit motive. It is dependent on the direct administration only of the I.T.A. It has not been dependent on the companies themselves and on their concern with revenue, the maximising of profits and so on.

Mr. Green wants a system of syndicated news presented by actors. He feels that actors will be able to "ham" it up a lot more and make the news more exciting. He says that conventional British news reading lacks urgency and drama. If we are really talking about competition here, it is not urgency and drama which are wanted but genuine alternatives of hard news services, whether they be the local services which the hon. Gentleman was talking about or national services.

I do not believe we shall ever get this if this unfortunate White Paper is translated into legislation, unless the first of the three choices which the right hon. Gentleman outlined today—that is, for something like I.T.N.—is followed and not some stitched together, rip and pull service, put together by the news agencies which are available to the local newspapers.

Here I come to another flaw in the notion of competition as presented in the White Paper. That is that if we are to have the local newspapers brought into this business, if local newspapers are to have a mandatory right to a share of the control over the other competing source of local news in an area, then we automatically destroy competition in news-getting and news presentation from the start. Those of us who are concerned, as some of us are, about the bias of many local newspapers—I do not have any particular ones in mind—would be very concerned if the alternative source of news from the local radio station in the area were to be dependent upon control from the local newspaper.

Mr. Chataway

Does the hon. Member think that national newspapers which have minority stakes in television, just as local newspapers would have here, have been able to influence programme content, current affairs and so on?

Mr. Whitehead

No, because I.T.N. is a separate organisation. But there is great reason for concern about the kind of influence which some people have tried to exert over the television companies from their position as Press magnates. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we last clashed in this House on the issue of the controlling interest in London Weekend Television, which was being sought by Mr. Rupert Murdoch of the Sun newspaper. Of course there are grounds for concern here.

If I had to take a specific example, according to the White Paper the Beaverbrook Press would be allowed, because it owns the local newspaper in London, the Evening Standard, to buy into a London station. If it were buying into a London news service station I would be somewhat alarmed. The result, it seems, would be an undue degree of accretion of power, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has been presenting a model of competition.

Most of us have some notion of what we hope for from better alternatives. If there is to be a commercial system, we would like it to be a commercial system following the famous recommendation No. 43 of the Pilkington Report so that central control was exercised over national advertising, in this case by the I.B.A. We would like the I.B.A. to be a broker for national advertising. We would like to see local radio associations which were able to exert direct control over each individual local commercial station, which I fear the authority will not be able to do.

In passing, I pay a small tribute to the I.T.A. and say that under its new Director-General it has exerted itself rather more sharply than was ever the case in the past. It is undoubtedly true that the whole story of Independent Television, as I have seen it from the inside, has been one long story of the Authority always two or three jumps behind those in the companies who were trying to put profit before programmes, or, in other words, were cutting corners in such a way that the Authority constantly tried to intervene, was constantly brushed off and was never able to make the right intervention in time. I do not want to see that happen to the I.B.A.

Other plans have been put forward. There is one which has been devised by Birmingham University, and a similar scheme has since been aired by Cambridge University, for university stations financed partly by advertising and partly by the kind of revenue they might receive from the sale of their programmes elsewhere, given the kind of outlook that would be possible in a town like Cambridge, covering the whole range of the town and the university.

I have just come back from a visit to the Netherlands; I spent the weekend studying the Dutch system. There are advantages there. In some ways the Dutch system comes very close to some of the things my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been talking about, dealing with local interest groups and giving more access to the media without filtering through a broadcasting élite. If there was a genuine concern for experiment in the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing before the House he would set aside at least some of these franchises for genuine experiment, for transmitters and studios owned by the I.B.A. and rented out to these various interests and culture groups, on an experimental basis so that they could put over the sort of programmes they wanted, genuinely widening the experience of that area.

Their Lordships, in another place, have tried to avert their eyes from the awful logic of profit maximisation. Lord Eccles has told us that because he likes the B.B.C. it is almost certain that the masses will not. Lord Denham has told us that he goes out to make the coffee when the advertisements come on. They therefore see no harm in the system. Lord Hailsham has been quoted by my hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate as giving what, in all our debates in this House and in another place on the question of competition and the dangers of the intrusion of advertisements, is probably the classic definition of the dangers of the latter. We are living in a world of technological explosion and widening affluence. This is influencing broadcasting, and it is rightly said on both sides of the House that there should be wider diversification.

1 do not think a diversity of culture necessarily comes from a diversification of profits, by the forces of commerce always providing the only criteria of competition, which I regret to say has been the view time after time on the other side of the House. We want to see wider outlets for self-financing local radio. We want to see its standards watched and guided by the I.B.A. in a way which I do not think will be possible under this White Paper. That would provide a healthy new strand in the plurality of our democracy.

It is in that spirit that I beg the Government to think again about this White Paper, which The Times has described as a: … proposal … based on diverting advertising revenue from information to entertainment media. It is ironic that a Government whose very name implies a desire to preserve cultural values should so firmly insist on so undesirable a waste of money. A long time has passed since the minority report of Beveridge, and it would be wholly out of order for me to raise that now—this trickle of the competitive ideal which began there and which has no become a mighty torrent with such proposals as this. We do not want it to be diverted purely into a cascade of private gain. Even for this Government, and certainly for the right hon. Gentleman, the posture of being a hard-faced man is difficult to maintain all the time. I would be sorry if the Government forgot that they were dealing with a public asset which should not be approached solely by the ideology of private greed.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

The speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) had a slight pre-1956 vintage about it, in that many of the complaints and suspicions he voiced about commercial radio were the kind of doubts and suspicions that people on his side of the House raised at the time Independent Television came into being. Subsequent events have shown many of those fears to be largely groundless.

I give a warm welcome to the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's speech. It was a good start to our discussions which will put the bones on this structure of commercial radio. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his discussions with the B.B.C., during which it seemed the B.B.C. discovered frequencies on the medium wave for a long time it had been denying were available. This in itself is a step forward.

It is clear that, following the growth of television, radio took very much a back seat in the B.B.C. Things have been changing recently, perhaps under the impetus of commercial radio, perhaps for other reasons. Undoubtedly there are signs of new life.

I have not heard many programmes of the local B.B.C. stations; the only station I can hear is London. They do not attract me as much as do the B.B.C. national programmes, and I suspect that Radio London does not have as large a share of the London audience as it should have. This reinforces my doubts about whether the B.B.C. is the ideal body to run local radio. The B.B.C. has a different approach. If I remember correctly, the B.B.C. in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee said that there was no great demand for local radio in this country, but, if there were, the B.B.C. should run it. That is not exactly a growth attitude.

The decision of the Government to break the B.B.C. monopoly in sound radio is basically right. The question is whether the Government's proposals are in themselves the right answer. If the result is a commercial system dominated by pop music, the Government will have failed, and we must ensure that that does not happen. There is the opportunity for commercial radio, broadcasting from 60 stations, to achieve a diversity and a mixture which will give a new dimension to radio, and to broadcast programmes which will be listened to by the housewife, the motorist with a car radio and the teenager. This will give a new dimension to local life, including local news, local advertisements and local personalities. But high standards must be maintained.

The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked whether we on this side of the House expected a broad cross-section of community life to be reflected in commercial radio. My answer is, "Yes, we do." Not only is this good business, but it is good for the listener. If the experience of Radio Manx is reflected generally in the country, the programmes should be extremely popular with the listeners, and the I.B.A. will be there as a long-stop.

My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) asked why it was necessary for national news to be broadcast on local radio. This was my initial reaction; but the answer is that if local commercial radio does not broadcast national news, audiences will at certain times of the day switch to another channel. Furthermore, it is desirable to broadcast national and international news to provide a balanced programme and fill the time schedules. There should be a balance between local and national news, but the most important part of commercial radio will be producing good local news programmes.

I am attracted by the proposal in the White Paper for an all-news station in London, and perhaps in Manchester. I have heard similar programmes in New York which are balanced between news, current affairs discussions and current affairs talks. These programmes are repeated during the day. This gives a new dimension to news coverage and additional opportunities for people who work in the medium.

We have heard during the debate various assessments of William Hardcastle and his programme. Some hon. Members have expressed criticism of and resevations about the William Hardcastle type of programme. I admire it because it has given a new approach to news, but my right hon. Friend is right in saying that William Hardcastle must not have the sole monopoly of this type of programme. That is why I welcome the all-news radio station broadcasting the views of various people, and I feel sure this would be welcomed by the public. On many occasions I have been infuriated by Hardcastle's programmes, but I nevertheless recognise that they are immensely popular with the public, and have increased the audience at that time of the day.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about William Hardcastle and the "World at One" programme. Does he know of any programme companies which are presently setting themselves up as producing programmes of this kind? If he does, will he say which they are?

Mr. Mills

There are two answers to that. It is not for Parliament to lay down in legislation what programme companies can and cannot do on this point. I envisage that there might be all-news programmes, extracts from which might be taped by local stations and slotted into their own news programmes at their convenience, or they might switch over at a certain time to the all-news programme to take the news. Those are two alternatives; there may be others.

I apologise for repeating the phrase "new dimension in news" but it expresses what I feel very well. Local stations will provide diversity. There may be a growth of syndicated programmes in the form of plays, short stories, serials, light entertainment. It will be possible to produce these programmes cheaply and to syndicate them on tape for distribution to the programme companies when required.

I am pleased that the White Paper emphasises that the stations must be truly local and not just dressed-up versions of national units. I am glad that we are not to have a national commercial radio station which would merely be a carbon copy of Radio 1 and Radio 2.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North raised several pertinent points about the press, and we shall have to think carefully about this. However, I feel it is basically right to allow local newspapers to be involved in a local radio station. Probably the best way of doing this is to give them the form of option suggested in the White Paper. The local Press can help by supplying local news. It will be affected financially to a much greater extent than any of the other bodies referred to by my hon. Friend.

It is important to ensure that we do not overload local stations with overheads and unnecessary expenses. We want a "Mini-minor", not necessarily a "Rolls-Royce", set-up. It is easy for Parliament, which tends to think in national terms, to impose on local stations demands which will escalate costs. We must not impose unnecessarily heavy I.B.A. charges and too many rules as to the method of operation.

I did an interview in the United States. At the end of the programme the interviewer switched to reading the advertisement. In fact, he made it up as he went along. I believe that it will be important to encourage such informality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members throw up their hands in horror at the idea of informality.

Mr. McBride

I thought it was only in Ireland that they did that.

Mr. Mills

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made a joke !

Mr. Buchan

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advocating informality such that the news commentator steps over from the editorial columns to the advertising feature without identifying that it is an advertising feature? This is the nadir of the whole concept of bringing advertising into the mass media.

Mr. Mills

I do not want to see two people sitting side by side in a studio, one saying, "I am the man who reads the advertisements" and the other saying, "I do the interviewing", because this duplicates costs. In the United States an interviewer would say, "Now there is an advertising break" and he would read the advertisement. It should not be necessary to have every advertisement approved in advance by a central body. This would add to the cost. The interviewer in the United States must keep within certain prescribed guide lines as to advertisements or he would be in trouble if he does not keep within them. Parliament must not attempt to dot every "i" and cross every "t" as to the method of operating these stations.

Two big questions remain unanswered. The first is the problem of needle time and the position of the Performing Rights Society and of the Musicians' Union. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the secretary of the Musicians' Union has promised that there will be a reasonably constructive approach. The details must be worked out, but we cannot allow the whole concept of commercial radio to be held back by the activities of any such body.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham)

I do not think that either the Minister or the hon. Gentleman would seek to mislead the House. The National Executive Committee of the Musicians' Union has stated clearly that it is opposed to the whole principle of commercial radio, and has been over the years. The Minister referred earlier to one sentence in a memorandum which was approved by the National Executive Committee and which says: We shall apply the same criteria to the negotiation of rates for commercial broadcasting as we do to other fields of employment. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to remain under the impression that the union to which I belong has taken a stance different from that which it has taken over the years, which has been one of opposition to the introduction of commercial radio.

Mr. Mills

I am glad to hear that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman can also assure us that, as I understood my right hon. Friend to say, although the union may not be enthusiastic about the concept it will nevertheless not stand in the way of this development but will talk and do a deal.

The second unanswered question concerns the powers of the I.B.A. I fully understand that a White Paper cannot spell out such matters too precisely, but Parliament will want the details much more precisely in the Bill. The I.B.A. must not be in the position of being able to take decisions which the Minister himself should take.

I strongly welcome the introduction of commercial radio in Britain. I have no personal interest in it. I believe that commercial radio or community radio or local radio can give a new lease of life to broadcasting; and I wish it well.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham)

I shall comment later on the question of needle time raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).

I begin my speech, as other hon. Members have begun theirs, by declaring an interest, albeit not a financial one. For a number of years I was a working musician and was, as I still am, a paid-up member of the Musicians' Union. Indeed, that union sponsors my presence in the House.

Therefore, during the debate I shall attempt to reflect the interests of the musical profession and of the Musicians' Union on the subject of the White Paper and on the general questions which are involved in any consideration of whether, and if so when, commercial radio should be introduced in Britain.

Musicians are the producers of the largest single element in sound broadcasting. Sound broadcasting could not exist without the product of the musician, whether it be on a gramophone record, a tape or played live. I am sorry that the Minister will not be here—I say at once that I quite understand his reasons for leaving—to listen to the views of the organisation which represents the whole of the musical profession in Britain.

I say at the outset, as I did in a brief intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, that over the years the Musicians' Union has been strongly opposed to the principle of commercial radio. That remains the position today as we debate the White Paper. I should also make it clear that, though the Minister implied that the union was not objecting to the introduction of commercial radio, that is not the case. As would any responsible authority, the union has made it plain that it will treat the negotiation of rates with any future commercial radio authority or radio station in the same way as it would treat negotiations with any other employer.

Contrary to statements which have been made outside this House and which are known to a number of hon. Members, the Musicians' Union has done no deal and has no agreement with any would-be commercial radio operator, should the Government introduce legislation on the subject.

I should explain the reasons why historically and today the Musicians' Union is opposed to the concept of commercial radio. There are, first, the reasons given at the outset of the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). Since a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall not take up time by repeating them.

Another specific reason why that union has taken up the attitude that it has towards commercial radio based on income from advertising is that it has made and continues to make on a running basis an assessment of the consequences of the introduction of commercial radio. No commercial radio system in the world, including Canada, to which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred, offers any substantial degree of employment for musicians——

Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. O'Malley

No, I shall not give way now. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me in due course. It is not only the situation overseas, about which the union has fully informed itself, that gives concern. There are also the statements and attitudes, both overt and underlying, of a number of people which disturb us. Among them are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot).

The hon. Member for Belfast, North let the cat out of the bag. A lot of would-be operators want to run commercial stations on the cheap. That is why they want virtually nothing other than gramophone records for the music that they propose to broadcast. That is why the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough want commercial radio operators to have what is virtually a free hand about needle time. They do not want any standards or central control. Their motive is a simple one. They are concerned not with standards but with the maximisation of profit. I know that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough lost money on his pirate radio venture. It may be that he thinks that he will get it back by means of a commercial radio station. However, we should not kid each other about the purposes and underlying reason for hon. Members who are involved in would-be projects taking the attitude that they do.

Mr. Gorst

When the hon. Gentleman refers to Canada, he is mistaken. I have seen and heard in Canada a talent library of records produced by a non-profit-making organisation especially for commercial radio in Canada and having very much in mind the giving of employment to musicians. Certainly I concede the necessity to ensure that fair and reasonable arrangements are made to protect the livelihoods of musicians in this country.

Mr. O'Malley

The hon. Gentleman is known to be connected with the Local Radio Association. I can hardly see a way of squaring that declared intention, which is also the declared intention of the pamphlet produced by the Local Radio Association, with the desire of would-be commercial radio operators to have virtually unlimited needle time.

When hon. Gentlemen opposite discuss the North American radio market, it becomes clear that they know nothing about it. I have discussed the subject of radio in the United States and Canada with union officials who operate in those countries. They do not want the same rosy view. I accept that the position is infinitely worse in the United States than in Canada. However, it bears no relation to the kind of employment opportunities offered by the B.B.C., and that is one reason why the Musicians' Union has always opposed the introduction of commercial radio. It has made its assessment of the consequences from what has happened overseas and from statements made by would-be commercial radio operators.

If anyone is capable of letting the cat out of the bag, it is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. He is quite blunt about it. He must cause a great deal of worry to commercial radio operators. At a recent seminar, I understand that he made it plain that, if necessary, he intends to take on the Musicians' Union. He has said that he will break the union's monopoly powers. That is an example of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious to see the introduction of commercial radio.

Another reason why the Musicians' Union takes the view that it does is that it has seen, as anyone can see, the large numbers of estimates made by various organisations, individuals and Press correspondents of the finances of commercial radio stations on the pattern envisaged in the White Paper. It is clear from estimates such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred that it is possible to set up a commercial radio station, with all the necessary equipment, for £5,000, failing which Pye will supply a caravan in which it will be possible to operate with one man and a dog for much the same figure—[Interruption.] I always welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in our debates, because he never seeks to hide anything.

We see the desire of people to move into this business with a small capital investment. Then we are told that the operating costs of a station will be between £50,000 and £75,000 a year. We see the size of stations envisaged by the Local Radio Association, of which the hon. Member for Hendon, North is the secretary. Seeing those facts, it becomes perfectly clear that there will be no money left for the employment of musicians. There cannot be. We have all the evidence of the B.B.C.s local stations. We always knew that, on the level of income that the B.B.C. had, there would be virtually no live employment for musicians in local radio. It is to be hoped that the situation will improve. It was a gesture of good will on the part of the Musicians' Union to agree in the first place to the B.B.C. setting up local stations and the tapping of the national network. That was done on the understanding that at some time in the future there would be employment opportunities for musicians. However, on the kind of capital expenditure envisaged, there will be no money available for that purpose.

We do not need to do many sums to realise that as these local radio stations will have to make copyright payments to the Performing Rights Society, the P.P.L. and other organisations, they will have nothing left for the employment of performers. The hon. Member for Hendon, North indicated this clearly when in an unguarded moment—he is a somewhat different animal from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough—he said that musicians in various areas would find that their livelihoods would be affected by the introduction of commercial radio stations. The Musician's Union is capable of making this kind of assessment, and it agrees.

The third reason that the union is opposed to commercial radio is that the White Paper gives little reason for it to change its mind. The Minister, as every Member of Parliament and every broadcasting correspondent in London knows, has already been defeated by outside pressures and by the commercial pressures of his own back benchers.

I have been concerned with putting down Motions in this House. I know why Motions appear asking the House to take note of White Papers rather than to approve them. I have gone through this kind of exercise when in Government. The reason is clear. The Minister is having trouble with his own back benchers. The trouble is coming from hon. Members like those for Hendon, North and for Brighouse and Spenborough, who have been saying, "We are not having this kind of thing." It is evident that that is what has happened.

This afternoon the Minister—I say this in a kindly manner—gave a good imitation of a confident man presenting his own proposals instead of proposals imposed upon him by the Cabinet and by the pressures of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not one who had been humiliated by his Cabinet in turning his proposals down. Therefore, because the White Paper is so vague and the Motion is on the "take note" basis rather than approving it, which is the more normal process, we can have no confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to withstand the pressures to which he is already obviously and manifestly subject. None of my fears about commercial radio is allayed by pious statements in the White Paper when I realise the underlying situation and pressures.

The Government have resolved to introduce commercial radio, perhaps on the pattern laid down in the White Paper. But I should not be surprised to see a Bill which differs significantly from the White Paper, because I suspect that the Minister will be pushed around in the next few months by some of his hon. Friends and some of the commercial pressure groups. In those circumstances, the Musicians' Union will take all possible steps in its power to protect the interests of the musical profession, interests which reflect to a large extent the public interest, too.

The B.B.C., as a major user of music, has publicly acknowledged its responsibility to maintain musical standards and to play a rôle in the maintenance of a musical profession through the employment of 500 members of staff orchestras, by agreeing to provide a substantial amount of casual employment, and by setting up the training orchestra in Bristol. We expect a similar response from any other organisation wanting to set up in the broadcasting sphere.

The profession is and has been facing a period of great difficulty because of technological change. We should not hide our heads in the sand and object to technological change. That is not a useful or a desirable attitude. However, the House should bear in mind, when considering the musical profession and how it can be affected by the introduction of commercial radio, that the development of broadcasting has meant a decline in local audiences and live music halls with the closure of theatres all over the country. There have been problems as a result of the development of broadcasting because of the extended use of recorded music, whether by gramophone records or on tape. Therefore, over the years—this is a continuing process—there has been a sharp decline in the employment available in, for example, hotels, ballrooms and restaurants.

If we regard recording or session musicians in London as the cream of the profession and at the top of a pyramid resting on a broad base of other musicians, during the whole of the postwar period, and indeed before, there has been a narrowing of the base. As an ex-employer of musicians, I find that in some areas when I look for brass players, trumpet and trombone players, they are the same people I should have got 20 years ago. They are going bald and getting older. The young ones are not coming along to take their place. Therefore, simply from the point of view of broadcasting standards, there is a need for employment opportunities wherever they can be found to maintain this broad base in order to get the cream of the session musicians who turn out the best music we can produce.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

Surely this is not a good argument. The fact is that all these younger musicians and younger audiences prefer something else. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party is deeply addicted to the tradition of brass bands, and so on, but times are changing. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly argue that the total number of musicians is falling.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not want to be unkind or arrogant, but the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he knows nothing about the entertainment business. The situation is not as he described. If he is talking about groups—I saw the whole business growing up—there is enormous pressure on the activities of live musicians of this kind of all standards because of the growth of discotheques, and so on. The problem is that a live group, if we are talking of pop music, cannot normally make the same kind of noise that we get from that same group on a record because of the development of the techniques of discontinuous recording.

The base is narrowing. The B.B.C. recognises the problem and has acknowledged that it has a responsibility and is trying to help. Therefore, we would take the view as a musical profession that commercial radio operators should have a similar responsibility. We would expect employment opportunities from them with specially produced material for use on their programmes. We would expect employment opportunities not only in London, but throughout the whole country. This would help to maintain a broader based profession from which the highest standard players will eventually develop and from which the best of the gramophone records are developed.

Mr. Gorst

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would be fair, reasonable and acceptable as employment opportunities to remove the opposition of the Musicians Union to commercial radio?

Mr. O'Malley

The hon. Gentleman must think me very naïve. He knows that this is a matter for negotiation. However, I shall have something to say about it. We would want employment opportunities. Versions of compensation which will pay one to keep off the air or give one a proportion of the take simply are not on. They are not a starter for negotiations. I suggest that commercial radio must show the same responsibility that the B.B.C. has shown about providing work.

The ability to do that could be increased in several ways. First, the White Paper says in paragraph 12 that the financial arrangement must be such as to attract broadcasters of ability, to support programmes of quality … I agree with that. I hesitate to call these local radio stations, because they are sub-regional rather than local, but they will not be able to attract broadcasters of ability, or musical performers and actors of ability, to support programmes of quality unless they are big enough to provide themselves with the necessary finance to support such enterprises. The kind of small radio station referred to by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot) rules that out.

Mr. Ernie Money (Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the B.B.C.'s responsibility. At the moment the B.B.C. is unable to provide a service in some areas, either because they are "mush" areas, or for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rule out the possibility of a local station for places the size of Ipswich, where we cannot receive Radio 1. Many people are not getting any form of adequate broadcasting service.

Mr. O'Malley

That is not a matter for me but for the Minister.

Mr. Richard

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the fact that the B.B.C. has made available some wavelengths for possible commercial radio will make the situation worse, not better.

Mr. O'Malley

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.

There is a need to lay down reasonable studio standards so that live performances can be recorded in the locality, whoever owns the studio. We should not allow to be developed a system under which all that is necessary is a caravan, £6,000 worth of capital equipment, a turntable and a microphone, and off someone goes. That is not enough, and the new broadcasting authority should lay down criteria and minima for studios.

Third, it is inevitable that there will be national networking, even if it is discontinuous networking. The Musicians' Union feels that there should be written into the Bill an obligation for local radio stations, one way or another—and it may be partly through networking—to use a specified proportion of specially produced material under the provisions of the I.B.A.

Lastly, my union takes a rather different view on the subject of advertising and sponsorship from that taken by many hon. Members of both sides of the House, and by many outside commentators. My union's view is: Given that the Government is determined to introduce commercial radio and assuming that there will be satisfactory provisions to secure social responsibility in its operation, there seems to us to be no virtue in distinguishing between spot advertising and carefully controlled 'patronage'. I leave that with the Minister to consider, because I think that it will be the subject of a further discussion at a later stage.

I now turn to the question of needle time. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have the mistaken impression that all that someone has to do is to negotiate with the Musicians' Union. That is not true. The negotiating body is Phonographic Performance Ltd., which represents the record companies, but there is consultation with the Musicians' Union on the subject. When, a few years ago, the B.B.C. wanted needle time increased, the matter was discussed at length with my union, and the B.B.C. gave substantial guarantees about live employment.

The whole question of needle time is one of negotiation, but if the starting point is the local radio association's starting point of wanting unlimited needle time, of wanting to use music for 39 minutes in the hour, all off records, that would necessitate a 65 per cent. needle time agreements, and my union would fight it. It would be a lengthy fight, and a costly one, and I therefore tell the House that if someone who wants to get local radio stations off the ground starts with that attitude, there can be little progress.

The Minister has made it clear that he does not take that view about needle time. When speaking to the Commercial Radio Seminar on 27th April he made it plain that there would not be unlimited needle time, and that the aspirations of some of the commercial operators would remain unsatisfied.

I think that I should explain why musicians take the view that they do. Most of them are paid a session fee for making a record, and that is all that they receive for it. They do not want compensation for the fact that they are not playing, but why should someone turn out, earn a session fee, make a record or tape, and then stand by and allow that record or tape to be used indiscriminately? Why should he have to listen to his recording being played while he is at home as an unemployed person? He may have to listen to a recording that he made 12 months ago or, in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago.

I said earlier that the question of needle time is one of negotiation, but we must be quite clear about who will be negotiating. It will not be the Minister. One hon. Gentleman suggested that it ought to be, but it will not, and it should be written into the Bill very clearly that the negotiations will take place between the bodies concerned with the copyright on the one hand, and the broadcasting authority on the other, for the simple reason that the broadcasting authority will have to consider wider criteria than merely making a fast buck.

The broadcasting authority has to consider the whole question of social responsibility, and Lord Denham said on 19th May, 1971: … I imagine that negotiations would be conducted either by the I.B.A., on behalf of programme companies, or by a representative body of the stations …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 510.] I hope that Lord Denham will make it quite clear to the Minister that we want the Bill to ensure that responsibility for negotiations on this matter rests with the broadcasting authority, rather than with the stations concerned.

I doubt whether, in the long term, even if the Minister stands up to the pressures under which he is under now, commercial radio will respect either public interest, or the interests of the musical profession. The motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite are narrow. I do not blame them for that, but the fact is that they are concerned with how much they can make, rather than with what they can give.

If the Government persist with these proposals, my union will look for real safeguards to be written into the Bill, to avoid the kind of situation that we see in many other parts of the world. As the representative of the musical profession, the Musicians' Union will fight in any way that it can to avoid being swamped by commercial interests.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough)

It has given me great pleasure to nod vigorous agreement every time hon. Members opposite have talked about people lining their pockets. That is only another expression for economic growth. Among those lining their pockets are the tax man, the Musicians' Union and Equity, among others.

I was a radio pirate, and I was delighted to be one because we have helped to break the B.B.C. monopoly. I hate monopoly, and State monopolies are always much the worst. I greet the White Paper on only one score—that my right hon. Friend is breaking a monopoly. But he is hedged in by the engines of restriction and monopoly, among which are the B.B.C., N.P.A., G.P.O., P.P.L., P.P.C., M.U., P.R.S., I.T.V., Equity, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. These are the people who have been putting pressure on the Minister. Before the war the Director-General of the B.B.C. put it more plainly in a letter to The Times that monopoly was not in the interests of the people employed in the industry, and that includes musicians.

No fortunes will be made in commercial radio and there will be no licences to print money. The White Paper makes sure of that. But what disturbs me is that the White Paper suggests that commercial radio stations should operate in areas by themselves and not with commercial competition. Commercial stations should compete against commercial stations.

I am worried about the newspaper idea. If I and some friends got together to apply for a licence and the local paper decided that it wanted it, it could probably get in at zero cost, because the White Paper says so. I am also disturbed at the idea that the I.T.V. companies should be able to get in on the Act. An anti-trust case is going on in America at the moment because one company has a collection of radio stations, television stations and newspapers in one area. As I said, I am against monopolies.

An incredible amount of nonsense is talked about wavelengths. My right hon. Friend admits that he knows nothing about this subject. I have talked to some top executives of the B.B.C. and places like that who freely admit that they know nothing about it either. They all take their advice from the G.P.O. and the B.B.C. itself—both nationalised monopolies. I suggest that they they do not get the straight talking that they should from those people. Only in the last few months, as the Minister said, the B.B.C., when facing the possible threat of losing one of their channels, suddenly discovered other wavelengths. My right hon. Friend should bring in American, German or Japanese consultants to tell him the truth on wavelengths. I cannot believe that the air is different over America from what it is here.

The hon, and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that in America he got 12 stations just by twiddling the knob. He could have got 20 television stations, one of which would be programmed entirely in Spanish and another would give the stock market results 12 hours a day.

I hate everybody's local paper but my own. I would hate everybody's local radio station but my own. Anyone who returns from America with the idea that commercial radio stinks has not thought the thing through. There are any amount of wavelengths. I would favour a two-tier system, with medium-wave systems, something like the L.R.A. is suggesting, so that in an area like Yorkshire there would be four stations on medium wave competing with each other.

I should like to see a free entry into v.h.f., as in America. The papers show that one can now buy a v.h.f. set for £9, compared with the situation when the Labour Party were in power, when their P.M.G. used to say that such a set cost £16. It is calculated in Australia, Canada, and America that a community of 15,000 people can support a radio station. Hence the stations in caravans. It is a viable proposition.

Scunthorpe has been mentioned. I would willingly take on Scunthorpe. It has 101,000 people. We sold radio advertising in Scunthorpe. The chap is in the House today who sold advertising there. It is a jolly good area in which to sell advertising.

Mr. Richard

Perhaps I over-mentioned Scunthorpe. Lest it be thought that I was singling out North Lincolnshire for any particular flavour of my remarks, may I say that such knowledge as I have of Scunthorpe leads me to believe that people who live there find it an extraordinarily pleasant and desirable place in which to live?

Mr. Proudfoot

They buy radio time, and that is a pretty esoteric thing to sell.

I hope that, before we have commercial radio, television is given freedom of hours. Television is a rigged market. It is totally distorted. The B.B.C. cannot afford to put television out any longer on its own, so I.T.V. is crippled. I beg my right hon. Friend to give freedom of hours to all the television companies, and let them please themselves and broadcast as long as the market will bear it.

The pirates broke the monopoly, which was a service, but they did commercial radio a disservice, because everyone now imagines that commercial radio is all pop music. That has never been true, and it never will be true. If hon. Members would like some figures, a pop station will get 60 per cent. of the available audience, and it is a pretty good station to have, and a sweet music station will get 40 per cent.

I have some statistics of what the pirates did for our exports of that creative product, pop music. This week, of the Top Fifty records in Britain, 18 are American. So much for the B.B.C. In America there are four English items in the Top Fifty. In 1967, when the pirates were on the air, there were only nine Americans in the British Top Fifty and 12 British records in the American Top Fifty. In other words, under the B.B.C. monopoly pop exports to America have dropped by 66 per cent. and American music here has increased by 100 per cent. If that does not worry hon. Members, I hope that it worries the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), who spoke for the Musicians' Union, because I believe in growth, and so should his union.

Or take what the British songwriters have to say. While the pirates were on the air, the British portion of songs which went out over the B.B.C. was about 37.57 per cent., in 1969. The contribution by American songwriters was 52.6 per cent. Before the pirates came on the air, 60 per cent. of the output was American and 30 per cent. British, which rather lets the cat out of the bag when hon. Members talk about the countries of origin of the products that come over the air. Indeed, it is a wonder that they do not call it the A.B.C.—American Broadcasting Corporation—rather than the B.B.C.

Consider what the pirates did to build up star names. Indeed, there have been no stars since they went off the air. Think of the Beatles, Humperdinck, Lulu, Cilla Black, the Rolling Stones, Dusty Springfield, Tom Jones, and Herman and the Hermits. No such star names have been created since the pirates disappeared. These boys and girls have been earning a lot of money for Britain in exports.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the people he has named strongly resented their records being played by the pirates and believe that the pirates did nothing for them? In other words, most of what he is saying is a farrago of nonsense.

Mr. Proudfoot

From where does the hon. Gentleman think we got the records?

Mr. Jenkins

You bought them.

Mr. Proudfoot

That is not so. If the record companies did not send them to us, which they certainly did—thousands of records were sent to us free—the artists sent them to us. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I met on a David Frost programme and he knows that what I am saying is true.

Mr. Jenkins indicated dissent.

Mr. Proudfoot

The B.B.C. and the G.P.O. managed to con this country into believing that there was some mystique about radio. In fact, there is nothing mysterious about it. There is no reason why radio stations should not be bought and sold like any other commercial properties.

With 6,000 radio stations in America, there has never been a recorded case of a licence being returned to a licensing authority. When a station has gone bankrupt—does not that sound healthy?—there has always been some character or company willing to buy it. This shows the virility of the American broadcasting system.

The laws of libel, sedition and the official secrets legislation apply to broadcasting as to any other form of communication. It mystifies me to understand why the transmitters must be owned by the I.B.A. Are hon. Members aware that one can buy this equipment without any difficulty? I can produce a catalogue from which one can buy not just an entire radio station but a complete television complex, including the correct mast What worries me is that if my right hon. Friend intends to have 60 radio stations set up by the I.B.A., this will take far longer than he may envisage.

We paid £5,000 for a 10 k.w. transmitter to put on a ship, and the transmitters envisaged in the White Paper will be nowhere as powerful as that. We have lost exports in this sphere. We have no real export trade in transmitters and allied equipment.

I regret that the hon. Member for Rotherham is temporarily absent from the Chamber because I am sure that he would have been interested in my next remarks, which are about restrictive practices and monopolies in this business. We have the Mechanical Copyrights, Phonographical Society, Phonographic Performance Ltd. and the Performing Rights Society. These three bodies want to get about one-third of the revenue from the commercial radio stations which we are about to establish. Future licensees should bargain with them. This will be commercial bargaining, and the Minister and the I.B.A. should not be involved in it. From all points of view, the bargaining should be between the stations and these bodies.

I wish to quote from a letter from the Performing Rights Society. It is a bit of an eye-opener. Dated 13th December, 1965, the letter gives the rates of offshore broadcasts. It says: The basic rate is 3.25 per cent., but in recognition of the high initial operating costs, the rate is subject to discount under which the effective royalty will be payable as follows: For the first two years the rate will be 1.625 per cent.; For the third year the rate will be 2.437 per cent. After that the full rate will be payable. This proves that, despite the restrictions and monopoly position to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred, the Performing Rights Society is willing to do a deal in the market place. I wholeheartedly approve of that state of affairs.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Performing Rights Society and Phonographic Peformance Ltd. are two separate organisations and that one should not be confused with the other?

Mr. Proudfoot

Yes. I agree with that immediately.

As I have shown, these bodies are willing to deal. That is in the nature of man, and I applaud it.

An interesting point relating to this letter from the P.R.S. is that when we said that we were willing to meet the cost which the society had quoted, we were told that while the P.R.S. would not acknowledge our payment, we would be given a receipt. It was the most weird arrangement of which I had heard, so we did not pay. After all, if the society would not acknowledge our payment, we did not see why we should pay, since we would be unable to prove why we had paid, despite the reference to a receipt. I trust that these bodies are aware that they could easily kill a goose which could lay only a leaden egg. Local papers should not worry. They are complementary. Advertising is complementary. I have bought advertising time on commercial radio and I have had to buy space in newspapers. From personal experience I can tell the House that one is totally complementary to the other, and any advertiser worth his salt would have to go on both media locally.

The White Paper will probably stop the very small man from advertising. There is no doubt that it would be too expensive for him. Community radio is, in the end, the cottage industry of communications. The House may be amazed at the fact that the two Front Benches and myself at present could run a radio station in a caravan. It may shatter hon. Members on the Front Benches that they would have to go out and sell their time. But it can be done and is being done in the world now, and these stations are giving a very good local service.

The I.B.A. would be London-based. I see no need for it. The £3 million is sold down the Swanee. It is unnecessary. The rip-and-read method and local news gathering are there for all to have. The phone-in to the local station will be one of the most listened-to techniques of broadcasting on the local stations. Frankly, I am quite prepared to trust the people with the news. After all, we trust the Sun, the Mail, and even the Express. We trust the Daily Telegraph. I see no reason why we should not be able to let ourselves trust radio stations.

I realised only the other week, listening to the B.B.C. news, how bad it could be at times. The B.B.C. was created by the politicans. It is a rigged market and the B.B.C. pays homage to the politicians' doors every day of its life. One has only to listen to the news to find that almost every item is political. There is no warm news, as my old Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said; there is no human interest at all.

The I.B.A. would be London based. I can tell the House how much people love London-based news in Yorkshire. We are fed up with news from the B.B.C. which tells us where a sewer has burst or where there are roadworks in London. We do not want that news in the North, and I suspect that it is not wanted in the West Country either. We want local community radio.

I turn now to the contentious part of my speech. I speak from a power base of a majority of 59 votes. I want to talk about immigrant radio. I speak about it with absolutely devout sincerity. I hate the fact that the B.B.C. ignores the immigrant communities in Britain. I have the facts and the figures to prove that. The cost of a radio service for immigrants to the people of Wolverhampton and Bradford would be zero if my right hon. Friend would allow them to operate v.h.f. stations commercially. It would cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing. There is a market there, and it is one that should be looked at.

Many Pakistanis, who speak a selection of about five different languages, are unable to read or write. They cannot even read their own newspapers. They have only one form of entertainment and it is expensive—7 shillings a time for a seat in the Pakistani cinemas. Some tune in to the B.B.C. for one half hour a week. They can tune in to Radio Moscow—and they do—for 16 hours. Radio Moscow has three separate channels, which give 16½ hours broadcasting in a week. If the Pakistanis do not like Radio Moscow they can tune in to Cairo, which puts out 16 hours. I can imagine the damage that that could do to relationships in our community. That needs thinking about. I am not blaming the B.B.C. for being evil. This just reflects the views of people who say, "I do not wish to give up my 30 hours of religious broadcasting", or 30 hours of recipes, or anything else. I am sorry for the chap at the top of the heap.

The B.B.C. is really a lot of little empires together. For that reason one cannot get time for the immigrant community. Hon. Members who read their Sunday newspapers will have seen advertisements by a firm called Shopertunities advertising radios made in Russia from £9 to £14 a time. They are being bought in Bradford, and one hears on Radio Moscow requests from Pakistanis in Bradford asking for their favourites tunes. This is the glorious B.B.C. bringing the truth to the free peoples of the world.

I also hope that my right hon. Friend will give v.h.f. stations to the universities. It might take some of the youngsters from the universities off the streets so that they can protest over the air instead. I believe that local business would stump up money for the caravans which have been mentioned for exactly that purpose. So why not give the universities their own radio stations?

Hon. Members opposite talk about people lining their pockets. But I am idealistic about radio and I believe we have never used radio properly in this country. If hon. Members opposite want to talk about sponsored radio—and I am not particularly worried whether we get it or not—let me read a list of sponsored programmes that hon. Members listen to every day of the week from the B.B.C. The list includes Mecca's "Come Dancing"; which is a sponsored programme; Mecca's "Miss World"; Gillette Cup cricket; the Star dancing championships; the Daily Express power boat race. And who pays for Cliff Michelmore's holidays abroad?—they are sponsored. But it is O.K. for the B.B.C. And it is the glorious B.B.C., the national monopoly, which the Opposition are pledged to keep going in perpetuity.

Let us consider the amount of advertising on B.B.C. What about plugs for films? There is no needle time for the soundtrack of a film, and the Musicians' Union does not trouble the B.B.C. about that. Then, again, it is O.K. to advertise books, and also records. And we know that "payola" is being investigated at the moment.

Every hon. Member has had letters complaining about a book from the Julian Press which contains photographs dealing with sex. My constituents have received circulars advertising this book. But 18 months ago on "Woman's Hour" on the B.B.C. that book, or a book exactly like it, got a half-hour plug. I happened to be sitting in my car at the time listening to my radio and I heard this plug with utter astonishment. It is O.K. for the B.B.C., but my constituents did not like the circulars very much.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman said that a plug was given to this book or one like it, and he must be more careful in his language. Was it a reputable book or a disreputable book? He must not carry on using such loose language in this House.

Mr. Proudfoot

It was a book on the same topic as that which the Julian Press had advertised.

The House will wonder what commercial radio would sound like if I had my way. Hon. Members should go out and ask the next American they meet about what happens in the United States. I asked a little old lady of 55 years of age, who was on my train recently and who came from a small American hick-town, how many radio stations the place had, and she told me four. I asked her what they were and she said "pop", "sweet music", "sport" and "news". She said that she could listen to the news 24 hours in a day. That is service. That is why I will line my pockets if I get the chance, because people will be willing to pay for a service that people like myself will provide. That is what enterprise is.

Then let us take religious programmes. Again in the United States these programmes run for 24 hours in a day. Some of these broadcasts come from pirate stations over the border in Mexico. Most of it is religious in content, and one advertisement that left me laughing went something like this: Send one dollar for a real original portrait signed by John the Baptist. What the public got for their dollar was a photograph of a Mexican Indian, signed, "Juan Battista". I am not saying that that is right, but it makes life a little more colourful than it is in this country sometimes.

If they have wives like mine, hon. Members' wives read the births, deaths and marriages column in the newspaper classified advertisements. I refuse to read them, because I might find myself there. But the women of this country do. Classified advertisements on very local, community radio are the radio counterpart of that column. People become involved.

The radio station I ran lost about £60,000 because the Labour Party gave it the chop. That pleased one hon. Member opposite, and it certainly did not displease me and my friends, who lost that money. I was not worried, because it was a commercial risk. Radio 270, according to National Opinion Poll, had 4¼ million listeners. We had got around to selling space to people in Scunthorpe, at £2 for 30 seconds. This let in the little men, small shopkeepers, who are now buying space in the newspapers where they never advertised before.

Mr. Whitehead

Apart from hearing of the death of John the Baptist in Bengali in the births, marriages and deaths service, how much of a sustained diet of pop music was there on Radio 270?

Mr. Proudfoot

We were a Top 40 format station. It takes a whole day to play the top 40 records three times. [Laughter.] There is nothing wrong with the truth. It had adverts, weather news, news and disc-jockey chatter. Look at Radio 1 now. It is a rococo part of the B.B.C. It got stuck in the groove where the pirates left if four years ago, and has never moved. It is a pathetic period piece. Hon. Members should check with their teenage sons and daughters to see what they think about it.

Monopoly begets monopoly. The B.B.C. at one time had a list of "payola" for music publishers. I do not know whether it still has, but the facts can be dug out. The B.B.C. is a nationalised monopoly, and always in that situation there are dangers. I support the breaking of the monopoly, but that is about all that I support in the White Paper. If the Bill comes out the same, I shall seek to amend it in the ways I have suggested.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

It is inevitable after the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfood) that I will deal with some rather different matters from those I had intended to deal with. I am not sure that we have been listening to the voice of Toryism of 1971, but I have an awful feeling that we have listened to the voice of Toryism of 1975. I hope that the Minister has noted the kind of avenue he is going along.

For well over an hour tonight the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and Brighouse and Spenborough converted the Chamber into a marketing place for their own commodities, and they have boasted about wishing to line their pockets. They have used their presence here, and will use their vote tonight. The hon. Member for Brig house and Spenborough is nodding assent. He must look at the matter seriously. I am extremely disturbed. I did not find the hon. Gentleman's speech as funny as other hon. Members did. We are debating an extremely serious question. The two hon. Gentlemen who have used so much time tonight will vote for lining their own pockets. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough boasted of it.

Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Buchan

Why should I give way? The hon. Gentleman spoke for three quarters of an hour and has made many interventions.

Mr. Gorst

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I would be lining my pocket.

Mr. Buchan

I will expand on that a little. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for 45 minutes.

Mr. Gorst

With plenty of interruptions.

Mr. Buchan

And the hon. Gentleman has made plenty since.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who boasted about being a pirate is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough or for Brigand and Spendthrift. He was not talking about television or radio but about markets. "There is a good market here", he said. He said not a word about the content of the programmes, not a word about the music that has been produced in Western Europe over the past thousand years, not a word about speech and drama from Shakespeare onwards. To him, this is a good market.

Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman nods again. I take it that he puts cash before Shakespeare and blue chips before "Chips with Everything". He does not care what comes out. His concept of a day's broadcasting is three times the 40 pop tunes. Is that really his idea of the use of television and radio? Is that what he wants to achieve?

Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan

It is? Then why, in Heaven's name, cannot he go into soap and leave broadcasting to people with some care for human beings?

Mr. Proudfoot

The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the whole of my speech. I talked about format radio. Is not he aware that whether he wanted to turn to sweet music, pop music, news or religious programmes—whatever it might be—he would find it most of the day?

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman talked about sweet music because, he said, that is what the housewife wants and he and his friends will maximise the advertising revenue.

Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman nods yet again. It is not to be music for the sake of music. It is to be sweet music because that is what the housewife wants.

Mr. Gorst

Why should she not have it?

Mr. Buchan

There is no reason why she should not have it, but at the moment I am discussing the rôle that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough will be performing in this House. His argument is not really that of having sweet music for the sake of sweet music. It is for profit for the sake of profit. He did not talk about profit and sweet music. He talked about cash. That is not just the voice of a freak. The Minister knows that the White Paper is going to lead him towards this challenge, and I believe he is afraid of it. I go further. The whole actions of the Tory Party in relation to museums, to education, to broadcasting and to the arts is that money is being put before the needs of the people. The Government even call the Minister for the Arts the Paymaster-General. Nothing is more characteristic of the Government than that.

Mr. Gorst

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would also be grateful if he would justify his suggestion that I shall be lining my pockets this evening.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman has been working for years for the establishment of commercial radio. Does he deny that?

Mr. Gorst

I deny that I will be lining my pockets in any way. I have no interest in any particular company. When the first stations come on the air, I shall have no concern with any of them at all.

Mr. Buchan

If the hon. Gentleman says that as from this moment he will absolve himself from all interest, financial or otherwise, in the commercial radio lobby, I will be satisfied. But he will remain secretary of the Commercial Radio Association.

Mr. Gorst

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is an official of the Musicians' Union.

Mr. McBride

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) held the floor for far too long and he is now making tedious interruptions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

That is not a point of order. On point of fact, there have been many long speeches from both sides in this debate.

Mr. Buchan

You know me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my interest in this subject and that it is not a financial one. When I hear music dealt with as it has been tonight, I tend to react. I do not want to see it getting into the hands of people like the hon. Members opposite.

There is no justification for the White Paper. There is no justification for the commercial radio lobby having this kind of field day in the House. I see nothing in the White Paper to suggest that the views of those opposed to commercialism in radio have been listened to. The White Paper says on page 5: There has been great divergence in the opinions expressed, but of the widespread interest in the subject there can be no doubt … It goes on: … radio financed from advertisements must offer a truly public service. In other words, there is no sign, other than from those interested in advertising and money, of any real support whatever for commercial broadcasting as a proper vehicle for radio. Unless we can equate broadcasting with cash this cannot be accepted. I take a fundamentalist position and ask: what are we trying to do? If we are trying to make money then I wish that hon. Members opposite would get into the soap business and leave the decent things alone.

I turn to the question of control. This is not so much a White Paper as a blank cheque. The I.B.A., we are told, will be able to control, not in advance, but after events. How will this work out? Are we to let those who are to operate this, the people behind the right hon. Gentleman, drive a coach and horses through the system for three years and at the end of that time is the I.B.A. to say, "You naughty boy"? This is the big distinction between what is proposed here and the control exercised by the I.T.A.

The Minister has failed completely to distinguish between monopoly and commercial radio. He defended neither the local radio case nor the commercial radio case. He assumed that a local radio station was inevitably commercial. He then proceeded to defend the concept of local stations to take us with him in accepting commercial radio stations. What he failed to defend was not the case for local radio stations, this is sufficiently proven; he failed to prove the case for commercialism. He let himself down badly.

I want to deal with the Scottish situation. Scotland matters a great deal to those of us who live there. It matters more than the South-East of England does to those who live in the South-East of England. It is probably analogous to the Merseyside area in its attitude, probably more so. There is a sense of national identity and we cannot look at our music, song, speech, nor our radio and television in the way that pirate Members on the back benches opposite can. The Minister is allowing 20 radio stations in England. The suggestion put forward by Alasdair Milne, the Controller of the B.B.C. in Scotland, and the Scottish Council was for local radio stations on the lines of regional stations.

The Highlands have a distinct culture, but clearly it is impossible to have a local station in Stornoway, Dingwall, or any of the tiny villages there. Let us have a local radio in the sense of these natural regions, with one in the Highlands concentrating on Highland life, helping to continue the great traditions of the Highlands—not a station playing the "Top 40" three times a day. Then there could be stations in the North-East, the greatest song area, one on Clydeside and one catering for the South-East and the Border. We are to get none of that. The Minister says that Radio 4 will continue to perform a regional function——

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman surprises me. In spite of his knowledge of Scotland, he apparently does not know that there is a national version of Radio 4, which is enormously appreciated in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan

That is what I am saying. The Minister is telling me nothing new. I know the Scottish version of Radio 4, and that will continue. The Minister today argued the desirability of the local station—the desirability of commercial radio was put in by accident, taken in by the back door—but there will not be a local station in Scotland. Neither will there be one in Wales. These are two areas which could exploit this marvellous medium, two areas with their own culture. These are the areas which will be deprived in order to line the pockets of the commercial lobby. Is this the voice of Toryism in 1975, or do we already hear it now in 1971?

The third error which the Minister made——

Mr. Money

The hon. Gentleman has talked about what local radio stations can do for a district. Will he consider the situation that arises from the sheer parochialism of the B.B.C? Our local radio comes from Norwich. It broadcasts 90 per cent. Norfolk news and 10 per cent. Suffolk or Ipswich news.

Mr. Buchan

I cannot analyse a particular radio station in Norwich. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman brings in parochialism now. We have all agreed on the value of local radio, and the Minister painted the vision glorious of the butcher——

Mr. Money

That is B.B.C.

Mr. Buchan

I do not know what we are talking about. I thought the hon. Gentleman was talking about the B.B.C. local radio in Norwich and painting the prospect of using a helicopter for traffic control. Either a local radio is valuable or it is not. If it is valuable it is valuable because it is local and draws its strength from that. If the hon. Gentleman says that it does not work in this way or if it is working in this way and people are fed up with it, clearly more intelligence and more money must be applied. It is not the requirement that is wrong but the application, and I suspect somewhere along the line there is probably a failure of money coming to the B.B.C.

There is only one defensible argument for advertising and that is income, and I discard that argument. The Minister defended advertising on the grounds of competition. The dispute is not on competition but on the question of commercialism. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when talking of competition can only think of financial competition. The money factor can be brought in, but there are other types of ownership. Is there any reason why there should not be a community of interest type of radio station involving, for example, in the Glasgow area, the two universities, the municipalities, the trade unions and the chambers of commerce? Is there any reason why B.B.C. financing should not be supplemented from the rates? Can there not be competition of that kind?

Is there any reason why interested bodies should not be able to run local radio stations? Should we say that that which has existed in our mass media from time immemorial is of itself right? Is it right that the ownership of our national Press should all be in separate, single hands? Is this necessarily a God-given situation? Might there not be the alternative that working journalists could have some control? The Minister was once a working journalist in the mass media. This is an attractive alternative. At Le Mans the working staff on a most distinguished newspaper have a direct control. So it is not God-given that the only alternative to competition is money.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

The hon. Gentleman confuses me. I do not think that anyone is in any doubt. There can be competition without its being commercial. The reason the nation supports commercial competition is that it prevents the licence fee from rising: there can be extra service without an increase in the licence fee.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman should tell the Minister that, and he should have been here for the rest of the debate. I concede that there is that argument, but the argument that was advanced was as to the value of competition. It was based on the competition of the news service, it being said that a different news service would be valuable. I agree, but I suspect that what will happen is that 20 minutes after the B.B.C. news programme has finished the local radio station will use it. The local radio stations will cannibalise the B.B.C. news programmes.

The whole thing is a phoney. It is designed to express the money greed of this Tory party—the meanest of all Governments, the kind of patronage and sneering that we have seen from the Paymaster-General in the House of Lords, and the kind of support that the Minister is getting from hon. Members behind him. This is a greedy, mean, cash-minded Government. The sooner they go the better for the health of the country.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

I should declare a perhaps rather tenuous interest, in that I am a consultant to a magazine publishing company which I suppose could go into the commercial radio field.

In the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) we have listened to the authentic voice of Scottish puritanism echoing through the ages, and a pretty dismal voice it is. Given a choice between that and the outlook of my hon. Friend the Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), I would rather listen to my hon. Friend's voice and attitude at any time.

For a start, I do not believe that the Scottish puritan record of devotion to the arts adds up to very much. But what I really disliked about the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West was his scorn for his own people. He said that they have a strong musical culture; and this is true. If commercial radio is to operate, surely it will appeal to such tastes. If the people of Scotland want their own music, they will get it on commercial radio, which is a flexible and responsive medium.

The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) took very much the same attitude in his comments about Radio Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman had the tactical prudence to withdraw Scunthorpe from the argument rather late in the day, but throughout his speech he showed clearly that he thought that all that the people of Scunthorpe would want would be tripe and drivel. I do not believe that that is true.

Broadly speaking, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. I believe that he is right to take positive steps to break the monopoly. I am glad that he has called what might be described as the frequencies bluff. One of the rather sad things over the decades has been the way in which people have pretended that there has not been air space available for additional broadcasting. Some of the earlier commissions of inquiry on this subject carried on with this pretence. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made clear that this is bluff.

I am glad also, for that matter, that my right hon. Friend sacked the Annan Commission, because essentially the decisions that had to be taken were political and social decisions which should rightly be taken by the House of Commons and by the Government. I do not believe that the Annan Commission would have served any good purpose.

I welcome these proposals also because they will do something to help to relieve the growing shortage of jobs among journalists—my own profession. I believe that when there is a full chain of commercial radio stations some of the journalists who are at present feeling the squeeze badly will find jobs there as news gatherers, feature writers, and so on.

Contrary to what a number of my hon. Friends have said, I do not think that the new scheme will harm local newspapers. I do not go along completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough who said that commercial radio will take over the classified advertising which at present goes to local newspapers. I think that the small ads will continue to appear in local newspapers, and that that is where their strength lies.

I welcome the White Paper because it gives real encouragement to the entrepreneurial spirit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, is a clear example. I see nothing wrong in starting a radio station with a small staff and the minimum of equipment, though I should prefer to see the equipment provided privately. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that it would not do to have just a turntable, an amplifier, and a handful of people looking after them. That is symptomatic of the views of the party opposite, and one easily visualises the sort of over-manning likely to result from the implementation of that approach. If it is to be the approach, we shall never have commercial radio. It has to be done on the cheap, and I see nothing wrong in that.

Nor do I think much of the argument of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West who takes the view that local radio should be subsidised from the rates. His right hon. and hon. Friends are always telling us that rates are regressive, as the Allen Report pointed out. The more one subsidises from the rates, the more one hits the poorer members of the population.

However, all those points are peripheral ones. The real point is whether local radio can do something worth while and provide a form of broadcasting which will add to local community life. Can it enrich local community life and express the increasing extent to which people want to re-create the sense of community?

I believe that the stations will try to be popular. They will have to attract audiences. However, in striving to be popular, I am sure that they will not turn their backs on the areas in which they operate. It is the job of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to make it clear to a local radio station that if it does not do its job properly towards the community, it will lose its licence. That must be the first criterion in the allocation and reallocation of contracts. I hope that the I.B.A. will be prepared to be tough and certainly tougher than the I.T.A. has been towards its programme contractors. If it is, I have no doubt that local radio can help enrich and enhance the life of the communities. It can do so in the provision of news. Clearly the provision of immediate news is one of the major jobs of local radio. It can also do so in the provision of feature material, or what we have heard described as "warm" news. I disagree that only "hot" news is appropriate to radio.

Thinking back to an argument which recently heavily concerned my own constituency about the third London airport, it seems to me that the whole issue which involved people so much, with its succession of meetings and arguments, was a matter which a local radio programme could have handled to enormous effect. It could have done it in such a way that people were drawn into the argument. I admit that if a B.B.C. local station had existed, it could have done the same. There is no unique quality in this respect about commercial radio.

The great, common sense merit of commercial local radio is that it can be provided without cost to the licence payer or tax payer. If it can provide a worth while service of quality, I see no reason against using advertising revenue to finance it. It will promote a worthwhile source of local information, and information is one of the prime ingredients of radio today. Despite the scorn of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is no doubt that the kind of advertising which would be found on local radio is information which would be genuinely useful to the locality.

I believe that my hon. Friend has made a very good start with the White Paper. I hope that he will not be deterred by the niggling, puritanical and, for the most part, inane criticisms of the Opposition.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

This is the first debate we have had on broadcasting for a very long time. It strikes me that it should be the first in a series of important discussions which should lead to the 1976 period when we discuss the B.B.C. and I.T.A. contracts.

The discussion today has been on the narrow subject of local commercial radio. I hope the Minister will assure us that in the months ahead he will try to widen the debates a great deal more and will listen to people who have important views to express on broadcasting in the 1970s and and 1980s.

We on this side of the House regard it as very serious that the Minister should have deprived the country of the information and the thinking that we could have from the Commission of Inquiry. We thought he was wrong to dismiss Lord Annan and his Commission before it even got off the ground. There is much room for thinking on the matter and the right hon. Gentleman has deprived the House and the country, not least himself, of a lot of useful information and important thinking on the whole range of the subject, not just on the technological aspects which were to occur some time after 1974. We hope that even at this stage the Minister will give further consideration to an inquiry and allow open debate throughout the country on the whole system of radio broadcasting and television.

Today we should be discussing the whole future of communication, but we are discussing the comparatively narrow issue of commercial radio. Although the right hon. Gentleman has dressed up the White Paper and given it a grand title, "An Alternative System of Radio Broadcasting", that is not what is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It certainly was not in the mind of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). He had a much narrower concept of an alternative system of radio broadcasting.

No matter what lofty ideals the Minister may have, the White Paper—the first that many of us have seen, despite rumours which we have heard from other sources—was certainly in the minds of many of us when we heard the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough proclaim himself the pirate king of radio broadcasting in this country.

Mr. Proudfoot

I never claimed to be a monarch. I was never the monarch of the air. I was on one of the smaller stations along with 60 friends.

Mr. Mackenzie

If not the monarch, the hon. Gentleman was certainly the clown prince of the debate which we have had today. Having heard the hon. Gentleman, we see the White Paper as no more than a respectable way of trying to bring him ashore. The Minister did not attempt to do that terribly seriously today.

I thought it funny when I listened to the debate in the House of Lords last week that when talking about pop pirates and local commercial radio and people like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough the Government should dignify the whole debate by having it done by the Minister for the Arts no less. I am sure that it pleased the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough to be dignified in this way. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts was not really speaking as the Minister for the Arts, but, as was suggested rather cynically by some of my hon. Friends, in his capacity as Paymaster-General—a much more appropriate title for him to use when speaking on this subject.

Even if we are talking only about commercial radio tonight, I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends, feel that the White Paper fails to give us information on a whole range of topics about finance, who is to do the siting, who is to do the controlling, and so on. One has a great deal of difficulty in believing that this little book is the product of 12 months of hard thinking on the part of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. No one can describe this as a weighty document.

As my hon. Friend said, the noble Lord who wound up for the Government in the House of Lords described it as no more than a talking point. It is what might be described in any other Department as a Green Paper. But we know that the Minister is a comparatively sensitive man and I am sure that he would not want any thoughts which he had on broadcasting, particularly local commercial broadcasting, to be described as a Green Paper. So the comments about this White Paper today, in the House of Lords last week and in the newspapers over the last few months, should prove to the Minister that, if this document ever appeared as legislation it would be given a very dusty reception.

Some hon. Members have said that radio is making a comeback in this country. We must ask ourselves what form this will take. There is a real desire for local radio. This was proved beyond all doubt by the remarks made by the B.B.C. and other organisations. Ian Trethowan of the B.B.C. has said that his audience research shows that at peak times local radio stations usually attract more v.h.f. listeners than Radio 4 and sometimes more than the other national networks.

Like the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I cannot hear local radio in my part of the world in Scotland, but I hear a little in London. But some of my hon. Friends with local radio in their areas pay a very high tribute to the service which the B.B.C. gives in local radio and to the skill, imagination and enthusiasm of many of the young people who man these stations.

But, given this desire for local radio, there is a confusion, many people feel, in the Government's attitude to its method of operation. The B.B.C. have proved, by being a popular service, that they have created a demand for real community radio, reflecting the life of its area.

There was an excellent quotation in last year's debate on broadcasting, from an article by Frank Gillard, whom many people regard as the father of local radio in this country. In 1962, he said: The one absolute essential of local radio will be the existence of a genuine, well-established community of interest over a wide range. On such a foundation would it be possible to build a worthwhile local radio service. That is a definition that I like. It matches my ideals of how local radio should operate—although I must concede that there is a demand for pop stations.

The Minister unkindly told me and some of my hon. Friends the other day that one of the reasons that we do not like pop stations is that there is a substantial generation gap. I am sure that he did not mean it in too unkind a fashion. We are arguing that a local radio station is certainly not a pop station. We hope that the Minister will not get this whole business confused, as some of his hon. Friends have done in the past. It is a sad state of affairs that the right hon. Gentleman is not letting himself think about things other than the B.B.C., local radio and the sort of commercial radio that has been advocated by the hon. Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan) and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. The right hon. Gentleman should let his mind wander a little over the subject. Only then will we find the best way to use the frequencies that have been made available to us.

The right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty of having his options considerably narrowed. This results in part from the speech made by the Prime Minister in the broadcasting debate in 1969. On that occasion he said firmly—his terms were almost as extravagant as some of those used in this debate by some hon. Gentlemen opposite—that he was hell bent on breaking the monopoly of the B.B.C. This has hemmed down the Minister.

The pledges made by the hon. Member for Howden have also tended to hem the right hon. Gentleman down. When he was the spokesman on this subject for the then Conservative Opposition—I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place—the hon. Member for Howden thought that one could cash in on the popularity of the pop pirates, especially among the younger voters. He thought that in addition to catching a lot of votes by appealing to the 18-year-olds, so getting some electoral kudos, he could at the same time boost the morale of the commercial backers.

That is the framework within which the Minister has been obliged to operate. He may not like it, just as he may not like the pledges that were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Howden, but he is stuck with it. That is why he has had to present this White Paper in such a peculiar fashion. I believe that had it not been for some of the statements made 18 months ago by the then Conservative Opposition spokesman on this subject, in addition to other comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly about breaking the B.B.C.'s monopoly, the right hon. Gentleman would have had other alternatives open to him.

Mr. Chataway

Such as what?

Mr. Mackenzie

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) wrote an article some time ago suggesting a series of local radio networks in a national broadcasting service. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) wondered whether local radio could not be operated through a local authority arrangement of some description. This is one alternative that could have been examined by the right hon. Gentleman. Not long ago a Labour P.M.G. tried to persuade local authorities to play a part in the whole business of community radio. Many of them rejected this idea, no doubt because they regarded it as a costly exercise.

Last week the Secretary of State for the Environment introduced his new concept of regional government. I believe that within the framework of what he described as a new progressive form of local and regional government there might be a place for some sort of regional and local radio worked out by local authorities.

These are only two possibilities. They have not been examined and we have not been able to seriously consider them in this debate. No alternatives are available to us because the Minister has been plugging ahead in a defensive way on a local commercial radio tack. We have tried to tell him that he could have commercial radio as well as local radio, but we do not believe that the two can go together. That has also been the message from hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Gentleman does not like to hear about Mr. Hughie Green. One of his colleagues condemned Mr. Green in eloquent terms. But it was Mr. Green who said that while backyard material was important it could not get audiences in the way that the mass entertainment shows could. There speaks the real voice of commercial radio in this country at present, and not necessarily the voice of the Minister. The voices of Hendon, of Brighouse and Spenborough and of Hughie Green are certainly much more important to the debate than what the Minister said in his very defensive speech.

What will we get? Despite the protestations which we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite, protestations that we will have not just pop stations but something rather better than Radio Luxembourg and better than the pop stations in the United States, we shall get something, we are told, rather more like Radio Manx, the station which, we recall, was set up literally within the dying hours of the 1959–64 Conservative Government.

Mr. Gorst

Blessed by the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Mackenzie

It was not blessed by us. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was happily in a position to turn down an extension of the franchise, if my memory serves me right.

A point worth making about Radio Manx is that it did not make very large profits, as many thought that it would in its initial stages. Now it does make profits.

Mr. Gorst

Small ones.

Mr. Mackenzie

It only makes profits—this is a point of interest to people employed in providing entertainment—because, as I read it from the Sunday Times of 28th July, it does so on the basis of the low earnings of its employees; low wages and certainly low costs.

From reading the programme schedules, particularly the schedule enuniciated on Manx Radio only a year ago, there is no doubt that it got away with a great deal of rubbish on that particular programme.

The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is very conscious of Radio Manx because it was he who told the country at great length that it was Radio Manx which finally persuaded the Conservative to go in for commercial radio in a big way. He did that in the pamphlet published by the Local Radio Association, which said: Finally the Conservative Opposition committed itself to support for commercial radio at its 1966 Party Conference in Blackpool. Undoubtedly, the Conservatives were helped towards this decision by the responsible and popular commercial station set up in the Isle of Man in 1964. If Radio Manx is to be the guide for local commercial radio in this country we are indeed in for a very ropey time in the local areas.

Mr. Gorst

It is only fair to the people of the Isle of Man to record that they enjoy Manx Radio, and enjoy it much more than they enjoy listening to any of the other services which are either offered or have been offered in the past by pirates.

Mr. Mackenzie

I shall not comment on the tastes of those who live on the Isle of Man. That is quite another matter. All I am saying is that from what I have read of the programme schedules it is not the sort of thing which I want to hear and certainly not the sort of thing which many people in Britain want to hear.

Since the publication of the White Paper, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that we will not have a Radio Luxembourg or pop stations similar to those in America. Because of the I.B.A. we shall have a system of control which will produce higher standards. The Minister told the Beaverbrook conference that it would produce higher standards of music than that which we enjoy on the radio. But that does not seem to be the view of the companies—all three hundred of them who are in the rat race—who hope to operate these local radio stations. They know what they want and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about this from their knowledge and interest in this matter. They are for the big audiences, for the big-spending teenagers and for the housewives. But if the Government go on as they have been for much longer, the housewives will not have as much to spend as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and his friends would hope.

Let us take two or three of these organisations and see the sort of programme they want, despite what the Minister says. One of them is the Rank Organisation. It must be remembered that the Rank Organisation is close to the Minister and his friends since it made a substantial contribution to Conservative election funds only a year ago and therefore Rank's voice is important. Indeed, they have £10,000-worth of voice in the framing of broadcasting policy. Then there is the Local Radio Association which says that it will give the public the sound of music for 65 per cent. of the time, speech for 16½ per cent., news 8 per cent. and advertising 10 per cent. of the time. Mr. Hughie Green and his Commercial Broadcasting Consultants will give them 40 per cent. light entertainment and 8 per cent. news. That is what the companies will give, despite what the Minister may say. That is what the companies and the advertisers want because they believe it is good business. That is the most important thing with which the Minister has to concern himself.

The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is a man who believes that there is a mass audience for the commercial stations and that the minorities are for the B.B.C. The Prime Minister believes that, as in so many other spheres, the public service sector has to do the grind and the commercial interests are to have the cream. The Prime Minister in last year's debate proclaimed himself to be one of a very small minority, and one had the same sort of approach from Lord Eccles who spoke in the House of Lords the other day. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) quoted that speech, but since Lord Eccles is the Minister for the Arts and Paymaster-General it is worth quoting again. The noble Lord went on in rather lofty tones as follows: I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as the noble Lord …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.] I often wonder what the Government get up to in their spare time. Now we know. We have the Prime Minister listening to Bach, Beethoven and radio plays by Moliere, and we have Lord Eccles listening to middle-class news. This is the sort of nonsense we are getting from a senior member of the Government. It is the most arrogant stuff we have heard in a lifetime and goes no way to implement the Prime Minister's great desire to have one nation in this country.

We feel that the White Paper cannot be the last word. It has been kicked around in the national newspapers, it has been given a cool welcome in the other place, and commercial companies like that run by Mr. Hughie Green have laughed at it. Even Conservative back benchers have bashed it all over the place and it seems that the document is not really an alternative plan for broadcasting at all. But that is what we expected after all the delays and all the leaks. The Minister's personal dilemma was neatly summed up by one journalist, who said that he had "inherited a slogan and not a policy". That is true, and there seems no doubt that he has had to grope around to find a compromise policy. He has failed to do this, and has also failed to unite his own colleagues, in the House of Lords and here, on the matter.

Conservative hon. Members and their Friends have put forward many thoughts. Some are for 60 stations, and some are for 120. Some are for a radio free-for-all. There is only one thing they have in common. Like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, they feel that there is a bob or two somewhere for someone, and if there is they are determined to be in on it, as the hon. Gentleman so frankly said today.

The White Paper is not about an alternative form of broadcasting. It is not about people's entertainment or their education. It is about people's money and how that money can be most effectively transferred from their pockets into those of the hardware manufacturers, advertising agencies, and commercial interests. This is a pay-off. The Minister has missed a great opportunity to use the precious commodity of radio in the interests of the whole community, by making this just one more stop on the gravy train started by this Government last July.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Chataway

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on what I think was his first speech from the Dispatch Box—an extremely attractive speech which the House enjoyed. It masked what was undoubtedly a difficult dilemma, because both he and his hon. Friends were put here today to raise detailed points about the White Paper and indulge in a little generalised attack, but they were very careful not to commit themselves against commercial broadcasting. They were very careful to say that they were not in favour of the B.B.C. monopoly, but they would not say what it was they were in favour of.

That is a straightforward plan, though it may be a little disappointing, because it is obvious what the Conservative Party has been doing. For a long time there has been an independent television system based upon regional stations, so we have argued for a commercial radio set-up based upon local stations. That proposal has been in existence for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to discuss and think about for a long time, though precious few have done so. It is no good their saying tonight, "If we had had a bit of time, we could have thought about whether it would be nice to have some stations run by the local authorities. This is a waste of precious frequencies." But what the Opposition want to do with the frequencies we do not know at the end of the debate.

All we know is that we have found the frequencies for an additional broadcasting service. It is additional to all the services available now from the B.B.C.; we are not taking anything away from anyone. [Interruption.] Except money, says the right hon. Gentleman, because he is afraid that people will want to listen to what is presented by commercial radio. [Interruption.] He says that he is not afraid of that. If they do not want to listen, there will be no money taken away from anyone. [Interruption.] Now he says, "Don't be so silly." I wonder how he thinks commercial radio works. If people do not want to listen, people will not advertise, and no one gets any money. The person who has invested in the station loses his money.

We heard from the Opposition Front Bench speeches which, although attractive, revealed a sad timidity. It is an unheroic posture that the Opposition adopt. There have been no suggestions about what kind of alternative to the B.B.C. they want, if they want an alternative. But it has been a useful and good-humoured debate on the whole, although in extremely low key. It is remarkable that there is to be a vote, because in the main the benches opposite have been deserted.

On this side, the great majority of my hon. Friends cannot see what the argument is about. That in a mixed system of broadcasting there should be a commercial alternative to the B.B.C. seems to the majority of us self-evident. I suspect that it seems so to the great majority of hon. Members opposite. Certainly, there has been no indication from their attendance today that the plan is opposed with any strength.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose——

Mr. Chataway

I have little time left.

A number of hon. Members commented on the three alternatives put forward in the White Paper for the news service. There was general recognition, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Balfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and others, of the importance of a news service and a recognition that news bulks larger in radio than in television. One of the major benefits that one can look for in an alternative system of broadcasting is an alternative news service.

I think, too, that there was agreement that the development, for good or evil—and there was some disagreement on both sides on this—of a more personalised presentation of news programmes, such as we have seen on "The World at One" and so on, makes it all the more important that there should be an alternative. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot), in his extremely attractive and amusing speech, that there was no necessity to lay down in legislation that there should be a central news service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North argued, from his knowledge of North America, that the commercial stations were bound to afford a news service, international as well as local, because that is what the customers want and, therefore, it is not necessary to set up one central source.

I believe, however, that it is right to follow the precedent of television, at least at the outset, in this respect, because if one is to build up a central source of international and national news for a service that is of sufficient calibre and does not simply provide a "rip-and-read" service but produces interviews and coverage such as the best North American news services do—the N.B.C., the C.B.S. and Westinghouse—it is right to concentrate resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North admired the North American all-news service—the W.I.N.S. in New York—and suggested that of the three alternatives of the White Paper, it was the right one to follow, but a number of hon. Members paid tribute to the I.T.N. and thought that the I.T.N. or its radio equivalent would be the right answer. It is interesting to note that in a number of speeches by hon. Members opposite in which there was denunciation of broadcasting financed by advertising there was tribute to the I.T.N.

There was also argument about the number of stations that there should be. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North and Brighouse and Spenborough argued for more than those proposed. They pointed out that there are 6,000 stations in the United States and 400 in Canada, and asked why there are, apparently, only the frequencies to have so few in the United Kingdom. The fundamental difference between our situation and that of Western Europe and the situation of Australia and New Zealand, which were also mentioned, is that in Western Europe there are a large number of high-powered stations in an area of dense population and there are far fewer frequencies available. In any event, my own feeling is that the number of frequencies that we have secured for the start of the independent radio service is sufficient.

There can be little doubt that the first 20 or so stations catering for the larger areas will be immediately viable and capable of putting on a good service. After that we have to proceed by trial and error to see what can be viable, and in what form, outside the major centres of population. My hon. Friends have dispelled many of the illusions that prevailed in various parts of the House that commercial broadcasting is necessarily concerned just with pop and would necessarily be simply a "Radio 1". In many parts of the world there is format radio, specialising in a vast variety of subjects, offering a considerable range of choice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) asked about the situation in Wales and Scotland. There, the national version of Radio 4 will continue. In addition, there will be independent radio stations under the I.B.A.

There was an inquiry about whether B.B.C. local stations should have medium-frequency back-up. There were references to the plan advanced in the New Statesman nearly a year ago by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). This is the only bit of positive thinking that has come from the Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who was part-author of that plan.

The plan suggested that Radio 1 and the local stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and put into the alternative system, financed in part at least by advertising. A number of hon. Gentlemen argued that there ought to be more B.B.C. local stations, and, in particular, were protesting that there was no medium-frequency back-up immediately available. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall proceed with as much speed as possible to secure the necessary frequencies by international agreement and then draw up a comprehensive frequency plan which will take into account the needs of the commercial service and the B.B.C. local stations. This cannot be done until there is an indication of where the independent stations will be and until the frequencies are secured by international agreement.

It was interesting to note that neither of the Opposition Front Bench speakers mentioned the local Press. This is an indication of the way in which apprehensions about the effect of commercial radio upon the local and provincial Press have been dispelled.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie

Nonsense.

Mr. Chataway

In both Opposition Front Bench speeches there was no suggestion that this would have a damaging effect upon the local Press.

Mr. Mackenzie

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to realise that the time factor limited discussion. We were prepared to talk about this.

Mr. Chataway

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to talk about it but it was an indication of the importance attached to it.

Mr. Whitehead rose——

Mr. Chataway

No, I cannot give way. The real issues in the debate were well posed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, sadly missed from this debate. I suspect that he has chosen not to appear. He came in very briefly but we did not see him for long. In the New Statesman article he said about the tactics of the Opposition: We can oppose the Chataway plan in principle exactly as we did in 1954". He had previously explained that in 1954 they had lost a bit of ground because they had sought to preserve monopoly. He went on: … or secondly we can offer only ritual opposition to the Bill, seeking to improve safeguards or we can try to work out a real alternative. There has been no attempt to work out a real alternative. There has been a muted suggestion from one or two back-benchers—from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for example—that perhaps the alternative is something along the lines of what was suggested by the Pilkington Committee on television. The central authority would be responsible for selling the advertising, and there would be a separation of advertising from programme production. Obviously, not much thought has been given to that. The idea that the central authority can sell local advertising in this set-up is not a very serious proposition. The idea of Lord Aylestone's men in Knightsbridge going round the grocers' shops in Scunthorpe selling advertising belies serious consideration.

Mr. Richard

The right hon. Gentleman will know that at the outset some of my hon. Friends and I asked him specifically to deal with the way in which the I.B.A. would control the programme companies. He was asked this at the beginning of the debate, but he has not told us. What is the answer?

Mr. Chataway

The answer, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is that the I.B.A. will have the same range of controls over radio as it will have over television. In addition, there is the rolling three-year contract which, as the Opposition spokesman in the other House said, will give considerable additional powers. Control over radio is a great deal easier, because it is cheap to record every radio programme, and this gives the authority the power to look at any radio programme it wishes.

There has been in this debate some splendid denunciation of the profit motive and of the lining of pockets—Clause 4 has really ridden again today—but it has not been made clear whether these fundamental objections to private greed and the profit motive apply only to radio or whether commercial television, too, incurs the wrath of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In my opening remarks I quoted one speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but there are several of his speeches from which one could quote. On the tenth anniversary of Independent Television he said: Independent Television has become part of our national anatomy. More than that, it has

become part of our national system, and part of our national way of life".

Does that still represent the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have not been told. Is there any particular feature of radio which makes it inappropriate to be financed by advertising? Is there something about television that makes it right to have commercial television, and something about radio that it makes it absolutely unthinkable for it to be financed by advertising? If there is, it has not been mentioned during this debate. No doubt hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been up against the time factor once more.

There is at the end of this debate, therefore—and not only on our side—the conviction that commercial radio can provide a service that will be of real value and can for B.B.C. radio perform some of the same functions that commercial television performed for B.B.C. television. We believe that we shall see a revival of radio. In a number of countries radio has staged a comeback. At the end of the day we are left in total ignorance of the views of the Opposition, and we do not know whether or not they are in favour of commercial broadcasting, sound or television. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

Division No. 373.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Concannon, J. D.	English, Michael
Albu, Austen	Conlan, Bernard	Evans, Fred
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Allen, Scholefield	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Ashton, Joe	Crawshaw, Richard	Foot, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cronin, John	Ford, Ben
Barnett, Joel	Dalyell, Tarn	Forrester, John
Beaney, Alan	Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Davidson, Arthur	Freeson, Reginald
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Gilbert, Dr. John
Bidwell, Sidney	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Ginsburg, David
BlenKinsop, Arthur	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Golding John
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Booth, Albert	Deakins, Eric	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Delargy, H. J.	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Bradley, Tom	Dempsey, James	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Doig, Peter	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Buchan, Norman	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hamling, William
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Driberg, Tom	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Dunnett, Jack	Hardy, Peter
Carmichael, Neil	Eadie, Alex	Harper, Joseph
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Coleman, Donald	Ellis, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.	Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E.)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Horam, John	Marquand, David	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Marsden, F.	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Huckfield, Leslie	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Mayhew, Christopher	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Meacher, Michael	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Sillars, James
Hunter, Adam	Mendelson, John	Skinner, Dennis
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Millan, Bruce	Small, William
Janner, Greville	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Molloy, William	Spearing, Nigel
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Spriggs, Leslie
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Stallard, A. w.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Moyle, Roland	Steel, David
John, Brynmor	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Murray, Ronald King	Stoddart David (Swindon)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Ogden, Eric	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	O'Halloran, Michael	Strang, Gavin
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	O'Malley, Brian	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Oram, Bert	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Orme, Stanley	Swain, Thomas
Kaufman, Gerald	Oswald, Thomas	Taverne, Dick
Kelley, Richard	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Kerr, Russell	Paget, R. T.	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Kinnock, Neil	Palmer, Arthur	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Lambie, David	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Tinn, James
Lamond, James	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Tomney, Frank
Lawson, George	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Torney, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted	Pavitt, Laurie	Tuck, Raphael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Pendry, Tom	Urwin, T, W.
Leonard, Dick	Pentland, Norman	Varley, Eric G.
Lestor, Miss Joan	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Wainwright, Edwin
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Prescott, John	Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Weitzman, David
Lipton, Marcus	Price, William (Rugby)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Loughlin, Charles	Probert, Arthur	White James (Glasgow Pollok)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rankin, John	Whitehead, Phillip
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
McBride, Neil	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
McCartney, Hugh	Richard, Ivor	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
McGuire, Michael	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mackenzie, Gregor	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Woof, Robert
Maclennan, Robert	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Roper, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McNamara, J. Kevin	Rose, Paul B.	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Mr. Kenneth Marks.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Carlisle, Mark	Fidler, Michael
Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Channon, Paul	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Chapman, Sydney	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Atkins, Humphrey	Churchill, W. S.	Fookes, Miss Janet
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Clark William (Surrey, E.)	Fortescue, Tim
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Foster, Sir John
Balniel, Lord	Clegg, Walter	Fowler, Norman
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Cockeram, Eric	Fox, Marcus
Batsford, Brian	Cooke, Robert	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Benyon, W.	Cooper, A. E.	Fry, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John	Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Gardner, Edward
Blaker, Peter	Cormack, Patrick	Gibson-Watt, David
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Costain, A. P.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Body, Richard	Critchley, Julian	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Boscawen, Robert	Crouch, David	Glyn, Dr. Alan
Bossom, Sir Clive	Crowder, F. P.	Goodhew, Victor
Bowden, Andrew	Curran, Charles	Gorst, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Gower, Raymond
Braine, Bernard	Dean, Paul	Gray, Hamish
Bray, Ronald	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Green, Alan
Brewis, John	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Dixon, Piers	Grylls, Michael
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Gummer, Selwyn
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Drayson, G. B.	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bryan, Paul	Dykes, Hugh	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Eden, Sir John	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Buck, Antony	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Hannam, John (Exeter)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Burden, F. A.	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Eyre, Reginald	Hastings, Stephen
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)	Fell, Anthony	Havers, Michael

Hay, John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Heseltine, Michael	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Simeons, Charles
Hicks, Robert	Miscampbell, Norman	Sinclair, Sir George
Higgins, Terence L.	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hiley, Joseph	Moate, Roger	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Molyneaux, James	Soref, Harold
Holland, Philip	Money, Ernie	Spence, John
Hordern, Peter	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Sproat, lain
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Monro, Hector	Stainton, Keith
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	More, Jasper	Stanbrook, Ivor
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Hunt, John	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Stokes, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Mudd, David	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Iremonger, T. L.	Murton, Oscar	Sutcliffe, John
James, David	Neave, Airey	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Taylor Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Normanton, Tom	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Jessel, Toby	Onslow, Cranley	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Tebbit, Norman
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Osborn, John	Temple, John M.
Jopling, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)
Kershaw, Anthony	Percival, Ian	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Kilfedder, James	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Pounder, Rafton	Tilney, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Kinsey, J. R.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Trew, Peter
Knox, David	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Tugendhat, Christopher
Lambton, Antony	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Lane, David	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Raison, Timothy	Vickers, Dame Joan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Waddington, David
Le Marchant, Spencer	Redmond, Robert	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Walters, Dennis
Loveridge, John	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Ward, Dame Irene
Luce, R. N.	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Weatherill Bernard
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Wells, John (Maidstone)
MacArthur, Ian	Ridsdale, Julian	White, Roger (Gravesend)
McLaren, Martin	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
McMillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Wilkinson, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maddan, Martin	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Madel, David	Rost, Peter	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Maginnis, John E.	Royle, Anthony	Woodnutt, Mark
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Russell, Sir Ronald	Worsley, Marcus
Marten, Neil	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mather, Carol	Scott-Hopkins, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mawby, Ray	Sharpies, Richard	Mr. Paul Hawkins and
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Mr. Keith Speed.
Meyer, Sir Anthony

Main Question put and agree to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636).