INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

HC Deb 03 May 1973 vol 855 cc1479-515

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of Parliament and of the relevant Government Observations on this Report (Command Paper No. 5244). I rise to do so in my capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee which carried out the investigation and was primarily responsible for the preparation of the report.

Mr. Speaker

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) and the names of his hon. Friends, at the end add 'but deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to implement the main recommendations in the Report and, in particular, the Minister's cursory dismissal of the Report's proposals for a full-ranging inquiry to be set up at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976'.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Before drawing the attention of the House to certain aspects of the report, I want to emphasise two things. First, the report, like almost all of its predecessors from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, is a unanimous report, which very much reflects the long-established habit of mind amongst members of the Select Committee —that facts rather than political preconceptions dictate the character of the report. This has been again exemplified in the present instance.

In passing, I want to place on record my deep appreciation of the co-operation and help I have had from all members of the sub-committee and also from our specialist adviser, Professor Himmelweit. No chairman has been supported by a better team.

Secondly, I wish to emphasise that although our terms of reference allowed us only to inquire directly into the Independent Broadcasting Authority, increasingly the Select Committee found, as the investigation proceeded, that it was not possible to look at the past, present and future of the IBA without also having regard to the whole context of communications and to more fundamental questions, such as what kind of a society we want and what should be the rôle of this most powerful of the media in our national future. I shall return to the point later, but this aspect is one particular reason why my colleagues and I were, to put it no stronger, acutely disappointed that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has turned his back on our request for a wide-ranging inquiry into communications in the country and has simply prolonged by a further three years a situation which is patently unsatisfactory, not least to the viewing millions. Personally, I can only hope that the Labour Party's parliamentary leadership will move with due dispatch to put right this matter when it returns to power in the near future.

Those hon. Members who have had an opportunity of reading the report will have noticed that there is fairly frequent reference to the Pilkington Report, mostly favourable in character. The point to be made here is that although Pilkington reported in 1960, and it is in many ways an excellent report, it was made only four years or so after commercial television was initiated in this country. The situation Pilkington faced was one in which only two television channels existed and in which the viewing public was only just getting used to having a choice of viewing.

Today, 13 years later, the situation is very different, with a much larger viewing public, long used to television and to having a three-fold choice, and who are living, moreover, in a society which has demonstrated to it the awesome power of television to affect the quality of our lives for good or ill.

It was this last factor which persuaded the Select Committee, despite its somewhat constricting terms of reference, to recommend in its report the need for … a full ranging enquiry at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976. The report goes on: Such an enquiry should have broad terms of reference and consider not only the B.B.C. and the Authority, and take into account the newer technological developments which profoundly affect the position of broadcasting. It should study the systems of other countries and, following the example of Canada, such an enquiry should examine studies of the long term social, cultural, economic, political and technical implications of different options and invite public debate about the purpose, financing of and access to such systems prior to making recommendations. The report goes on to spell out our view of the requirements of a good broadcasting service. We stress in particular the limitation of ratings as a measure of quality, the need for greater innovation and diversity of programmes, freer from the editorial control of the professional broadcasters, and the need for greater public debate on matters affecting broadcasting policy and for broader representation of the public in the decision-making bodies of the industry.

Without setting its face against advertising as a source of broadcasting revenue —our remit did not encompass that possibility—the committee recommends an examination of the systems in various European countries in order to reduce if possible the effect of the sale of advertising time on the quality of the programmes produced and, in particular, to see whether it would not be to the public good if the planning and production of programmes were not divorced from the sale of advertising time.

From its investigations, the Select Committee came strongly to the view that the IBA, though technically competent and conscientiously discharging its duties as it interprets them, was none the less too much influenced by the needs of the companies which are its agents, was too cautious in testing new forms of programme and in affording greater public access to the medium, and insufficiently responsive to the public as well as to those working in the industry.

What we are trying to say in the report is that, as a public body entrusted with considerable powers, the IBA should be seen more clearly to be accountable to the people. But what we are also trying to say is that communications, including television in all its aspects, have become so important a part of life in this country, and, indeed, throughout the world, that only a painstaking and thorough public inquiry—and, even more importantly, public debate—can produce answers appropriate to the latter part of the twentieth century.

It is in this context, as I hinted earlier, that the committee was very disappointed at the unimaginative and negative reply of the Minister to what has been a thorough and conscientious attempt by the Select Committee to relate the problems of the IBA to the wider scene.

In an industry of such importance to our future and with such a capacity to go wonderfully right or disastrously wrong, it is in our view simply not good enough to allow things to drift towards a situation in which quality and excellence are at a heavy discount and commercialism reigns supreme. Our people deserve much better of us than that.

I turn now to the official reply by the Minister to the report. In rejecting the committee's call for a wide-ranging inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman, quoting the hastily-established Television Advisory Committee, states among other things that … no technical advances affecting the basis on which the present structure of broadcasting rests are likely to develop until the 1980s. But surely the issue is not one of technical advances. We are talking here of much more important matters than the continually evolving technical progress of the industry.

With all the evidence produced by the Select Committee—unanimously agreed, I remind the House—that all is not all right with commercial broadcasting in this country—a view independently stated, incidentally, in the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on broadcasting published several years earlier—it is quite frankly irresponsible if not fatuous to talk about technical advances or the alleged lack thereof as a reason for doing nothing for the next eight years.

I say to the Minister that the question of what kind of communications industry we have in the years ahead is bound up with the future of our society. If television is to play a socially responsible rôle in the years ahead and to realise its full potential for good, we must begin to lay down the guidelines for its future development now. Not to face now the problems it poses is an abdication of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. But, as if he realises that this unconvincing reason for doing nothing would not persuade an educationally subnormal eight-year-old, the Minister throws in for good measure another reason for inactivity—namely, that a new Chairman of the BBC has just been appointed. I must say that this last excuse breaks new ground as far as I am concerned. Since when, I ask my-self, have we in this country concerned ourselves with the retirement of individuals in considering major items of reform of this character affecting several of our major national institutions?

As if still unconvinced by his own arguments—and who shall blame him? —the Minister then throws in for good measure a further reason for leaving things as they are for the present— namely, that more experience of wired broadcasting or cable television is needed. But unless money is put into this by the Government for purposes of experiment other than by commercial interests, no more will be known at the end of the day than at the beginning. Under the present arrangement an individual in the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications has to authorise in advance the schedules and content of each cable television experiment.

Thus, having set up in effect a mini, inexperienced IBA within the Ministry and starved these local experiments of the funds they need if the exercise is to have any meaning at all, or at any rate is to be capable of evaluation subsequently, the Minister has virtually guaranteed that the current experiments in cable television will be quite meaningless, almost as if he had set out to prove that cable television is not important—a view which may be popular in the higher echelons of both the BBC and the IBA but is not shared by many other countries, a number of which, including Holland, have published papers for public debate and as a means of stimulating public awareness of the possibilities of this medium.

Just as we as a community are concerned about such things as the quality of our schools and libraries, the growing isolation within urban life, the failure of groups within our community to find legitimate expression and discussion of their points of view, so should we be concerned to ensure that potentially important new developments such as cable television are properly tested and evaluated with a view to their use in the enrichment of our society. To use the present half-baked, ill-fated experiments as an excuse for not holding a wide-ranging inquiry betrays, in my opinion, a woeful lack of understanding of what is involved here.

As people who have been charged with the increasingly difficult task of governing the country, hon. Members may care to reflect that cable television, with its exciting possibilities of a two-way transmission of ideas between government and governed, could be the vital missing link. Surely government must be more effective the more we know what people's views are and the more we are able to communicate our own views to them.

However, I leave that somewhat philosophical point and turn now to the reply of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to the Select Committee's Report— the official reply, of course. The unofficial reply is no doubt unprintable.

Here I should like to make a general comment to register my concern at the way the replies of the IBA to our various comments and criticisms were not so much an answer as an excuse for pleading yet again for the fourth channel— or ITV 2, as the authority prefer to call it, in very good propaganda style. A better reason for not giving it to the authority could hardly be imagined.

The other point I would mention is the patronising tone of the IBA reply. As it happens, the Select Committee spent a great deal of time hearing evidence— the IBA representatives themselves were before us for nearly eight hours in total —reading material from this and other countries and also, of course, studying the initial and subsequent written submissions of the authority itself. It is a little irritating, therefore, to read a document which seems to take no notice of the fact that eight conscientious and reasonably intelligent Members of Parliament spent a large amount of time and sweat equipping themselves to understand the problems of the industry, but treats them as if they were a bunch of overlanders just in from three years in the Australian outback.

As an example, let me quote the short paragraph at the top of page 7 of the reply. The Select Committee's Report, the authority tells us, treats balance and quality together. They should be distinguished; not only because they represent different aspects of programme output, but also because the problems of ensuring them are distinct. A well-balanced schedule can consist of programmes each of poor quality; and programmes all of high quality can constitute an ill-balanced one. To which I and my colleagues on the Select Committee reply with a sad shake of the head and a quiet, "Amen".

Again, the Select Committee is rapped over the knuckles because, according to the IBA, it seems to—and I underline those words—regard "quality" as the opposite of "popular" as far as programming is concerned. It goes on: Balance, of a kind, can he ensured by organisational means. What cannot be simi-larly ensured is that documentaries are enlightening, plays moving and comedies funny. Good hard-hitting stuff, we can all agree, except that nowhere is there any such misapprehension revealed in our report. Indeed, our lengthy interrogation of the IBA witnesses should have made it plain beyond doubt that we are well aware that a programme can be both popular and of high quality. The words "seems to" in this part of the reply were designed, I assume, to get the authority over this little difficulty.

But much more serious than these infelicities is what we believe to be the misconceived idea of its own rôle currently held by the IBA. It sees itself primarily as a public watchdog not only approving broadcasting schedules but also growling disapprovingly from time to time and occasionally wagging its tail in approval when something especially good has been produced. Thus, at the top of page eight of the reply we read these lofty words: When poor quality is diagnosed, by the Authority or by its advisory committees or by its staff, this is taken up with the producing company. Equally, productions of exceptionally high quality also attract comment, so that the forces of emulation and example may do their work. It then adds: Quality cannot be prescribed: it grows out of the creative talent to which the system has access. In view of the Select Committee, quality in this context is determined very largely by the opportunities and the constraints provided by the authority itself. We feel strongly that what is wanted is not more constraint but greater opportunities for the numerous talented broadcasters within Independent Television to develop their talents. If the IBA claims that there is ample opportunity within the system for talent to express itself, why should the principal television trade union—and perhaps the greatest repository of the industry's talent, incidentally —the ACTT, have complained so strongly to the Select Committee that it is not consulted and indeed that its advances are rebuffed when it comes to discussing the quality of programmes?

Moving to page 10 of the IBA reply, we read that, in its opinion, one cannot both hold the ring and enter the ring. But that felicitous little observation misrepresents the quite precise representation of the Select Committee, namely, that the IBA should encourage, if necessary with proper funding, the production of programmes which, on artistic grounds, may be desirable but which management may regard as financially too risky.

To say, as the IBA does, that the Authority would not wish to see the companies' own responsibility for innovation lessened is seriously to misrepresent the quite clear recommendation of the Select Committee Report.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kerr

No, I am sorry. One could go on at length—

Mr. Gorst rose—

Mr. Kerr

The hon. Gentleman can catch Mr. Speaker's eye in due course and put the record straight if he wants to.

One could go on at length instancing the defensive and negative stance adopted by the IBA in its reply to our report. But such an exercise would sorely try the patience of hon. Members, and in any event might even be counter-productive by making members of the IBA feel like a beleagured garrison, with the whole world against them.

We feel that the authority has misunderstood its brief, but driving the IBA into the ground has certainly not been my committee's intention. We have sought to make the Minister and the IBA— indeed, the whole communications industry—aware not merely of their responsibilities but also of the enormous opportunities now opened up before them—and that brings me to my last point.

As I said earlier, members of the Select Committee were deeply disappointed at the Minister's decision to refuse our urgent request for a wide-ranging inquiry and to extend the present francise of the IBA and BBC until 1981 for what many of us regard as unsound reasons.

Knowing the way of Ministers, we have no high hopes of persuading the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind and to adopt the unanimous decision of the Select Committee. However, there is still one way in which, at least in part, he could repair the damage done by his decision, and that concerns the fourth television channel which, in our view, it would be a travesty, in present circumstances, to hand over to ITV.

In its investigations, the Select Committee became more and more impressed with the need for careful research and experimentation in the field of television broadcasting. In particular, it felt that the rôle of local and regional television, and its potentialities, was inadequately understood by Governments and their agents and that much more work needed to be done, by way of carefully controlled experimentation, and so on, to explore these new and exciting possibilities.

A number of us feel that the immediate institution of such a wide-ranging series of well-financed experiments would go some way to expiate the highly regretted decision of the Minister to refuse the inquiry which we so strongly and unanimously recommended.

Like the Lord, the Select Committee desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he shall turn from his wickedness and live. I commend our report to the House.

4.24 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan (Howden)

I start by declaring my interest as a director of Granada Television and also as director of the radio company which has been offered the franchise for the Manchester area. I should also point out that the Granada group is interested in television rental.

Before I pass comments—and probably critical comments—on some of the recommendations of the Select Committee I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), the Chairman of the Committee, and to the Committee for their mammoth labours, and to the many expert witnesses who have given us all much to consider.

In paragraph 1 of the IBA's observations there appear the words: In its investigation, the Committee was more concerned with the machinery of Independent Television than with its output. That is precisely my impression. In the recommendations the accent is on organisation, control, research, formal procedures, programme planning, boards, and so on, rather than on the key question whether the citizen and his family in their homes are receiving satisfying programmes and what can be done in direct and practical ways to improve them. That, to my mind, should have been the starting point.

How do we fare as viewers? By world standards, the quality of television in this country is high. For this we can thank the BBC, which set those standards for radio and television many years ago and has maintained them. Since then the choice and quality of programmes offered to viewers has improved by steady stages. The advent of ITV provided such competition that for a while it had 75 per cent. of the audience. No-one today will deny that this competition enlivened programmes.

A few years later BBC 2 was launched. Mainly for technical reasons, it got off to a slow start, but I believe now that this addition to the other two channels completes what is probably the best and perhaps even the widest variety of choice available in any country, despite the number of actual channels available in America.

Anyone who has seen American television will concede, too, that we have been fortunate in the excellence of the actual picture on our screens. No one in England questions colour. The only question is whether one can afford colour, but even the cost of colour television has been made less painful by the existence of the television rental industry, which has made possible its phenomenally rapid expansion.

The British viewer is well provided in respect of programmes and the ability to receive them. When a journalist writes about a "crisis" in broadcasting, it may be his crisis. I do not believe that it is a crisis to most viewers. I, personally, see no crisis. I see our present situation as yet another opportunity to continue the improvement, in its widest sense, of our television programmes.

The fourth channel, if it is skilfully used, gives us exactly that opportunity and incidentally, I point out to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), a means of meeting some of the recommendations of the Committee.

Amidst all the controversy about the fourth channel, on one thing we must surely be agree—namely, that its output should be complementary to that of the three other channels. It must provide additional choice and fill obvious gaps.

Before I discuss how that may be achieved, I will deal with two essentials which have had too little attention in the various proposals so far canvassed— production facilities and finance.

Independent Television has a surplus of productive capacity. That is the price we pay for plurality. If we believe, as we do, that there is an advantage in programmes being initiated from a variety of sources and regions we have to accept that particular inefficiency. But this spare capacity means that a fourth channel can be operated more economically from the present ITV company premises than in any other way. Indeed, the prospect of setting up an entirely new operation, with new buildings, new equipment and newly recruited creative and technical staff, would be daunting in many ways other than finance. To be realistic, I believe that we must accept that the fourth channel, whatever form it takes, will operate through ITV production facilities.

Let us consider finance. Currently all broadcasting is going through what one might call a freak period in that money is temporarily not the problem. Colour television licences have boosted BBC income; but that will flatten out and the corporation already sees money trouble ahead. ITV is at the moment basking in a phase of buoyant advertising. Nevertheless, over the years money for the fourth channel will have to be found. I see no prospect or justification for a State subsidy, which, would have to run into many millions of pounds. The technical standards to which our viewers have become accustomed rule out the possi- bility of any form of "television on a shoestring".

The various ideas put forward for finance from voluntary funds, trusts and so on simply do not stand examination in terms of paying for a major national channel. The Opposition had similar hopes for BBC local radio which came to nothing.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Came to nothing?

Sir P. Bryan

Perhaps the hon. Member can explain what other alternative his party offers.

Mr. Golding

The hon. Member said that local radio has come to nothing. This would be a great surprise to many of my constituents who listen with great enthusiasm to Radio Stoke and to constituents of many other hon. Members. That it has come to nothing in other respects is only because the Government decided that there should be no expansion but that commercial radio should take it.

Sir P. Bryan

What I said had come to nothing were the ideas for financing local radio by voluntary funds. I believe that there have been isolated cases in which money has been raised voluntarily, but the proportion of the whole must be very low indeed, and it certainly has produced no hope of voluntary finance in the context in which I am speaking.

This leaves advertising as the only alternative for financing, and a very good alternative, too. I quite understand that hon. Members of the Opposition have a distaste for this method, basically because it suggests to them easy profits. If that is their main worry, a levy in some form or other will always be there to iron out the crests and the troughs. I hope that the levy now being considered by the Minister will take such a form that it will not in any way damage the programmes. Advertising in the form practised by IBA is efficient. Monitoring of advertisements before they appear is expertly done. I believe that the recommendations in this report which advocate discussion programmes about advertisements show a lack of knowledge of the severity with which advertisements are vetted. The ITV system for controlling advertising is a little known but highly effective instrument of consumer protection.

Add to these advantages the fact that on the whole experience shows that viewers do not object to advertisements, and advertising emerges as the most efficient, indeed the only available, method of financing the fourth channel.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

If advertising is an efficient method, why will the total revenue of the ITV companies this year be approximately the same as that of the BBC, out of which the BBC runs two television services and the whole of radio? Why is ITV running only one service at the moment? Where does the rest of the money go?

Sir P. Bryan

I have been talking not about administrative efficiency but about advertising as a method of financing. The point which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has raised is relevant to a different subject and which perhaps we can debate at some other time.

If willingly or unwillingly, as the case may be, we can accept the inevitability of the fourth channel being produced on ITV premises by ITV creative staff and financed by advertising, we can then get down to discussing what really matters— the programmes to be produced—and in so doing we may be able to meet quite a number of the Committee's recommendations regarding programme control, experiments, research, increased opportunities for regional companies and so on.

The IBA has already shown in its proposals for ITV 2 for a programme planning board and its reactions to the Committee's recommendations that it is not rigidly fixed in its ideas either on programme content or programme control. There is an infinite variety of organisational arrangements that can be made to accommodate, say, some of the ideas of the National Television Foundation as described by Anthony Smith in his Guardian article in April last year, or of the TV 4 campaign.

If the current clamour for more access to television persists, no doubt the IBA could find ways of arranging this, but, before the Minister gives in to such pressure I would remind him that the viewer comes first. Under any system someone has still to judge who should, in fact, be given the opportunity to go on the air and whether he is likely to have a message to justify his appearance.

I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that there exists a deprived class which has been denied access to broadcasting to the detriment of the viewer. We keep being referred to the Dutch model, where trades unions and other organisations have a right of access to the microphone and the camera; but no one has claimed that this has made for rewarding viewing. Our one experience of the right of access is the party political broadcast which is distinguished only by reaching the highest known turn-off rate. Have we any reason to believe that the trades unions, the CBI, or Jehovah's Witnesses will be any more successful in holding our interest?

The IBA is the logical host for the fourth channel, which should be produced by ITA companies and financed by advertising. The IBA, guided by the Minister, should decide the broad nature of the output and how this should be controlled. Before the Minister decides what he wants of the IBA, either in connection with the fourth channel or in general, I hope he will take careful note of the observations of the authority in Part II of the White Paper. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Feltham was so touchy about them, I consider that they are full of good sense and are admirably expressed. I hope that, in particular, he will respect the reluctance of the authority to go in the direction of its own programme making. It is not equipped to do so and to embark on such an undertaking would divert its effort from its primary duties. More harmful still would be the consequent blurring of responsibility.

As the White Paper says in paragraph 10—and I think the hon. Member for Feltham should have quoted rather more than the two or three words he read: one cannot both hold the ring and enter the ring. Even were this not so, the Authority would not wish to see the companies' own responsibility for innovation lessened: if it became expected of the Authority that it should rectify any shortcomings by commissioning special programmes, there would be a tendency for those responsible for programme ideas in the companies more and more to cede this responsibility to the Authority. The thinking behind the proposal that the ITA should take some of the responsibility for programme making from those naturally responsible is the same as that behind the oft-produced idea that some new council or other body should be the final judge of whether or not a programme is, or was, fit to be broadcast. Once such a body exists, those properly responsible at every level through the programme companies and up to the authority itself are bound mentally to shed a little of their responsibility.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

The hon. Gentleman will, of course, agree that, although that may be the right course of action for ITV 2, it involves the companies in financial loss. He will recognise that this is a course which is financially unprofitable to the companies.

Sir P. Bryan

If that is so, it would appear that the companies are commend-ably altruistic in being willing to take this.

As to quality, I would stress the authority's contention that the creation of a programme of distinction is not merely a matter of deciding to do so. Granada has produced a series of plays called "Country Matters", which Sir Hugh Carleton Greene has described as: … a series of outstanding merit and beauty, which would be remarkable not only in a poor year but in any year. When those programmes were conceived, this sort of success was obviously hoped for and aimed at, but it was certainty not assumed.

As the authority says in the White Paper: The Authority does of course accept that it is no more capable of ensuring an unbroken flow of fine programmes than universities are capable of seeing that all their pupils win first-class degrees. But it is its task to see that the opportunities are wide enough and the encouragement strong enough, that as many high quality programmes as possible are made, and that sub-standard work is firmly criticised. One good reason for wanting to make good quality programmes is that it is the best guarantee of attracting and keeping the best creative staff.

Then comes the question of how to get the best out of that creative staff. The Committee agreed with the authority that quality is best achieved in a situation in which the programme companies and those who work for them have the freedom to produce the best creative output, but then the Committee asserts that this freedom would be increased by being reduced—by the authority having greater control.

The relationship between the companies and the authority is delicate. It is certainly not correctly summarised by the sentence on page 161 of the report, It is inherent in the system that the company should be the producer of programmes while the Authority is responsible for maintaining standards and quality. On the question of programme balance, I consider that the Committee has under-appreciated the difference between running a single channel service and running a double channel service. Broadcasting, as it does, a single channel service, ITV has the same responsibilities to the public as the old BBC single channel service or sound radio, but it lacks the force of monopoly and is complementary to and competitive with the two BBC channels.

On a single channel service, there is a low limit to the size of one's audience, Below this threshold, it becomes actually wrong to broadcast material for the small minority groups at the expense of the broadcaster's duty to the whole of his audience. But once one has the use of a second channel the situation is transformed and the opportunities to experiment and to serve minority audiences present an entirely different and simpler problem.

Finally, may I say a word about the unique structure of ITV—a system comprising 15 regional production companies under the control of a central public authority. The ITV viewer in the regions receives his programme from no fewer and probably more, than seven different sources—the five network companies, the ITN, his own regional company and sometimes other regional companies as well. If that same viewer turns to BBC, he has the contrasting experience of two programmes, each coming from the same source.

The picture painted by ITV critics of five probably insensitive network programme controllers dictating in accordance with their own individual whims the entire output of ITV is simply untrue. These are five very different men from five very different companies, with no control over the vast news output of ITN or over regional production, guided by the requirements of the authority and of BBC competition. The authority is right to attach importance to this plural system, which is likely, by its very nature, to be more sensitive to the public needs, and has indeed already provoked the BBC into taking more notice of regional viewers.

Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the autonomy of the regions. Would he not agree that when Anglia Television was disinclined, and indeed refused, to show the Warhol film it was obliged by a diktat inspired by the major programme companies, with the support of the IBA, to do so?

Sir P. Bryan

I am afraid that I cannot comment on that; I simply do not know what correspondence went on between the parties concerned.

I agree with the Minister that this is not the time for a full-scale inquiry. It is the time for a number of worth while and practical programme improvements such as the fourth channel can bring. In 1981 the situation may be very different. There will be more channels available. We shall know more about cable, satellite relay, domestic relay systems and local radio. These factors may combine to necessitate an upheaval of our broadcasting arrangements. In the meanwhile, let us be satisfied with improving our programmes.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, at then add 'but deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to implement the main recommendations in the Report and, in particular, the Minister's cursory dismissal of the Report's proposals for a full-ranging inquiry to be set up at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976'. We put down this amendment because of the efforts expended by hon. Members on both sides on the preparation of the Select Committee Report. I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and those hon. Members from both sides who put in so much effort to produce this excellent document. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he presented it.

It is not often that we discuss the wider aspects of broadcasting, so when we do it seems valuable that we dis- cuss it on the basis of an informative report such as that before us, which has been carefully prepared. I shall be commenting on some details of the report, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) will deal with other points later.

Although I was tremendously impressed by this report—saving my hon. Friend's blushes, I think that it is one of the best Select Committee reports that I have seen for a long time—I cannot say the same of the reply to it presented by the Minister and the observations contained therein.

I had thought first to say that the document was an insult to the committee and an affront to the House. Unhappily, and unusually for a Member of Parliament, I ran out of adjectives. Words failed me and I had to look to the newspapers to find an apt description of my feelings. I turned, as is my wont, to the Economist, a paper with which we sometimes do not find great favour on this side of the House. Speaking of this problem, it said of the Minister and his White Paper: His White Paper must stand a good chance of taking the record for economy in sweeping aside the main proposals of a Select Committee, whose members must wonder why they wasted their time. Indeed one might ask, why did they waste their time? If Members of Parliament are to serve for many weeks on a Select Committee and to prepare volumes of this sort only to have their observations swept aside in this way, we can wonder whether they will choose to serve on Select Committees in the future.

The White Paper also seems to be an affront to us all in that it contained— or at least I think it contained—the total sum of the Government's thinking on broadcasting in the future. On this matter the Minister uses an economy of words that surprises me. He succeeds in dealing with it in 10 paragraphs—and not very long paragraphs at that. He completely ignores the central point which has been made by the Members of the Select Committee on the need for an inquiry.

No doubt if we in this House are thinking of broadcasting in general terms there will be 630 different views on the matter. Television, whether it is BBC or IBA, has something in common with Members of Parliament. We are only as good as our last speech and I suppose that television is only as good as its last programme to the individual viewer. We think of the programme companies and the BBC on the strength of the productions that are offered. While we all have strong views, what comes out loud and clear from those of my colleagues who spent so much time thinking about the problem is that they want a committee of inquiry. They put forward substantial reasons for it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham asked whether a future Labour Government would think it necessary to have an inquiry into the future of broadcasting. I can give him a categorical assurance that if we have the good fortune to win the next General Election there is no doubt in my mind that such an inquiry would take place. It would be a wide-ranging inquiry and not one which would deal simply with the technical aspects of broadcasting. To put it in a phrase, it would be a sort of "super-Pilkington" which would look at the whole sphere of broadcasting and all the dimensions of it which we would hope to have in the latter part of the 1970s and in the 1980s.

It is useful to note that although our colleagues who served on the Select Committee and my hon. Friends have said that they want a committee of inquiry, we are not alone in coming to that judgment. Many trade unions concerned with broadcasting have likewise asked for an inquiry. I understand that even senior members of the staff of the IBA and the BBC would like some inquiry.

Moreover, The Times, which is often produced in the House, as if it were an oracle, said that it, too, would like an inquiry. There is, therefore, a wide range of opinion in favour of such an inquiry.

Why, therefore, did the Minister decide to ignore the views of the Select Committee? This genuinely offends many of us who take an interest in broadcasting matters. The Minister had made up his mind long before he read the Select Committee Report that he would not have an inquiry. To that extent my hon. Friends and others have wasted their time because the Minister had already made up his mind.

The reason he turned the idea down was not that he had any strong views of his own on the subject. The reason arises from a sentence in the course of the speech made by the Prime Minister on broadcasting in 1969. In a fit of instant opposition he said that there would be no inquiry into the future of broadcasting. I was amused by the expression that he used at that stage, he said But there is little justification for once again pulling it all up by the roots in order to have another good look at it. I do not know what the Prime Minister's hobbies are. I am told that he sails. Ke obviously does not garden because he does not know that it is not necessary to pull a tree or a bush up by the roots in order to see how it is getting on. One looks at the fruits and flowers to see whether it is producing anything of value, and that is the way we should examine broadcasting today. We could look at the products of our broadcasting services and determine from them whether or not any change should take place. Perhaps the Minister will tell the right hon. Gentleman that if there is ever a hole in his boat he does not need to turn it upside down to see it because the water will pour in and it will sink just the same. It is not necessary to turn everything upside down to see what is happening.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

The point that the hon. Member made is contradicted by the Select Committee's Report. It took the unanimous view that there was a need for greater stability in the industry and it recognised that there was stability to a certain degree. It is possible to look at a tree without affecting its growth in any way but if an industry is put under the spotlight for perhaps a year or two this in some way causes uncertainty and to a certain extent affects its stability. That was recognised by the Select Committee.

Mr. Mackenzie

The hon. Member has anticipated my point. I shall come to the question of putting a spotlight on the industry in a few moments.

The Prime Minister said something else at that time about an inquiry and about the need, or the lack of need for it. He said: There is, however, a deeper point. There is no problem in broadcasting and television which cannot be settled amicably and sensibly with the corporation and the authority by any Government. This they can do on their own." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December 1972; Vol. 792, c. 1511.] That is something to which I think the Select Committee and many of us took exception. We feel very strongly that the public are from time to time entitled to express a view on the broadcasting organisations. Much of the concern about broadcasting springs in my view from the fact that the degree of public accountability referred to by the Select Committee is less in practice than it is in theory and that leads to frustration on the part of the consumer.

I know that it is difficult to achieve a balance between the rights of the viewer and the freedom of the producer or senior members of an organisation to put on programmes. However, the public are entitled once in a while to a say in the organisations which they properly regard as their own. It is not too often to have it every 10 or 12 years. The public are entitled to put their views to a committee and for the end product of that committee's deliberations to be the basis of a national debate.

That is something we have always wanted in this country—a debate on the whole structure of television in the future. That was the view of hon. Members who served on the Committee and it is a matter to which they gave a great deal of thought. We regret that the Minister paid so little attention to the problems of public accountability and participation. I always wanted an inquiry, even before publication of the Select Committee Report.

I want to know whether the structure financing of broadcasting is being done in the right way, whether sufficient resources are being made available to make good broadcasting, and whether we are using new techniques in broadcasting to the best advantage. Many hon. Members who concern themselves with these matters will know that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions and that I have strong views on all these topics. I hope that it will be understood that, while I want an inquiry to examine these aspects thoroughly and impartially, I do not want it only to confirm prejudices that I already have on these matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the structure of broadcasting but the financing of broadcasting is something that has greatly troubled many of us, and we have spoken at length about it in the last few years. Questions arise whether we are giving enough money to the BBC and, more important to many of us, whether we are doing it in the right way.

I do not think the BBC has enough money to do the job as thoroughly as I would wish it and I am not satisfied that financing through the licenced fee system is the right way to work. The independent sector of television talks about "rolling contracts" and I do not see why we cannot have the same kind of rolling commitment for the BBC. In other words, I should like the prospect of a direct grant from the Treasury at least examined by a Select Committee and yet preserving the independence of the authority by having some sort of built-in rolling commitment.

In any event the whole question of finance for public sector broadcasting has troubled hon. Members on both sides and is something that the Select Committee would want to look at. I do not say that simply because we want to get rid of some of the difficulties attached to the licence fee system, but it is worthy of a national committee's investigation.

Sir P. Bryan

Does the hon. Member consider that the BBC would welcome being financed by Government subsidy or grant?

Mr. Mackenzie

The whole point of my comment is that this issue should be the subject of an inquiry. Whether the BBC feels that this is the right way does not concern me now. I am advancing a view which I believe to be worthy of consideration. From time to time the BBC may not like what we do in the House of Commons but we should not be too sensitive about its feelings because it is capable of looking after itself.

Hon. Members on the Committee also looked at the new technologies that are available to broadcasting and they put forward a number of important considerations. That section of the report was particularly helpful to those of us who are laymen and are not used to all the technicalities of broadcasting. The Minister also looked at the technicalities of broadcasting, and that seems to have been his whole reason for turning down the Select Committee Report and the suggestion that there was a need for a national inquiry.

I do not wish to sound churlish and ungracious to the public-spirited people who gave up their time and effort to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee, but for a variety of reasons, not least of them that the terms of reference of the committee were not as wide as I would have liked, the Technical Advisory Committee's Report of 1972 seemed to me a very great non-event. It was received as such not only in the House of Commons but in all the newspapers concerned with broadcasting, by the technical Press and by everyone else. In a purely personal sense I found it a disappointing document and I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to base his policy—or what there is of it—simply on this document.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham, in raising the question of the technicalities of broadcasting, mentioned cable television. That is something which worries many of us. It is a great new field and to say, as some do, that it is no part of our business to be thinking about it at this stage seems to me arrant nonsense. I welcomed the Greenwich experiment as an experiment in local television broadcasting, no more and no less, because I wanted to see how that would work. I do not want to see a mass of small stations grow up in that way. It would not be helpful, I want instead to see a nationally co-ordinated programme. So did the Select Committee, which grasped the tremendous potential of such a development.

Mr. Gorst

Would the hon. Member agree that to base the argument for delay on the Technical Advisory Committee's Report is rather like having delayed printing on the grounds that we needed a printing advisory committee's report? We might be relying on smoke signals today had that been the case.

Mr. Mackenzie

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has expressed himself well, and I hope that from the Conservative benches he will be able to persuade the Minister about some of these matters.

Bearing in mind the experiments that have been taking place in America and elsewhere, we should like to know who will produce the programmes, who will relay them and how they are to be financed. That is an area in which the Committee should have been concerning itself in a general way.

I believe that the Post Office has a major rôle to play in this area. We have been encouraged by the experiments at Milton Keynes and Irvine, and see the concept of the wired city as an exciting prospect.

I hope that the Minister will not close his mind completely to the concept of the wired city and the Post Office rôle in it. There are all sorts of exciting prospects in telecommunications, and he should study such prospects seriously. The Minister has a bounden duty to look at it. We all know that it is not something that is far, far away. It is with us now and there is tremendous interest in such developments. Through his contacts at international level, I hope that the Minister will produce something of value to the House, something we can discuss as aspects of the Technical Advisory Committee's Report. It is certainly worthy of further consideration. I am exceedingly disappointed that cable and satellite systems have just been pushed aside as though they belonged to the late 1980s and 1990s, and were not working effectively now.

The Minister's first reason for turning down an inquiry was what he said was the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation. His next reason was that he did not wish to divert the attention of those engaged in broadcasting. It was put another way by the former Director-General of the BBC, who said that an inquiry was a very disturbing experience. I think that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) also thought that to have an inquiry was a very disturbing experience. From time to time I have a disturbing experience. I have to go before the electors in Rutherglen and explain what I have been doing during the previous Parliament and what I propose to do in the future. It is no bad thing in the processes of democracy to give an account of their stewardship, and to tell the electors what they want to do in the future.

If bodies have the massive control that is exercised by the BBC and IBA, which have tremendous power in their hands, I see no reason why they should not from time to time have the little disturbing experience of explaining their policies and telling people what they propose to do in the future.

The Prime Minister did not like the idea either. He said that to make people of creative talent write memos was far from thinking about. I like to listen to what the professional broadcasters have to say, but whether they are disturbed or unsettled does not occupy my every waking moment. If the Minister is concerned about disturbing the broadcasters, I can tell him that the strongest persuaders—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the creative people in broadcasting are the people who want the inquiry. They are not the people who will have to write the memos. It is the memo-writers, of which there are hundreds in the BBC, who are resisting an inquiry. They are precisely the people who should be made to write the memos.

Mr. Mackenzie

My hon. Friend anticipates my comment by just one sentence I was in the act of saying that those who had been strongest in trying to persuade me on my entry into discussions on broadcasting a couple of years ago that there should be a general inquiry were the people working in broadcasting, and I am indebted to them for expressing that point of view to me.

On all these matters the Minister refers to the advisory committee and says that we do not need an inquiry. He said that we do not want to disturb the broadcasters, that it would have a traumatic effect which would be far too much for them. "Therefore", he says, "I will just extend the charter and the Act of Parliament. For good measure, I have another reason. I have just appointed a new Chairman of the BBC, and you cannot have an inquiry into broadcasting for that reason." I do not understand that, and I am sure that many of my colleagues share that lack of understanding. I have heard and read many daft things in White Papers over the period of years that I have been in Parliament, but I have never heard a dafter explanation.

We all wait with bated breath to hear the Minister tell us why it should be necessary to extend the BBC's Charter without an inquiry, and to extend the Act of Parliament allowing commercial television to act as it does, simply because he has decided to appoint a new Chairman of the BBC. It took the Minister a long time to appoint the Chairman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must have looked around the country and found someone whom he thought to be particularly able. We should hope that as a result the new Chairman would have caught on to broadcasting a little faster than the Minister gives him credit for. We are curious about that part of the Minister's White Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to satisfy our curiosity.

Having dealt with those points in his White Paper, the Minister tells us that the piecemeal approach to broadcasting is to be further developed, that we are to have two separate considerations, one on the fourth channel and the other on the provision of broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England. We all want to know what terms of reference the right hon. Gentleman has for the committee to look into the matter. Two points are constantly put to me. A number of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members say, "Before we hear any talk about a fourth channel, before we decide whether it is to be for education, the Welsh language, an access channel or whatever, we must consider those who would like to have just one channel with a good picture on it."

I hope that I shall be forgiven if I put on my Scottish hat to tell the House that people in parts of Scotland, rather than worrying about the fourth channel, are worried about receiving a good picture on just one channel. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), representing all shades of opinion in the House, have been pressing the BBC and the IBA on the whole question of reception. It is very galling for people in certain parts of the country, and not just rural districts, to hear all the discussions about a fourth channel when they cannot get a good picture on one.

Will the Minister examine the competition in local radio? I understood his hon. Friend the Member for Howden to say that the purpose of commercial local radio was to have competition. We are to have a commercial radio station in the Glasgow area, but it will have no competition, because there is no BBC local radio operating in the area. The BBC operates a regional service. If competition is to be as general as the Minister has always suggested, what steps will be taken to provide a BBC local radio station to which we could turn if we did not like Radio Clyde?

Regional broadcasting in Scotland does not always appeal to me, and I suspect that people in other parts of the country feel the same about their regional broadcasting. Those of us who live in the industrial central belt of Scotland have no great desire to listen at peak times to the Gaelic news and farming news. There should be competition, and we shall all be interested to hear how the Minister will implement his election pledges.

I know that the points I have made about reception in Scotland and the kind of programme we have can also be made by my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Welsh constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who has special responsibilities for Welsh affairs, constantly press upon me the need for better reception in many parts of Wales and an examination of the whole structure of broadcasting in that country.

Rather than being dealt with piecemeal in an independent committee set up by the Minister, all of these points should have been dealt with by the general inquiry envisaged in our amendment.

I have always believed that broadcasting in the future, and in the near future, offers an exciting prospect, and that those who are responsible for it should be a bit more adventurous than some of them have been in the past, and willing to make changes where they think them necessary. It should be the constant aim of all those involved in broadcasting to increase its value in entertainment, education and general communication.

They should also remember that criticism is meant to be helpful, especially from those of us who believe that broadcasting in this country is good. Many of us believe that it is much better than in most other countries.

The Minister has a very special care. He is the sponsoring Minister. He must be willing to listen to the critics and to appreciate that the people of this country believe that the BBC and the IBA are theirs, that they have a stake in them and want to play a part in shaping their future.

More in sorrow than in anger I have to say that the Minister will be remembered as the man who simply would not listen and did not want to do anything because he had no policy. This pathetic little document he has presented to us is no substitute for a policy. That is why we have tabled our amendment and that is why I call upon my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby tonight.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

It is a privilege for me, coming from the West Country, to find that my contribution is to be networked at a peak hour. That phrase will have some significance to those who know the television industry, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who has in interest in Granada, one of the great companies.

The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has proved one thing above all else and that is the limitations of the Select Committee procedure as a vehicle for discussion and debate. We are grateful to the Select Committee for the amount of evidence it amassed. It might well have produced several more books. It is probably for that reason that my right hon. Friend has taken the line he has taken in the White Paper.

The hon. Member for Feltham will not mind my saying, because I know him quite well, that he is kind and gentle in private life and no doubt at home but in politics he is a most rugged and robust performer—a thorough-going Socialist if ever there were one.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Thank you.

Mr. Cooke

So are his other hon. Friends who sat on this Select Committee. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. We all represent some pretty strongly held views and I will come to mine in a moment.

Mr. Russell Kerr

What about your chums on the committee?

Mr. Cooke

The hon. Member refers to my hon. Friends on the committee. No doubt they will answer for themselves. The report of the Select Committee has enabled my right hon. Friend to make his observations. They have been pretty viciously attacked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). If we examine my right hon. Friend's proposals with a bit more care and see what is possible within the scope of what he has said in the White Paper I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the situation is not perhaps as bad as he thought.

This report and the debate is much concerned with the image of ITV. This image depends upon the activities of the programme companies. There has certainly been an atmosphere of tycoonery and show business. One noble Lord said that having a contract was the same as having a licence to print money. No doubt for some people this was a fact at the outset. But some of the early risk-takers made heavy losses and there have been up and downs of a fairly violent nature.

The levy has been a source of difficulty and there are other matters which my hon. Friends and Labour hon. Members will no doubt wish to raise. The IBA, about which this report is largely written, has a less definite public image. I believe it would be fair to say that it did not present quite as good a case as it might have done. That was probably due to the limitations of our procedure. Some of the rather long-winded memoranda, of which the hon. Member for Rutherglen made fun, would not perhaps have been produced if there had been different vehicles for discussion between the interested parties.

That is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said in outline—and I hope that he will amplify it—about there being a continuing discussion. It is not perhaps quite what Opposition hon. Members might have wanted, but when they have heard a few of the things I have to say they may not be quite so un- happy. The authority is far more powerful and exerts a firmer influence over the programme companies than many hon. Members imagine. It has the power of life or death over the companies. Their future depends upon their present performance.

The authority has had its failures and it is natural that attention should be focussed on them, particularly following a bad patch which the BBC went through towards the end of Lord Hill's term of office. Lord Hill had his successes at the IBA and at the BBC. Towards the end of his term at the BBC it came under some heavy fire. It is not entirely surprising that the authority in its turn should have come under heavy fire.

Each of the programme companies which created the image of ITV has a particular character. The characterless ones have disappeared or merged. This is a continuing process. There are those companies with the character, for example, of Sir Lew Grade, on the one hand, and Lord Bernstein, on the other hand. There are other well-known people, too. It is not just the big companies that have a character of their own.

Here comes the natural break for the "commercial" if the House wants to look at it in that way. I must declare my interest in that I have for the last two years or so been a non-executive director of Westward Television where I have seen at first hand how a regional company attempts to deal with the representation of immensely varied regional interests. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may find this amusing.

Mr. Golding

What I find amusing is seeing one Conservative Member after another having to get up and declare an interest and obviously speak in support of their own financial interests.

Mr. Cooke

If the hon. Member reads HANSARD and the Select Committee Report he will see that the financial interests of hon. Members are very slight indeed and that their public service interests are paramount. Practically every Labour Member who will take part in this debate will have to declare an interest of one kind or another. Nearly everyone who will speak is interested in one aspect of the industry or another. Some even have financial interests.

Mr. Mackenzie

The hon. Member cannot get away with that. He is making quite serious assertions that affect a great many of us in a personal sense. I, for one, resent that very deeply. It is offensive.

Mr. Cooke

If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed a little further he will find that I was not making an offensive remark. There are hon. Members who will take part in this debate who represent significant interests. I said that some have financial interests because they are sponsored by various organisations who want to have their point of view put over. This is no bad thing, because how can the House of Commons come to a conclusion on these important matters if we do not have people who have had experience of them?

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

It would so much enliven the debate if those who declare an interest were aware that this does not debar them from putting forward ideas that may be to their financial disadvantage or supporting ideas which may be to their advantage.

Mr. Cooke

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point of view, although he has prolonged the debate and lengthened my speech. I shall come to certain aspects which are to the disadvantage of those with whom I am associated in the West Country, who are positively opposed to some of the things I want done. Hon. Gentlemen should not be so sensitive about this. To have such an interest enables me to know something about what I am interested in.

In passing, I mention Anglia Television, which has a particular regional character and is most notable for it, and there are others. The regional companies could make a much greater contribution if they had opportunities equal to those enjoyed by the BBC. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear that I advocate that the fourth channel should be firmly allocated to ITV, but with adequate safeguards which the IBA should well be able to exercise.

There is no doubt that with more scope there could be a far greater exchange of creative talent and a far greater dissemination of the good programmes that are being shown in particular regions. It is no good if, after years of battle with the IBA and long interviews with Lord Hill the regional companies—in some of whom the hon. Member for Rutherglen is interested in a purely altruistic and not financial way—find that the networking of the regional programme concerned is at 10.30 in the evening. That is not good enough. The second channel would give far greater scope to the regions.

If my right hon. Friend has his way and extends the Act the IBA will have great freedom to innovate within the present structure of companies possibly, and within different structures if it so wishes. There will not be the constraint of fixed periods of contract. It will be possible to indulge in rolling contracts, so that options are kept open. There is no doubt that collaboration or perhaps mergers or overlap in the outlying regions could be of great advantage to all those taking part.

Following the provocation from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to put forward suggestions that are positively to my disadvantage, I say that those with whom I have been working in the far South-West have considerable misgivings about the effect of an ITV2. They wonder how they would find their place in it and whether they would be swallowed up. But they are prepared to have a go and to face the challenge. That I think would be the attitude of the other smaller regional companies.

The justification for the authorisation of ITV2 is to give a far greater opportunity for regionalism, and both sides of the House are together on that. They may not agree how it should be done but they want to see much greater debate going on in the regions and real people appearing on the television screens, instead of the professionals, semi-professionals and old hacks who can be guaranteed to turn out on any occasion. Phoney discussions with audience participation, where one person out of the 30 or 40 people present is allowed to jump up occasionally and is severely squashed if he says the wrong thing, are no good. We are moving away from it, and we shall get a great deal further away from it if we have another channel on the independent side of the industry.

We shall be able to see on that channel real people who lead or aspire to lead all aspects of life in the regions. The democratic processes will be refreshed, and here the Opposition should applaud. We shall be able to see how good or how awful are those who are involved in local government. ITV2 would enhance the individual regional flavour and offer a wider choice. Minority interests and educational programmes would have far greater scope.

It is not surprising that echoes of the BBC have been heard throughout the debate. The BBC has not been idle in preparation for today and for the sequels to today. The BBC image is fairly widely discussed. With the advent of ITV, "Aunty" BBC in her anxiety to get "with it", cut some strange capers—some might say they were ridiculous. Yet the leaders of the BBC are eminently reasonable men of absolute integrity. Sometimes one gets a little of the flavour of those imaginery Whitehall mandarins, but the BBC is a somewhat bureaucratic institution.

I am sure that we all welcome the appointment of the new chairman, although he is allegedly being used as an excuse for certain things. Those of us who have met him have found that he is a man of outstanding character and good common sense, and we expect much of him. Nevertheless, in the view of many on both sides of the House the corporation is unmanageable, and there is criticism that as a result of what my right hon. Friend is proposing the restructuring of the BBC will be further delayed —the division of the corporation perhaps into two or three. Eventually these changes will come. I am not sure that this is such a missed opportunity as some would suggest, but I do not think that a Royal Commission is the answer.

Letting the charter run on has certain parliamentary disadvantages unless my right hon. Friend gives certain assurances. Perhaps he will think about this although he may not be able to answer today. The extension of the charter means, in parliamentary terms, that we shall have to say "Yes" or "No" to an extension. There will not be a detailed document to discuss and there will be no possibility of amendment. Any legislation for the IBA, however tightly drafted which is brought forward, will involve a fairly wide-ranging discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not present to the House a fait accompli, but that the House will know in advance what sort of BBC we are extending into 1981 and beyond. I hope that he will be able to say that the BBC and the IBA during the extension period will be co-operative in looking forward to a world in which we shall have at least six national television channels and the advantages of cable television.

On BBC finance, if the Opposition had their way we should have constant debate on the activities of the BBC. If there were a Treasury grant there would be at least an annual debate and many opportunities in the House to discuss the BBC, even its programme content. That might be a good thing in the eyes of some hon. Members but I hope they realise what the consequences would be. If present trends of rising costs continue there will be a demand from the BBC for a £25 television licence before the end of the period we are talking about. I suppose that this will be unacceptable to the public, so perhaps the need for economy would marvellously concentrate the mind. This may have some influence on the future development of the BBC.

But perhaps we do not need a licence fee. I do not favour what the hon. Member for Rutherglen suggested. The BBC have already flirted with sponsorship of one kind or another in programmes produced in conjunction with various commercial interests. I am not in a position to reveal what the financial arrangements were, but this was clean sponsorship and perhaps that would be a fruitful source of revenue.

I hope that we can look at the whole industry in perspective. We might ask ourselves why there is this endless debate about what to do in the case of television. After all, we do not debate the Press ad nauseam though we may discuss it amongst ourselves. Centuries ago we excluded journalists from Parliament. We have always been rather touchy about what they say about us. We have no television here. The best that could be done is a sort of rabbit hole owned by the BBC over in the Westminster Abbey garden where a Member of Parliament can be interviewed, as it were, down the line without being able to see who is talking to him. Perhaps as a beginning we might provide a studio somewhere near here for all the channels where Members could take part in the realities of television even though they do not want cameras in the Chamber.

We do not debate the Press because we have a pretty fair balance and a wide clash of views. No journalist or any other would be contributor is denied a voice by way of the printed word.

Why is television so different? It is because of the near monopoly—a monopoly broken only after a great struggle. It is also because of the believed or alleged power of this comparatively new means of communication which certainly is all-pervasive. A lot of hon. Members believe that tighter control is the answer over this new means of communication. I take the opposite view. I believe that we must set it free at the earliest possible moment and that the first constructive step which could be made is to authorise another channel for the other side of the industry from the BBC.

I say a last word about bias. I suppose that most journalists, Press and television, are anti-establishment. They are creative people and they want to put across new ideas. Television is certainly biased. It is biased against boredom. Politicians who are bad at presenting their case and boring performers must expect to be ignored. Then there is a bias of omission, where the other point of view or another subject is not ventilated on television. How much better will be the chance to correct it if we have yet another channel. If it is said, "There ought to be a programme about this", there can be, if we have another channel.

Then there is endless discussion about complaints commissions or a broadcasting council. The BBC recently set up a new body. I have heard it described as "an elegant sham". The people who sit on it are men of absolute integrity who are well able to tackle any problem put before them. But their terms of reference are most restrictive. Where can they publish their findings? They have the right to have them broadcast. But where do they find the light of day? In the columns of the Listener. That is a useful magazine, but it is not very widely read by the great British public.

If we are to have a broadcasting council it will have to be more effective than anything that we have at the moment. However, I believe that the answer lies in the other direction. We need to remove the fear of television by cutting its influence down to size. The more channels that we have, the better.

All this will be possible within the White Paper, and the debate will continue throughout this year and beyond. But how is my right hon. Friend to proceed? He has to march forward. He cannot go back. He has to take some action. He has to march along a path which is flanked by a veritable Yeoman of the Guard of axe-grinders. Private enterprise is grinding its axe for a wider choice, to dilute the influence of the present programmes, to provide greater opportunity, especially in the regions, and to get a fair and balanced view by a wider clash of opinions. I believe that it is a good case.

The institutionalists—and I do not need to say who they are—want the whole scene clogged up by a Royal Commission. Then there are the protectionists, the newspapers. Practically everything said in the Press about television is suspect. It depends whether the newspaper concerned has a big shareholding in television. Lastly, there are those who do not like television at all, and they will go to any lengths to prevent more of it.

At the end of the year I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be afraid to make some decisions. He has had ample advice. He will have had a number of inquiries. A Royal Commission would have delayed progress for years.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen referred to the "pulling up" argument. I recall an occasion not very long ago when my two children came to me carrying a promising plant from the garden which they had pulled up by the roots. When I asked them why, they said that they wanted to see whether it was growing properly—

Mr. Russell Kerr

That is the act of children.

Mr. Gelding

Vandals.

Mr. Cooke

I hear references to children and to vandals from the Opposition. They are the people who want to do just this. However, they dress it up.

I am not ashamed to end by saying that I am thoroughly biased. I am biased in favour of freedom and of the widest possible choice. In the Middle Ages the established Church was against the printing press. Are we in 1973 to deny the people another channel of communication?