Clause 3

HC Deb 12 April 1972 vol 834 cc1351-9

Local advisory committees for local sound broadcasts

Mr. Golding

I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 14, leave out "advisory" and insert "listener".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment we are to take the following Amendments:

No. 19, in page 3, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert: shall be elected annually by all registered listeners to the local radio station".

No. 24, in line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) No person shall be elected as a member of a local committee if he has any financial interest in any undertaking connected with commercial radio.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Golding

I think that I can cover the point of these Amendments fairly speedily. In Committee we had a long and considerable debate on the subject of the advisory councils. To a certain extent the Advisory Council of the I.T.A. is now being studied by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and I think, therefore, that it would help if we were to await the Committee's Report, and not be too dogmatic on the subject.

However, for the purpose of probing again the Minister's intentions I think that it would be better if the advisory committees were called listener committees, in order to make it clear that listeners can make representations on a wide range of subjects. It is important that we change our attitude in this respect. In the nationalised industries generally, consumer councils have been seen as bodies which can make complaints directly to the public bodies which have been given certain functions. It is clear that in broadcasting that relationship does not exist between the consumer body and the public body, which is established merely as an advisory body.

The time has come for us to reconsider that relationship, because it is important that every bureaucracy should be subject to some kind of check and counter-check. This is particularly true of broadcasting where the I.T.A.—and in future the I.B.A.—has to make decisions based on public standards of morality, and so on. It is important that the authority—or, in the case that we are discussing tonight, the radio station managers—should be forced to enter into a dialogue with representatives of the listening public.

It is important to emphasise that, and that is why, in Amendment No. 19, I make the revolutionary proposal that listener committees, as I should like them to be called, should be elected annually by registered listeners to the local radio stations. I think very highly of B.B.C. local radio but, unfortunately, the situation at present is that the Advisory Council of the B.B.C. consists mainly of people who are worthy in a civic sense but who, because of their dedication to public life, perhaps have less time to listen to radio than have others.

It would be a good thing to have on these listener committees people who, as listeners themselves, have been elected by other listeners, so that there is on them a direct consumer interest representing the views of the public.

We do not see why only the advertisers should be restricted by reference to a financial interest. We want the advice, comments and criticism of listener committees to be absolutely free. They should take into account only the listeners' point of view. This is no place for the commercial interests or the trade unions. It is a place only for the people who would represent the listeners.

The Post Office Users' Council shows how useful and independent an organisation of this kind can be. Whether its recommendations are right or wrong, it can be praised for having initiated discussion. That is what we badly need in communications. One thing that I have discovered in the last few months in which I have taken an interest in this field is how intense is the interest among the communicators in communications and how little interest they have in the world outside. The force of this remark is shown by the vast emptiness of the benches opposite. In this discussion of consumer representation in commercial radio, not one Conservative back-bencher is present. Only the two "Bisto Kids", the Ministers, and the Whip, who is at his duty, are here to listen.

This is an important problem. We need free discussion in the next four or five years on how the public's point of view can be expressed to the communicators.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in the objectives of his Amendment, which must be generally agreed. I agree that it is the views of the listeners that matter and not necessarily those of organisations such as churches and unions. What puzzles me about the Amendment is why my hon. Friend must assume that the basis of representing listeners must be indirect election or appointment of people to speak for them.

Does my hon. Friend rule out the idea that the listeners themselves should have the opportunity of putting their views? In the excellent project for local television which the Minister has licensed in my constituency, Greenwich Cablevision, a most promising idea is at the moment holding the field—that the viewer locally should make his views plain, not through representatives, but by attending himself regular meetings which those responsible for the programmes attend, public meetings where the local Press are present and any viewer or listener can comment on the programmes that he has heard or seen, and make his suggestions about future programmes to those directly responsible. Would not my hon. Friend feel that in certain circumstances this has some advantages over the method of election he proposes?

Mr. Golding

Of course that experiment is a most exciting experiment in local television. There is only one difficulty, with which I dealt in Committee. Unfortunately, so many of our people are inarticulate. One of the difficulties in an area such as mine in North Staffordshire is that although there are serious working-class points of view to be put, the people often cannot put them for themselves. A system of representation is needed. But if we could have that together with the proposals of my hon. Friend, that would be very good indeed.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for this opportunity to discuss an important matter. I cannot agree with every one of his comments, but he has aired an important subject.

Those of us who served on the Committee will recall that this subject created a great deal of interest, not least on the benches opposite. I remember particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) who did not feel that advisory committees were essential at all. He said that the directors were selling this as a commodity in the same way as the grocer sold baked beans and that if people did not like it, they could do something about it.

I have two points to put to the Minister. First, I favour advisory committees and we must in future consider their whole structure. I am not certain that it is best to let the Authority appoint its own committees. Gas and electricity consumer councils tend to become closely identified with the organisation about which they are supposed to be watchdogs. While I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that these committees should be elected somehow, we have to ensure that in future they are seen to be independent of the Authority and therefore of the individual contractors.

The second point is that when the Minister is looking at these matters in future he should try to find a better way of doing this than to have the Authority consult the various local authorities. I am a former member of a local authority. I come second to none in my praise of and admiration for local authority membership. Those of us who have served on local authorities know the general pattern. It is very simple for Glasgow Corporation, Edinburgh Corporation and Birmingham City Council to consider appointments to advisory committees of this kind. They appoint a number of aldermen or bailies. The number of occasions on which they can attend is determined by the extent of the business to which they are committed to attend in their corporations or councils.

But I am not certain that this is the best way to do it. I do not make a great point of it. I believe in advisory committees. I believe that they should have a significant part to play. However, I am not sure that we are giving them the status they need by having the Authority appoint them. I think that we should look at these matters in future.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

As one who formerly served on one of these councils which we are discussing, I think that there is a definite need for some form of listeners' council. I am not sure that I have the computation as to who should be represented on that particular body, whether it be associations or individuals. However, I know that there is a need for the listeners to have some say in the types of broadcast they are to receive.

Following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), I should point out that for many years I represented local authorities in Scotland on the Scottish Schools Broadcasting Council. I think that it did a very good job. It was a specialised duty. The purpose of that council was to advise on the type of programme suitable for schools. I had experience of working alongside directors of education, trade unionists and ministers of religion, who all made satisfactory contributions towards the success of that council.

However, when dealing with commercial broadcasting, I am sure that we shall have Navy Larks, Saturday Night Theatres, Any Questions and programmes where people can telephone in ideas and suggestions and discuss problems. In all these matters the listeners are entitled to some consideration. The weakness of television in this country is that there is no viewers' council. Viewers have a vested interest in this mass media. Similarly with broadcasting, whether it be the B.B.C. or commercial radio.

Is the Minister satisfied that these proposals go far enough to meet the true needs of radio listeners? Is he convinced that he is providing for the right type of person who is a regular listener to radio?

Most people make the great mistake of keeping television going all the time. I assure them that they are missing some excellent radio programmes as a result. I am a regular listener to radio and, to a limited extent, a viewer of television. I assure the House that when I see some of the most unattractive programmes as I am passing through my apartment where television is being viewed, I feel sorry for the viewers, because, as a result of that distraction, they are forgetting about radio and overlooking the value of the excellent programmes we receive from day to day and night to night.

I am concerned about the Minister's proposals. Is he convinced that he has got to the grass roots of radio listening? I do not think so. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggests that the body about which he is talking should be elected. I do not know how it will be organised. It must be a tremendously comprehensive organisation of listeners who no longer pay licence fees, but just cast votes on some elected council. It is not practicable. I agree that the Minister has the necessary ability and experience to realise that if the council is to be a success, it must consist of listeners. He must get down to the grass roots—to those who listen regularly and enjoy radio programmes.

We accept that specialised programmes such as school broadcasts require specialists to advise on them, but for the general run of broadcasting, though some of it is instructional—a great deal is entertaining while some is monotonous—we need advice from a wide section of the population. The people chosen should be adherents to radio. What system of recruiting to these committees will be adopted?

Mr. Chataway

The Amendment has given hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the rôle of the advisory committees and some hon. Members have proferred advice. It has been advice which the Authority will welcome because it will have to appoint these committees.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) about the importance of these committees being representative of listeners so that they can get down to the grass roots of the matter. However, I do not feel that it would necessarily be advantageous to change the title to include "listener" as distinct from "advisory". They will have the task of evaluating information as well as simply being listeners, though one hopes that they will be steady listeners. I therefore feel that "advisory" should be in the title because their task will be to advise as well as to listen.

There would be difficulties in arranging the sort of elections that have been described. Who would be a registered elector and how would the exercise be organised? Many similar difficult questions arise and the suggestion assumes an interest greater than exists, for I do not feel that people would be prepared to go to the polls to elect a body of this sort.

On the question of financial interest, the Authority will be required to take this point into account and not appoint anyone whose judgment would be likely to be distorted by a financial interest. There might, however, be a very small and remote financial connection which the Authority might feel would not disqualify an otherwise suitable person from giving good advice.

While we welcome this opportunity to discuss this matter, I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will not press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Dempsey

I am still not sure how the Minister intends to ensure that the people who are appointed will come from the grass roots of radio, so to speak. Could he send out a questionnaire which keen radio listeners could complete so that, if their interests and qualifications are suitable, they could be appointed?

Mr. Chataway

It will be for the Authority to make these appointments and I am sure that it will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.

Mr. Golding

In the hope that the Authority will take great care in the appointment of people to the new advisory committees—more care than may have been taken in the past with the Advisory Council—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Golding

I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 44, after 'advertising', insert: 'or in any other enterprise or business'. In Committee the Minister said that he might have second thoughts on this matter. Has he had them and, if so, what are they?

Mr. Chataway

The Amendment widens the prohibition of people serving on local advisory committees to anyone with a financial interest in any undertaking connected with commercial radio. I think that that goes too wide. It would needlessly disqualify many people who would be able to give valuable and disinterested service to the committees.

The Government have considered this matter carefully. The Government's view is that statutory restrictions of this sort really should be kept at the minimum. The Authority will take steps to ensure that it does not appoint people who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to be able to serve satisfactorily. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a matter which the Authority can deal with and that the addition of these words would not add much.

Mr. Golding

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chataway

I beg to move, Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 27, after 'county', insert 'county of a'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 35.

Mr. Chataway

This is purely a drafting Amendment. It simply provides for the correct statutory term for "county of a city" in Scotland to be used in the definition of the appropriate local authorities for the purposes of subsection (3), the subsection which requires the Authority to invite local authorities to suggest appointments to the local advisory committees.

I promised in Committee on 25th January to look into a point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about the definition of local authorities in Clause 3(6) as it applied to Northern Ireland. He pointed out then that the definition was narrower for Northern Irish local authorities than it was for English ones. I am grateful to the hon. Member. He was quite correct. The Amendment widens the specification in Clause 3(6) so as to bring the two into line.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, No. 35 in page 4, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert: (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means any of the following, that is to say, the council of a county, county or other borough, or urban or rural district, a new town or development commission exercising the functions of any such council and a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.—[Mr. Chataway.]