INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL

HC Deb 04 July 1974 vol 876 cc631-92

Order for Second Reading read.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)

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

During an excellent lunch which you, Mr. Speaker, provided for us today, you enjoined upon me that I had to be brief in the introduction of the Bill. I can respond heartily to the edict of the Chair, but I fancy that, though the Bill itself is probably uncontroversial and can be explained within a few sentences, some hon. Members may wish to adumbrate some thoughts on the general question of broadcasting, which may lead to some debate.

It might be more helpful to the House if I opened the debate very shortly by indicating the general nature of the Bill, listened to what the House has to say, and then, with the leave of the House, replied at the end of the debate to the points made. I propose, therefore, to take that course.

I can open the debate very shortly indeed. The House knows that on 10th April the Home Secretary announced that he was setting up a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Annan to inquire into the whole future of broadcasting. It is expected that that committee will take at least two and a half years to report and that there will, therefore, have to be some time thereafter for consultation upon its recommendations and for any appropriate legislation that may be necessary.

It follows that it would not be possible to complete that whole examination before the present time limit for the Independent Broadcasting Authority runs out in 1976. The only purpose of the Bill is to continue the functions of the IBA until 1979. That will give us five years, which we recognise as being well within any foreseeable time limit.

A similar extension will be arranged for the British Broadcasting Corporation under the provisions of its charter. In addition, its licence and agreement will be extended. There again, as is customary, the proposals will be debated in the House.

I need say no more at this stage except this. Inevitably, one of the questions in the minds of hon. Members will be whether this means that for five years the whole future of broadcasting is frozen, that no decisions will be made until Lord Annan reports, and that at every Question Time I shall rise to say "Wait for Annan". All that I can say is that we have obviously given to Annan a very wide-ranging brief to consider the whole future of broadcasting in all its many aspects, and it would be nonsense not to consider all the committee's recommendations before we act in any particular sphere. But the Crawford Committee, for instance, is reporting some time this summer and its recommendations are pertinent to some of the urgent problems, particularly in relation to coverage in Wales. If it is possible, on the recommendation of Crawford, for instance, to take decisions which in no way prejudice the overall consideration of broadcasting by Annan, we would want to do so. So this will not freeze broadcasting for five years.

There is an obvious inhibition against taking decisions which may be against the general tenor of the recommendations that may come from Annan, and we would not want to do that. But in relation to specific proposals on which we could act, we should be willing to act.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

The Annan Committee does not exactly seem to have got off to a flying start. Can the hon. Gentleman give guidance as to when the membership of the Annan Committee is to be announced? We have been waiting for some time for such an announcement.

Mr. Lyon

I agree that the composition of the Committee has caused some difficulties and has been attended by a longer delay than I would have wished. I cannot go into the nature of those difficulties, but there have been some consultations, not least with the Opposition, about the nature of the composition. We hope that it will be possible to make an early announcement about the composition of the committee.

4.50 p.m.

Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

The Minister has carefully and concisely described the nature and contents of the Bill. He rightly surmised that this opportunity might lead us into a debate of slightly wider dimensions than his opening remarks perhaps anticipated. Although we shall inevitably be discussing the work of the IBA, the independent television companies and the independent local radio stations, it would be impossible to do so in isolation. We cannot separate this sector of broadcasting activity from the rest of broadcasting, or even from the other forms of the communications media. Inevitably, therefore, there will be some spill-over during the debate into the wider scene, and the House will agree that it will be much to the assistance of hon. Members if, as he intimated he would, the Minister replies to as many of the points as possible at the conclusion of the debate.

However, since the Bill is primarily about the IBA we should first acknowledge that we are not talking about an empty set of initials. In discussing the authority we are discussing the work of individuals. They work as a most effective team, and much of the credit for this goes to the Director-General and the Chairman. Lord Aylestone is due to retire at the end of this calendar year after having been chairman of the authority for, I think, seven years. He has given great service not just to the authority but to broadcasting as a whole.

Those hon. Members who witnessed his work in the House will readily acknowledge the wide experience and calm judgment he has brought to the IBA. His certainly has been a counsel of wisdom and understanding. Over recent years the volume of work at the authority has increased considerably. This has added to the burdens of the Director-General and his officials and has meant a much heavier work load for the authority members, and we should recognise that fact. Especially has this been so in the development of independent local radio.

I shall not go into detail on the nature of the work in which the authority members have been involved, but I underline that their job is far from being just a sinecure. It involves them in a great deal of detailed and responsible work. I am sure that we are all grateful for the way in which they fulfil their duties.

Independent local radio is still in the process of getting under way. Altogether I think that 27 stations have been appointed, and five of these are now on the air. That which has probably received most attention from hon. Members, from those who follow these matters, and particularly in the journals and professional papers associated with the medium, has been the London Broadcasting Company. LBC had a great many difficulties when it started. I think that it is now getting over them. Certainly, the signs are very much more encouraging and it is fair to say that it has now found the right format. I hope that it will get encouragement to proceed. It has started out at a time of extreme economic difficulties any way, but I do not ignore that some of its problems were of its own creation. Perhaps they can be put down most charitably to over-enthusiasm in the early stages of the venture.

At any rate the local stations deserve every possible encouragement. Of the 27 stations which have already been appointed, equipment is now being ordered and firm commitments entered into for 19. By tonight I think, with the announcement about another two—Teesside and Nottingham—13 of these will actually have been designated. Six are not yet on the air—Edinburgh, Sheffield, Liverpool, Tyneside, Plymouth and Swansea—but are shortly to go forward. I hope that the Minister will take this chance to reveal a little of the Government's thinking and attitude towards local radio. There is some uncertainty about the Government's general intentions towards these stations, particularly those which have to be allocated for the six towns and cities I have just mentioned. Others are to be operated soon at Wolverhampton, Ipswich, Reading, Bradford, Portsmouth and, most important, Belfast.

These stations must go forward and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to make clear that it is the Government's firm intention that they should do so. I hope that the Government will keep to the overall programme which was set out for the evolutionary development of independent local radio because I have no doubt that as these stations gain experience they will increasingly contribute something of great value to the communities in which they are located. That is certainly true of the BBC's local radio stations. In my opinion they are immensely successful. Of course, they have the vast advantage of the back-up of the rest of the superstructure and expertise of the BBC. That is a point to their credit and to their advantage. Nevertheless, it is right to have an element of choice and competition in radio as much as we now have it in television. This should apply not just at national level but at local city, town and community level. I hope that we shall therefore have from the Minister later a declaration of the Government's philosophy and approach to this important subject.

Also of service to the community can be, and to some extent already are, the television programmes originated under licence and transmitted by means of cable. Five experimental stations are now operating. The licence for them was very restrictive, and deliberately so. These experiments were designed to achieve only a limited objective. However, I think it is time to move to the next stage.

It would be sensible to encourage a further step in the process of experimentation in community cable television. There is undoubtedly, within the context of experiments, wider scope for programme transmission and programme origination which could now usefully be brought forward. While retaining the dominant local identity which is, at this stage, the primary purpose of the experiments, there is the possibility that other elements might be introduced into programme planning which would bring a wide interest to those of the viewing public connected to that system.

I particularly consider that encouragement should be given to experiments in various forms of funding and financing for cable television. I do not know whether all hon. Members recognise that the companies now engaged in these experiments are doing so at their own expense. They are not allowed by the terms of the licence to sell advertising space or to get any other revenue. It would be as well now to start experimenting with different forms of financing. The companies would not in any case be able to continue with the experiments for much longer, and enough is becoming known to the Government and the Minister and his advisers to justify the experiments being taken a step further and being given wider encouragement.

One method of achieving this might be to establish some form of overlord, or overseeing body—not a great, pompous superstructure, but something reasonably small and independent which would report to the Minister. I say this because I have some recollection of the difficulty of trying to run these experiments from the Department, which is an unsatisfactory arrangement. I did my best to operate it, but it is not a situation which is tenable for long.

I strongly recommend that an early opportunity be taken to go a step further and perhaps establish an independent, authoritative body. The work done so far in these experiments, though on a limited scale, has attracted substantial and widespread international interest, but it has also placed a burden on the companies themselves. The Central Office of Information is keen to encourage visitors to take up executives' time and the companies are only too proud to show off what they have got, but they are operating on tight budgets, on limited resources, and now is the time to take a further step forward.

On the practical side, the Minister, in consultation with his colleagues, could encourage standardisation of the cable communication systems, but not with a view to bringing about, for example, a Post Office monopoly in transmission of this means of communication, which would be unnecessary. In standardisation a multiplicity of different kinds and types of systems could be fitted into an overall national—or, depending upon events, wider than national—scheme, bearing in mind the different forms of information which could be conveyed by cable to the home of the individual citizen.

Cable as a means of communication is advancing in other countries, not just for the purposes of the telephone but for a whole variety of other factors, and the time is ripe in this country for positive encouragement of development. This is a subject which the Annan Committee will be considering, and if my suggestion for widening the basis of the experiments is adopted by the Government, the Committee will have the benefit of seeing something of the practical evidence.

The Annan Committee will also be taking account of various views expressed about the fourth channel, and no doubt about other channels which will become available when re-engineering of the VHF system has been completed. When I was a Minister I called for submission of proposals on the application of the fourth channel. Many proposals were received. They were immensely valuable, and by far the majority of them had been carefully thought through and were wide ranging in their variety. Together they indicated a substantial degree of informed public participation. and an involvement of experts in this very important matter.

I cannot now enumerate the entire list of proposals, but the Minister will know that it is substantial. Among them was Anthony Smith's interesting proposal for a national television foundation, and there was an imaginative proposal by John Birt and David Elstein for a centrally scheduled national channel complementary to ITV 1. There was also a number of important proposals in connection with the application of a channel for educational purposes. That last suggestion would give rise, more than most of the others, to difficulties in relation to financing and so it would be difficult to proceed along any esoteric line of that sort. The same problem, financing, would make it unlikely that it would be sensible to proceed with a solution involving the BBC.

In my opinion we should seek to make the best use of the expertise and resources available to us through the independent television companies and the IBA. I hope that the Minister will indicate what may be the Government's approach to this matter. He said, generously, that he would not shrug off proposals put to him on the ground that they must be a matter for consideration by Annan. It would be helpful if the Minister would disclose some of his thinking, and that of his colleagues, regarding the possible applications of the fourth channel.

Consideration of this matter gives rise to a question which I was asked frequently and which no doubt Annan will be asking—what do the people want? Do viewers want more television? In trying to answer that one is brought up against the difficulty of identifying viewers' opinion. Who are the viewers? How can we possibly find the typical viewer? How can we interpret the collective opinions of viewers? One possible way of doing that and of being more sensitive to viewers' opinions is to have an improved system of communication between broadcasters and viewers.

Both broadcasting organisations, the BBC and the IBA, have their general advisory councils and a system carried through into the regions for receiving public comment or viewers' reactions to programmes. This is an important beginning, but I see it only as a beginning. It should be encouraged to develop much further. This is something which clearly need not wait on Annan. In fact, the further developed it is by the time the Annan committee of inquiry gets under way with its contemplation of these important matters, of greater benefit will this he to that committee.

Therefore, will the Minister give encouragement to the BBC and the IBA to press on with the improvements they have begun in identifying their general advisory councils as separate bodies for the benefit of viewers, in giving publicity to their existence, and in ensuring that the views of the GACs receive independent public consideration, and are not always kept solely in house? I believe that the BBC has already started to do this. I have seen one or two interesting reports, particularly about the effect on children of the portrayal of violence on the screen.

That leads me on to express an anxiety that I believe has become apparent to every right hon. and hon. Member, the anxiety felt by many people about the possible effect of some programmes which are prominently and frequently featured on television. There is growing worry at the possible effects on impressionable minds of violence portrayed on the screen. There is clearly an urgent need for research. We know little about the subject, yet it is one of immense importance and is difficult to pin down with any degree of precision or accuracy. One is invariably forced back upon individual hunch and judgment.

In a report presented recently to the Social Morality Council, and published in a helpful booklet called "The Future of Broadcasting", the desirability of research was discussed on page 20, as follows: Given the importance to society of knowing how it is affected by television, it is regrettable that social science research into the influence of mass communicators, of the kind currently being conducted in university centres of investigation at Leeds, Leicester and London, is still the Cinderella of the communications industry, and one of our firmest conclusions is that such research should be given a high priority both by Government and by the broadcasting institutions themselves. I am aware of the difficulties of proceeding along those lines, and I know what has already been attempted. But there is certainly a case for doing more, perhaps for identifying a narrower sector and proceeding with a well-constructed piece of research as a matter of urgency.

In answer to an intervention, the Minister was not yet able to disclose the full membership of the Annan Committee. I believe that so far we have only the name of the chairman and the terms of reference. We must move ahead with the committee. I say that not because I have any special or peculiar interest in its composition—I know how difficult it is to get people to come together to work on something of that kind—but because I know how much time is likely to be involved when the committee gets down to its job. I believe that at least two and a half years is expected to go by from the time it starts its work until its report is available to the Government. If we allow another year before the Government of the day come to their conclusions on the basis of what will undoubtedly be a considerable piece of work, we see that it will be three and a half years before we know what is likely to happen in the next stages of the structure of broadcasting in this county.

I am encouraged that this is not to be a period of sterility, of non-activity, and that decisions will still be taken by the Government, though perhaps not affecting the overall structure of broadcasting. I hope that they will not hesitate to take those decisions. As I made clear when I made my statement to the House, I saw the justification for maintaining the existing structure for a period longer even than that proposed by the present Government. But I was careful to avoid locking myself in for that period and avoiding making any decisions on the further development of broadcasting and making available to the people of this country some of the new technical achievements as they come forward.

Most important—the Minister touched on this, and perhaps he will elaborate on it when he replies—is the effect on such matters as Wales and the Government's reaction to Crawford. The Minister says that Crawford will report by this summer. We are in the summer. Has Crawford reported? Does the Minister have a copy of Crawford now? If so, will he soon make it public? Will he publish Crawford before the end of the Summer Recess? Will he give an early indication of when lie expects to be able to take action in relation to some of the peculiar regional problems which he highlighted by his reference to the situation in Wales?

I ask myself why the Government have chosen 1979 in preference to 1981. I thought that, even if we had eventually come to the decision ourselves as a Government to introduce some form of inquiry into broadcasting, the period needed for stability in the structure of broadcasting had to be long, because time was necessary for the committee of inquiry to report. But apart from that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the major reason for the previous Government's decision was the limited impact that some of the more advanced technical developments would be likely to have on the structure of broadcasting in the next few years.

Therefore, why have the Government chosen 1979? If the Minister had kept 1981 the authority could, hopefully, have carried through its review of the companies' performance in which it is now engaged. If it had felt it desirable, that could have led to considering that the contract should be advertised for competition. That must now be ruled out, for the time span to 1979 is much too short.

The Select Committee which investigated the matter made a reference to the desirability of introducing rolling con tracts. The House will have seen observations by the authority recently in its little leaflet called "The Authority's Plans for 1976–79", in which it said: The length of the extension —that is, to 1979— restricts also the type of contract that can be offered. In principle the Authority would be in favour of rolling contracts as in radio, probably with a three-year initial run and a one-year 'roll'. This would help to increase the stability of the system. Apparently it now feels, for reasons one can fully understand, that it is not able to do so because the period up to 1979 does not allow for the degree of flexibility that it would need.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are now effectively no circumstances in which any independent television company could lose its contract before 1979?

Sir J. Eden

I was referring to the views expressed by the authority in its own published document. For greater accuracy I shall refer to the document, in which it is said: In the circumstances of an expected extension of its life until 1981, the Authority had not ruled out the possibility that its review might lead it to the conclusion in a particular case that the contract should be advertised for competition. An extension of only three years from 1976, however, is likely to make such a possibility unrealistic. I was going no further than that and questioning what is the thinking behind the Government's decision to go for 1979 rather than 1981. I hope that it has nothing to do with a report which I understand is to be published next week by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. My hon. Friends will remember that there was a leak about that a short time ago. It appeared that a group much favoured the establishment of a national broadcasting commission. That seemed to imply that the Labour Party was intent on abolishing independent television. Perhaps when the report is published we shall know the position more clearly. We shall want to know the Government's views. Perhaps the later stages of the Bill will give us an opportunity to explore the matter further if we do not receive a sufficiently forthcoming answer from the Minister.

It will be seen that, although this is a short Bill, it gives rise to questions of immense significance and importance. Perhaps the most important matter of all is the consideration that we all need to give to the direction in which we are going in broadcasting and in encouraging further broadcasting. I referred earlier to the report of the Social Morality Council. I shall give one further quotation from it by way of conclusion. The final remarks of the published document read: We have throughout accepted that broadcasting cannot and should not impose tastes and choices on listeners and viewers. But we believe it can and should make available to them all that is best in the range of human interests and activities—sometimes to solace, sometimes to challenge—but always with a profound respect for truth, and a serious regard for the human dignity and individual variety of its audience…". Those are profound sentiments which deserve full consideration whenever the House is discussing broadcasting matters. Communications is an immensely influential medium and in any action that we take in this House we should be seeking to ensure that it is devoted to the common good.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead (Derby, North)

I hope that your relief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at seeing me for once in my place will not be lessened if I stray from the point of the debate.

It is a very small point upon which we must build the edifice of the debate. The Bill, if I understand it correctly, alters only one date in the existing legislation by substituting 1979 for 1976. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) asked "Why 1979?" The plain man's answer is that it is 1979 because the Annan Committee in its first incarnation was scrapped by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I find it strange that he should come to the House with protestations about the delay in appointing the other members of the Annan Committee when Lord Annan was appointed to do the job in 1970 and was unceremoniously sent packing by the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). That is why we are now having to extend the legislation until 1979. That is why three extra years must be taken and why a number of embarrassing anomalies which are consequent upon this amending legislation will become clear in the course of the debate.

Like everyone else, I welcome the setting-up of the Annan Committee. The fact that the committee has been set up has taken out of the context of this debate some of the more expansive pro- posals—for example, the fourth channel, an alteration in the financial basis of broadcasting and other matters which have been discussed in the House in the past. Clearly such matters must await the deliberations of the Annan Committee. No Government, not this one or the next one, would now feel able to introduce or be justified in introducing legislation themselves. The dreaded document that is emerging from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, slowly though the mills are grinding, which will be published on Wednesday next, and to which I am a signatory, is intended as a contribution to the wider debate about broadcasting, and certainly for submission to the Annan Committee. It is not in any sense a replacement.

The Opposition when in Government scrapped the Annan Committee. They did so largely because they wished to introduce commercial radio, which they now plaintively ask us not merely to keep and sustain but to expand. They knew that there was no public demand for commercial radio in the form in which it was introduced and in the form in which it was canvassed for so long by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan).

Mr. Wyn Roberts (Conway)

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the chairman of the committee which produced the report—namely, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moon man)—was quoted as saying that the financial basis of broadcasting could be altered within a year and without reference to the Annan Committee?

Mr. Whitehead

That is inaccurate at first base because my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) was not the chairman of the committee. There have been a number of chairmen. There have been rolling chairmen rather like rolling contracts. The rolling period of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was very short. The chairman at the time that the report was published was, I think, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department before he had responsibilities quite apart from broadcasting within the Government.

The Annan Committee will be discussing finance, the allocation of the fourth channel and scheduling. We shall all have to contain our impatience about matters which are contained within that area which the Committee must discuss. I must confess to occasional exasperation when I see the enormous duopoly of the BBC and the independent television companies as presently constituted. They organise themselves to spend large sums, much of which is public money, on precise duplication of the World Cup events going on in Germany, offering competition only in the sense that we can get Bobby Charlton on one channel and Jackie Charlton on another. These are matters which will be considered along with the possible need for some overall scheduling body as recommended in the proposals that have already been referred to by the Committee.

We are discussing the legitimate fears of the commercial television and radio contractors—let us not call them independent contractors—and the great princes of the BBC and the establishment which they run, given the situation which has arisen in that we must extend the legislation until 1979. What will happen to them in the meantime? I accept that those uncertainties must be set aside, and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office must do what they can to relieve those anxieties.

Lord Annan will be considering the system as it is now. His committee should not be considering subtle or unsubtle additions to the system slipped in by this or any other Government effectively to pre-empt the widespread review of the whole system which must come.

To return to the Bill, we are discussing the role of the IBA. If the Bill passes through this House and another place, the Independent Broadcasting Authority will have all its functions extended until 1979, and it will maintain a scrutiny over the same television companies—I think that there will not be others—and over commercial radio such as it is.

The IBA was criticised recently by a Select Committee. The Select Committee's report was brushed aside by the Conservative Government. We had a perfunctory debate about it and a document of reply which dismissed the report and suggested that the serious recommendations of the Select Committee were not of much account. One recommendation—I think it was Recommendation 29—was to set up the Annan Committee. There were several other recommendations, some of which have been acted upon by the IBA and some of which have not. There were some recommendations which the IBA could have acted upon, given time and the measure of all-party and public criticism which gave weight to the Committee's proposals.

I mention only one recommendation which relates directly to what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said about the IBA contracts. Recommendation 5 of the Select Committee's report indicated a weakness of the existing system, even without the present problem—which is that there are no real sanctions upon the companies which transgress so much that in other circumstances they might have lost their licence. Paragraph 40 of the Select Committee's report reads as follows: While fully endorsing the need for stability of employment within the industry, Your Committee would like to point out that some instability is characteristic of all enterprise, and that in the case of independent television, a system favouring the sitting tenant (subject to adequate performance) would give the companies a perpetual monopoly in selling television advertising time in so far as there is virtually no competition between them. Your Committee feel that some means needs to be found whereby, periodically and quite explicitly, it becomes possible for new blood to compete for contracts even with companies whose performance has not been faulted and recommend that this be examined as part of the review of the system of contracts. That is not the situation post-1976 and up to 1979. The sitting tenant will be guaranteed, he will be in no danger whatsoever even if his performance is faulty. I see no indication in the IBA's statement which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman that the IBA feels that it could exercise its powers under the existing legislation in the event of a defaulting or faulty contractor.

The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, to whom I also pay tribute, is a man of Delphic utterance. At the Press conference which launched this document he said: We can see no real need to change at this period of time unless of course there is a reason for change. I am not quite sure what he means by that. I think he means that he will not alter anything unless he is forced to do so. The Press release goes on to say: The IBA will decide, in the light of the review to be made of each company's ability and willingness to take remedial measures that may be required, whether any particular limitations or restrictions should be attached to the contract that is awarded from 1976. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the statement also indicated that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that a contract might be advertised. But the general expectation is that when this review has been carried out by the five wise men from the IBA who are to visit all the companies, in 1976 the IBA will go along with whatever it finds for another three years. All that will happen is some genteel discussion whether any particular limitations or restrictions should be attached to the contract.

In practice, that means that the sanctions which the IBA now has upon the companies are significantly less powerful than they have thus far been since the first institution of independent television. Although those sanctions were not taken seriously in the early years of the first Director-General, they have been taken seriously since Lord Hill's incumbency as chairman, and have certainly been taken seriously since 1967.

I do not believe that those powers will remain with the IBA unless my hon. and learned Friend and his noble Friend spell out clearly to the IBA that there must still be circumstances in which television companies can lose their contracts because of unsatisfactory performance. If the companies feel that they can freewheel downhill, that they can coast away, diversify, liquidate their risk capital and get what they can back from the system until 1979, if they feel that the Annan Committee is going badly for commercial television, then no effective sanctions will rest with the IBA. Those sanctions should be there. The power to call in a contract should be specifically retained and the IBA should be told that it must put its dentures back in and, if necessary, bite.

The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, wants an early decision on commercial radio, and I have a great deal of sympathy with him. The IBA found itself badly caught by the premature election. The last contract which it put out for tender was on 20th February during the period of the election campaign. I could not understand from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West whether he thought that contracts had been granted for 27 stations. That is not so. There are 11, and there will be 13 tonight if Nottingham and Teesside have their contractors appointed. Had it not been for the change of Government, by now another five tenders would have been put out.

My hon. and learned Friend is still trying to realise that he has responsibility for broadcasting as well as his other wide responsibilities within the Home Office, but I say to him that I am not sure that we should have allowed the IBA to go ahead with the interviewing of potential contractors—I think there were only two in the case of the Nottingham contract—for the tenders which have been put out.

The commercial radio stations which have been allocated fulfil no great public need. Metropolitan areas which already have an extensive choice of radio and television are being given yet more choice. We have already established commercial radio stations in Sheffield, Glasgow and Manchester. Tonight there is to be an announcement about Nottingham which already has a BBC radio station, which is a form of local radio. If we discount the siren songs of Jimmy Gordon and others which have been directed towards my noble Friend, the real argument for the extension and preservation of the commercial radio system is that it will allow independent radio news, so-called, the London Broadcasting Company, which is now in an ailing state, to survive.

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

If that is the ailing state the hon. Member describes, is that due to the large sum in fees LBC frequently pays the hon. Member to appear on that programme?

Mr. Whitehead

The last time I appeared on LBC I was asked by a lady whether I would like a cup of coffee. I said "Yes". She said, "In that case have you got a twopenny piece?" That is the kind of fee paid by the LBC. I have received no remuneration from LBC this year.

The difficulty for LBC is that it is now in a make-or-break situation. The company faces a serious situation. The next three months are supposed to be the crucial ones.

According to a usually well-informed source, the magazine Broadcast of one month ago, we are told that there is something like £1 million left in the kitty for the company which could operate the station for well over six months, but if revenue does not start showing worthwhile upturns over the next three months then clearly the station's backers will be less and less willing to authorise continued spending. It went on to say that LBC was finding that it cost to operate the station—plus the independent radio news service—around £80,000 to £100,000 a month, which is a lot of money for a company which finds it difficult at the moment to attract advertising.

I have a certain sympathy for the London Broadcasting Company. It went on the air and with a courageous operation produced round-the-clock news broadcasts. It found there was less of a need for that service from the other radio stations. It found that costs have been going up with inflation. It found the advertisers less willing to bite and the advertising rates not at all attractive when it came to the business of raising revenue.

If we are to retain any form of commercial radio, if LBC is to be one of the stations that survive until 1979, it may well be that we shall have to revert to one at least of the proposals advanced in the committee considering the Sound Broadcasting Bill of 1972, which was that the commercial news service should be an adjunct of the ITN and that the ITN, with its world-wide resources and its proven expertise, should be responsible for providing an alternative service of radio news using and taking over, with necessary compensation if needed, the facilities of the LBC. My view is that the fault to some degree lies with the IBA. The IBA was given this system to operate under the legislation of two years ago. The IBA should have foreseen rather more of the difficulties which have overtaken LBC than has been the case.

I would make another criticism which should be aired in a debate of this kind where we are proposing to extend the service. No so long ago the IBA allowed an executive of the authority, who had been responsible for the scrutiny of some of the programme contracts which were coming before the authority for commercial radio, to take up an appointment with one of those companies. I have the gravest misgivings about the appointment of Mr. Christopher Lucas to Radio Forth in Scotland at a salary of £7,000 a year. This was something which the authority should not have allowed.

I am not at all persuaded by the arguments advanced in the letter of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on this subject. It seems to me quite wrong that potential contractors—we are now talking about a situation where everything is still "up for grabs" and people are submitting their bids for these contracts—should be placed in a position where they feel that those who are reading, scrutinising, checking the applications might at a later stage become executives of competing companies coming up for interview for a particular station.

I am sorry that Mr. Lucas was appointed in this way. I am sorry that the Government, whom I support, have not seen fit to say something to the IBA about its rather supine rôle in letting this happen and in not taking action against Radio Forth for doing so.

I would favour the elimination of the commercial radio services, as we now see them. I see no reason why there should not be in the future many forms of local radio funded in different ways. I do not believe that these stations serve any very great function. I believe it would be better if we had been able to start new experiments in local radio—had not many of the most lucrative potential areas been pre-empted by the companies which have been given contracts. I accept that for legal as well as political reasons it may not be possible to remove the companies that are there already. I would therefore recommend that we should terminate the commercial radio expansion.

There are 12 stations operating. There are 20 BBC local radio stations. That is an adequate number on either side for the Annan Committee to consider over the next few years—how effective local radio is, what the demand for it is and how it should be financed—given those two alternative systems. There are other systems.

About 1½ million people listen regularly to BBC local radio, taking Great Britain as a whole. I should imagine that a large number will listen to stations such as Radio Clyde, Radio Piccadilly, the Birmingham station and the others. Let us see what kind of service they get. Let us see how effectively they can be financed, policed and scrutinised, and let the Annan Committee decide what form local radio should take in the 1980s.

I wish to speak about the cable experiment. I accept a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The cable experiment has now gone on for a considerable period. I hope those civil servants who have the unenviable job of supervising these five stations are learning a great deal about the place of cable within the community. I should like to see some form of overlord body set up to supervise cable analogous to the two public authorities we already have. I do not believe that we can now put cable under the aegis of the IBA, and therefore I may technically be out of order in raising this point. We should be prepared to admit, at least in principle, that cable and local cable companies are here to stay and that the experiment to that degree at least should be strengthened and put on a firm footing.

The right hon. Gentleman said these companies are taking a tremendous risk. That would be true if these companies had been formed only for, and intended to subsist only by, the broadcasting by wire of local cable services. But they are all great multi-media conglomerate companies of one kind or another which have interests in local radio, in television, in all the hardware and software involved. There is not all that much risk for those backing the five stations because they have put one small—comparatively insignificant for them—investment in an area which is potentially more lucrative for them than probably any other.

I do not think we should shed too many tears over their financial hardships now. I do not believe that we should take the argument of financial hardship which may be adduced by one or more of the five experimental stations as a reason for bringing in what most of them would like to see in an ideal world from their point of view, which is pay-TV or some experiment of that short.

Broadcasting throughout Europe is in a state of flux. We may think that it is moving in one direction in this country. It is moving in other directions elsewhere. In France at the moment the monopoly of the ORTF is threatened probably for the first time. We may see before the end of the year a competing unashamedly commercial system in that country. The same is true in Italy.

In this country we have at the moment under scrutiny an alternative commercial system, and that system should not be dismissed lightly. Its achievements must be acknowledged. If in this legislation we are to extend the scrutiny of a statutory authority such as the IBA for another three years to regulate television and radio, we must be extremely careful that in so doing we do not diminish its powers to scrutinise, or leave those under scrutiny with excessive power to produce programmes and a general broadcasting output which may not be as much in the public interest or for the public good as the best of which they are capable. Personally, I think that there is now no alternative but to allow the authority to go on much as it is until 1979, but in this debate we should say clearly to the authority that it must continue to be a watchdog—and not merely to growl but occasionally to bite—right up to 1979.

5.52 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan (Howden)

I begin by declaring my interest as a director of Granada Television and of Greater Manchester Independent Radio Limited.

Those of us who took part in the various stages of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill will know that ITV happens to be going through a rather difficult patch in terms of viability. It was badly hit by the three-day week, with its consequent cut in broadcasting hours, and is now suffering from a fairly serious drop in advertising revenue. But what matters in the long run is not the ups and downs of the constituent companies but the consistent quality of its product.

In this respect the public enjoyed a good period of viewing during the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). During his tour of office thousands came to the new and real joy of colour television. The long-overdue relaxation of broadcasting hours brought entertainment to a new audience in the afternoons and late evenings. There have been plenty of outstanding programmes. Had my right hon. Friend remained in office a little longer, I like to think that he would have authorised ITV2.

Mr. Whitehead

Another give away.

Sir P. Bryan

Even on the overbold assumption that the current product is satisfactory to the public, I do not subscribe to the idea that those now making programmes have a divine right to do so, unchanged, for all time. Changes there will be, and should be, either as a result of legislation following an Annantype report or under the normal powers of the IBA, stimulated by the various technical advances that take place from time to time. But when we have changes—and I say "when", because I am certain that we shall have them—I would advise the Government of the day to take a lesson from past ITV experience so that we can make our changes in some better way.

The reallocation of company franchises in 1968 was an object lesson in how to introduce change with maximum dislocation of the industry, maximum loss of confidence in its creative and administrative staff, and maximum loss of quality in its programme.

From about 1965 it became known that the new companies were to come and some existing companies were to go. So for three years staff were thoroughly demoralised, while doubt spread whether their own companies would continue to exist, and offers of hypothetical new employment were being bandied about. Meanwhile, naturally enough, investment in programmes suffered. Since programmes have to be planned at least 18 months ahead, even the most altruistic management thought twice about committing its company to expensive programmes which might never be shown.

The difficulties of setting up a new television company were grossly underestimated. I remember somebody high up in ITA, who shall be nameless, saying to me that if the London Weekend application backed, as it was, by a quite outstanding collection of proved television talent, were turned down, this would prove that ITV was, in effect, closed to all newcomers—and I believe in a way that it would have been closed to them. Nevertheless, events proved that a mass of newly-gathered talent is not neces- sarily a team. Indeed, almost by definition quite the opposite is the case. London Weekend went through long and bitter birth pangs. Its audience suffered. Nor did Yorkshire and Harlech find those early days particularly easy. All in all, the Hill revolution—in its capacity to maintain a prolonged period of ferment without allowing any progress—was equalled only by the cultural revolution which was going on at much the same time in China.

The present Bill is welcome since it ensures another three years of stability which, in its present economic difficulties, is what broadcasting needs. Reformers need not be worried that broadcasters will sink into a period of unhealthy and self-satisfied ease. After a four-year reprieve it seems that the Annan Committee is upon us and over the next two or three years the best and busiest brains in the industry will be even busier justifying their present practices to the committee, with all the work that such committees generate.

I should like to make some suggestion regarding the nature of the committee. The Pilkington Committee had over 100 meetings, plus visits to relevant establishments in this country and trips abroad. This was a lot of labour to ask of its members. Such prolonged labour is bound to limit the field of those willing to serve. It definitely precludes any professional at present employed in the industry or indeed employed in a responsible job elsewhere.

Would it not be better to have mainly a full-time committee which sat daily for a much shorter period? I feel that it would be easier to get able men seconded full time from their present employment for a limited period than if they were asked to give up a day a week or a much longer stretch of time.

I have in mind something on the lines of Lord James's Committee on Teacher Education and Training where a fairly small committee of full and part-time members was required to produce a report within a year. A fast-moving committee of this sort would be much better in every way for the industry. It would shorten the period of uncertainty. As see it, under the present arrangements from the day the committee first sits to the actual effect of its decisions in the industry we have a period of about five years spanning at least two General Elections.

From what has already been said, clearly it is not too late to make some suggestions regarding the choice of individuals whom the Government intend to invite to join the committee. Could we, for a change, have a majority of members who enjoy television, who spend a lot of time watching television, much of it with their children, and who happily acknowledge that it means a lot to them and to their families? Two or three mothers in this category would provide a marvellous and healthy leavening to the standard team of academics and oldish establishment figures. They would also be far more representative of the audience which the BBC and ITV are duty bound, and by law required, to entertain and inform.

The 14 people who served on the Pilkington Committee included two knights, two future knights, five CBEs, one OBE, one Ph.D.—an impressive total of distinguished service to the country and no doubt highly responsible in every respect, but not in my view capable of representing the viewing public and its children. The committee had one solitary married woman to face this phalanx of male authority.

We must never forget in all our discussions, committees and legislation that the object of our efforts is to present an acceptable and welcome choice of programmes to the viewer. Questions of control by the Government, the IBA or the BBC, accessibility, the structure of the industry and the many other relevant aspects of broadcasting which we like to discuss mean nothing to 99 per cent. of our population compared with the importance of their ability to receive what they—not we—consider a good programme.

I end my remarks with a few words about local radio. There is some difference of opinion about the number of stations. I do not think that it matters very much. As I understand it, the present situation is that there are 13 contracts out. Of those, five are on the air. Capital and LBC have been on the air in London for nine months. Clyde and Birmingham have been on the air for four months. Manchester has been on the air for three months. It is early days to report on an experiment of this kind, and it is an experiment. It is quite unparalleled in any other part of the world. There is nothing quite like it competing with a vast and established national programme like the BBC, with its four different wavelengths.

The area about which I know most is my own area of Manchester. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) came out with his usual arrogant words about there being no demand and no public need. But who is he to say that there is no demand in Manchester? I happen to know Manchester. It is clear from the figures that we have there that the demand is greater than we expected. We are more than up to budget in both audience and takings. I have no doubt that, confronted as we are with all the competition of the BBC, both local and national, we are prospering, and I think that that situation will continue. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derby, North will explain why this is not wanted and why the people of Manchester are not worthy or deserving of this service.

Mr. Whitehead

I said that there was no prior need. I accept that it is possible to create one and to create an audience for a certain type of broadcasting. I am sure that Radio Piccadilly, with which I understand the hon. Gentleman is connected, will do that.

Sir P. Bryan

But what is wrong with that? Presumably people want to listen to it. For some unknown reason, the hon. Member for Derby, North suggests that it would have been far better not to have started it, in which case people would never have known that they could enjoy it. Apparently, he takes the view that now that it has arrived it has to be tolerated.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us employed in the communications industry put forward a different argument? It is not that these services should not be provided, because they are provided already in some other form. It is that those of us who want to see communications develop would like some examination made of whether this is the right course to adopt, bearing in mind that if resources are moved into this kind of programme we may deprive another section of the communications industry which needs them more.

Sir P. Bryan

I should be happy to see all the examination that anyone wanted. However, I feel that we have seen a modest start and that local radio is a good start to have made. I wish it well.

As far as it is possible to do so on the basis of only three months, I estimate that local radio will be a success and that more and more stations will find it possible to become viable. But I should like the Minister of State to give us some sort of guidance ahead about the ideas of his party. I say this for a strictly commercial reason. At the moment, the advertising revenue of local stations is about 50 per cent. local and 50 per cent. national. The extent to which national advertising increases depends very much on whether the advertising industry regards local radio as a growing medium which is likely to become a national one or whether it will stay where it is. Given its present size, it is unlikely that the national advertisers will concentrate on it any more than they do now.

An assurance from the Minister that the present numbers will stay as they are and certainly will not be cut down will be a help. An assurance that the full programme is to continue clearly will help not just single stations but all the stations which are on the air. The general reputation of local radio is important to each station, because that general reputation affects their individual reputations.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

Immediately after the General Election result was announced in February, I fled to the United States on a lecture tour. It was only after I had spoken on a number of occasions that the size of my audience was explained to me. It was widely believed that I was there to sponsor "Upstairs Downstairs", and a blue-haired widow in Atlanta, who clearly had disposed of three husbands, said that I reminded her of Mr. Bellamy. I could only reply that my home life was far closer to that of Hudson.

The point is that everyone in America thought that "Upstairs Downstairs was a programme produced by the BBC. It is curious how the high level of programmes which ITV has achieved for many years is in part disregarded overseas. ITV news is probably rather better than BBC news. ITV drama series are as good, if not better. In sport, there is little to choose between the two. But it is about time that someone said something nice about ITV, especially about Sir Lew Grade.

I think that Sir Lew is the only Englishman who has given the British what they want. The British have always been deprived, either by Lord Reith, or by this House, or by other busybodies. At least Lew Grade has provided people with the sort of entertainment that they want and deserve.

I welcome the resurrection of Lord Annan, if only in the sense that Lazarus happens to owe me money. There is no industry about which more is known, and less is done, than the subject on which this debate is focused. We are always pulling it up by the roots to see what the matter with it is, but it is rare that anyone makes a decision about it.

Before the General Election, some of us hoped that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) had already secretly made up his mind to give the fourth channel to ITV. I understand that he spent anxious hours outside the Cabinet room where his colleagues were busily discussing other subjects, waiting—and I hope reading the novels of Hardy—to persuade the Cabinet to consider this eventuality. Unfortunately the fourth channel was yet another victim of the February General Election.

Why are the Government so coy about recruiting the members of the Annan Committee? Is it that Sir Alf Ramsey is still playing for England, that Miss Anona Winn has not enough programmes on which to appear, or that Mr. Digby Jacks has bigger fish to fry? It is curious that we should wait so long for these predictable people who, sooner or later, will make up the composition of the Annan Committee.

What are the choices before the Annan Committee when eventually it comes to discuss the possibility of the fourth channel? Let us think about it. A fourth channel for the British people when they spend far too much time watching television anyway is a monstrous suggestion! I am surprised that hon. Members could seriously put it forward. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) knows that the smallest American city has between 15 and 30 channels—all showing identical programmes—but there is a case to be made that it is time that the poor British were allowed a fourth channel.

Mr. Whitehead

It will presumably penetrate the hon. Gentleman's burlesque that that is what we call a waste of resources.

Mr. Critchley

I noticed with great interest that before the hon. Gentleman made his speech he ranged before him six obscure magazines, each of which contained an article by him, each less readable than the other.

There will be roughly five choices—I do not know about the hon. Member for Derby, North, but presumably before I have finished my speech he will be proposing a sixth choice—before the Annan Committee when it discusses the possibility of a fourth channel.

The first is the Open University, which is an educational service. The second is ITV and the existing companies. The third is ITV and a new set of companies. The fourth is a national television foundation conceived by Mr. Anthony Smith. The fifth is "Access" Television. A channel devoted entirely to the views of Mrs. Whitehouse and Mr. Alan Sapper would get the audience that it deserved. I do not think that at the moment anyone is advocating Access Television.

As for a national television foundation, the question is: who will pay? Unfortunately, or fortunately, all the foundations which have any money are in the United States of America. Whether Mr. Smith could persuade the Ford Foundation to meet the bill I do not know. Few English foundations would be prepared to meet the cost. So, were it ever set up, sooner or later the Government would have to pay. I can see the force of the argument that some programmes conceived and produced by a national television foundation might appear on one or other of the channels, but I see no argument for allowing all the producers in Christendom to get together to do their own thing at public expense. The idea of a television channel devoted entirely to "experimental" television makes the mind absolutely boggle.

I turn now to the Open University, the pride and joy of The Guardian. If the Open University has had some success—if—it has not been because some dens occasionally appear on the box. If there is an argument for more television for the Open University, there are the mornings and early afternoons on both channels. In five, six or seven years there may be other channels on 405, and they can take the lot. However, the success of the Open University has not been dependent on the fact that some lectures are shown on television. It is a curious allocation of resources to be told that one out of four programmes shown on television should be devoted to permitting housewives to obtain academic qualifications.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Critchley

I thought that would encourage the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is unaware that he is giving the impression that housewives are the last people to be given education. But he is being thoroughly unfair to a successful form of television which is providing stimulus and excitement and is widening the horizons of vast numbers of working-class and middle-class people who did not have opportunities for university education. I realise that he finds this situation amusing. However, I hope that he will not allow the impression to remain on the record that this is not an exceedingly good service which ought to be developed in the interests of this country.

Mr. Critchley

It is dangerous to make jokes in the House of Commons, and it is extremely dangerous to make jokes about housewives. I apologise to the hon. Lady who clearly is prepared to take me more seriously than I am prepared to take myself. However, we need cheering up.

Another choice is that ITV should be given a whole set of new companies, and that the new companies should have the fourth channel in competition with the existing companies. The only argument for this is that it might conceivably make advertising rates cheaper. But it would do so at the expense of the programmes. There is little or no support outside the advertising industry for the solution of ITV with a new set of companies for the fourth channel.

Here I come to my American example. It is because in America all the channels compete one against another for the ratings that they get the broad similarity of programmes that those of us who visit the United States get so bored with in our hotel bedrooms.

The solution that I finally put forward is that ITV be allowed the fourth channel with the existing companies being allowed to make use of it so that the relationship between ITV 1 and this second channel would be similar to the relationship between BBC 1 and BBC 2. In that way we reach a reasonable solution in which more access is available for programmes and a balance is struck between the programmes that will go out on ITV 1 and ITV 2 in the same way as on BBC 1 and BBC 2. A second service on those lines is the only way for ITV to overcome its dilemma: to what extent should minority tastes be allowed scope at the expense of majority interests?

What is said about ITV is that many of its more interesting academically-oriented programmes appear at midnight. That is because it does not have a second channel on which these programmes can be mixed.

Members of Parliament never watch the box; they only appear on it. Indeed, many of us will tell the public that we would not allow any more television either because we fear it, or because we profoundly dislike it. Politicians of all parties have had cause to complain about the box in the past. Most of the complaints have been directed against the BBC, not ITV. The complaints that politicians have made against the BBC are due to the fact that it has always exaggerated the degree of interest that the British people take in politics, and have therefore received, as it were, anxieties and the complaints that it has stimulated. There are good arguments on all sides for the ITV approach to politics, which is slightly less frenetic than that of the BBC.

There are those who dislike television. I sum them up as "Hailsham 1955". At that time Lord Hailsham, if he had a television set at all, had it upstairs where the maids could watch it. That is one attitude.

A second attitude concerns those who fear television. I sum up that particular attitude as "Soref 1970".

There is a third attitude—those who argue all the time for delay, for doing nothing, so as to prevent ITV having the fourth channel—which I sum up as "Whitehead 1974."

6.19 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

I am delighted to have the opportunity of following in the debate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). It will come as no shock to him to learn that I disagree with practically everything he said. However, I must thank him, because the picture he drew of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) sitting weeping in the corridor outside the Cabinet room giving a famous impersonation of Cinderella not only touched my heart deeply but frightened me rather badly. It proved conclusively that it was a good thing that we had the election at that time if there was any suggestion that the fourth channel should be handed to ITV as a second channel.

One of the aspects of all our discussions in this House that worries me most is that we have a number of debates but they are always about an isolated aspect of the communications industry. It is not true that we are always taking up the plant to see whether the roots are alive. We have debates in which some of the independent television companies have their views widely expressed. Some of my hon. Friends talk at very great and useful length about the social implications of communications, but we rarely look at the whole problem. It seems to me that this will be one of the difficulties with the extra three years of the Annan Committee's examination.

I should like to see the allocation of a fourth channel on television, and in this I suspect I am rather a lone voice in my party, because I believe that there is an argument for making it very much a mixed service. One of the arguments is that services like the Open University would have a much greater impact in the world as a whole if they were provided by wholly professional services. Alan Sapper's views are not always my own but the expertise represented by members of ACTT, the Writers' Guild and other unions in the entertainment industry is such that it ought to be employed in producing programmes of the kind we could have in a mixed fourth channel.

Some of the arguments put forward on the basis of advertising as a means of funding the fourth channel seem to me to be rather spurious. The funding of a fourth channel is one of the most important aspects that we have to examine. I do not believe we can continually expect services like the BBC. or for that matter ITV, using only their existing sources of finance to keep up their standard. Before long they will find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult situation as costs rise.

The BBC is producing more and more programmes commercially and a great deal of money is already going into programmes being produced with companies like Warner Brothers. It needs to expand its overseas sales. Through MIBTV and other trade fairs it sells a great many programmes abroad—and it needs to do so, because it is finding it increasingly difficult to keep up the same standard and quality of programmes in a world in which inflation appears to be roaring ahead. Therefore, any decisions taken on broadcasting must take account of the fact that funding will be one of the most fundamental questions that the Government have to answer.

It is too simple to say simply that by constantly raising licence fees or constantly attracting advertising from other sources we shall be able to provide the increased hours of television broadcasting that many people want. The hon. Member for Aldershot said that most Members of Parliament only appeared on the "box" and that they did not look at it. I actually look at it and thoroughly enjoy doing so.

There is one difficulty that we shall encounter. In all our examination nobody is yet beginning to talk about the fact that in three years' time there will be an absolute explosion in videotape recording in this country. We shall be dealing not with straightforward programming but with a situation in which anybody can go into a chain store and buy a casette and then use it in a video- tape recorder which it will have been possible to rent from a commercial company. People are already talking of being able to do this at a reasonable price, and this is something we should be considering in very great detail.

For example, the cable television companies must face up to whether or not they should continue to experiment. It is costing them a great deal of money. I believe they are doing it because they expect an even greater return in the future. This is a perfectly normal, straightforward, commercial operation. But if these companies are to originate material, they will have to consider the cost, not only to themselves but also to the community as a whole. There are spin-off developments with cable television whereby, for instance, a person who is old and in need of assistance can put a signal through his own television set to a central point and someone can then come to his assistance. These things will be of tremendous advantage if they are properly developed, but they will come only if resources are put into the right kind of experiment.

I find myself in frequent disagreement with the cable television association, which I believe does not always make the right commercial arguments for itself and does not really go as deeply into the possibilities for the channel as I should like it to do.

I must declare another interest. The film industry believes that we are providing a great deal of material. I was pleased that one of my members should have had such a warm tribute raid to him because those who work in the industry are very proud of Sir Lew and do not need to be told how frequently he does an extraordinarily good job. The reason why he is able to pour out the amount of money he puts into programmes is that he always thinks of the international market and of the need to make glossy, high-quality programmes to appeal to the American and other markets as well as our own.

When the Annan Committee discusses the implications of broadcasting, it will have to learn to fit the whole problem of programming and providing something like a fourth television channel into the question of where our resources should be applied. As a Socialist I believe that if we have a limited amount of money at Treasury level, drawn from taxes, it must be spent in the correct way; and am not sure that putting more resources from the taxpayer into communications would be even beginning to answer the problems we shall see in the future. We are in effect saying to my hon. Friend the Minister "Let us get on with Annan. Let it be appointed as quickly as possible, but may we have on that committee people who are actually involved in the sordid matter of day-to-day commercialism as well as those who represent the housewives? "—of whom we have heard so much today.

Simply because this is an industry which affects more people than any other in this country, it is not enough to let it deteriorate into moving wallpaper. That will happen if we do not begin seriously to consider the implications. I want to see an allocation of resources to services like the Open University and an extension of public authority broadcasting, but I also want to see the right commercial mix so that private as well as public money goes in. When the applications for the independent television companies' contracts come up again, the House will have to take some interest in how those contracts are allocated, and not simply on social and political grounds but on grounds of expertise.

When the allocation of commercial radio contracts took place, I was appalled at the very definite view I formed that the use of a well-known name of an actor or director in many cases had far greater weight than applications by people who had been brought up in the industry and who were themselves young, in many cases with a greater degree of expertise but who had not the backing of titled people and the public relations front that others had.

I was trained by one of the best news services anywhere in the radio world, by Radio Nederland in Holland. It was proved conclusively to me that the job that can be done by radio in the news service field is of tremendous importance, but I do not believe that it will be done on the basis of haphazard applications decided upon for the wrong reasons without the degree of backing that is needed in these circumstances. We are really saying to my hon. Friend "We are watching because we believe very strongly not that commercialism is the only answer, not that this question can be left happily for another five years, but because communications in this country will change so radically in the next two and a half years that we may be talking about a totally different Bill within a very short time." We say that all these examinations must have an overall involvement with every section of the community. That does not mean only powerful commercial interests. It means all those of us who work in the industry every day.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I am a broadcaster by trade, having worked both north and south of the border in network and regional television as a presenter and producer. I am worried about the extension of the IBA licence for another three years, primarily because of the effects on broadcasting, Scottish broadcasting in particular.

Like the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) I am particularly anxious lest a three-year extension should simply mean that the sitting tenants—the programme contractors—should be lightly examined and then allowed to continue in business for a further three years. That situation could be severe for Scotland where, as hon. Members will know, the current independent television contractors are divided into two-and-a-half companies—Scottish Television in Glasgow, Grampian Television in Aberdeen and half of Border Television serving the North from Carlisle.

We in Scotland have to think carefully about a further three years for the IBA. Hon. Members will be aware that there could be a considerable devolution of power within the United Kingdom over that period, certainly before 1979. I refer to devolution of power from this Parliament to an assembly in Edinburgh. This should clearly be paralleled by the devolution of broadcasting power.

If there is to be the break-up of the United Kingdom, as some members of my party want, there would have correspondingly to be the break-up of broadcasting unity within the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will be aware that some of the Kilbrandon Commissioners gave serious consideration to the point that broadcasting would be a function devolved to a Scots Assembly.

One of the saddest things about the IBA control of broadcasting at present is that Scotland is considered to be a "region". The regional approach has been a proud boast of the IBA. Yet Scotland, which is a nation, has no direct right of entry to independent broadcasting as have, for example, Yorkshire, Granadaland, the Midlands and London. That has had serious effects for Scots broadcasting.

Broadcasting is seriously centralised. Decision-making for the IBA is to a large extent controlled from London. There is a small Scots sub-committee. Network planning of programmes is organised by the Network Planning Committee, on which only the big companies are represented. There is no separate voice on that committee for Scotland or Wales. This leaves the broadcaster in Scotland in something of a television backyard. He has neither the money, the facilities nor the time of his colleagues in the networking companies down south. To a large extent that means that he has not got the opportunities to produce the same quality of programmes.

This means too that the Scots cannot obtain ready access to the English television market. The Englishman sitting in London has no real awareness of many of the things going on in Scots life at the moment. I instance oil. If oil had been found in the English Channel we would no doubt have had immediate coverage of every small detail of every discovery regularly on television. As it is, we occasionally have a major English networking company going north of the border and "interpreting" the situation to the people of Scotland and England. Ultimately we in Scotland will want our own Scottish Broadcasting Authority. I point out that such an authority may well he with us before 1979.

I said that I worked both as a broadcasting producer and as a performer. One of the sad things about the current, rather centralised, broadcasting system within the United Kingdom is that many of the excellent working-class activities available as television subjects in Scotland have not "made" the network. We have had a series of London-based programmes which make London life, English life, seem glamorous; programmes which push English mores. We in Scotland have our own distinct character, our own ideals and ambitions, but these do not get regular coverage on the "box".

When it comes to television programmes from Scotland being sent south down the pipe, the inevitable request to the Scots programme controller is for more haggis, more kilts, more bagpipes and not for those programmes which could reflect the genuine working-class identity of people in the central belt of Scotland. That is sad. Even on those occasions when there are major events in Scotland, for example golf at St. Andrews, that is controlled directly by ITV Sport and the Scottish producers are left a secondary rôle.

I remind Labour Members that while coverage was given to a very curious decision a week and a half ago—on a day when only 11 members out of the 29 members of the Scottish Labour Party Executive turned up to take a decision on devolution in Scotland—there was no coverage on Scottish television or television in England of a march to Bannockburn at the same time of 10,000 members of the Scottish National Party.

The point is that if 10.000 people marched on a Saturday through the streets of London, that would be given coverage somewhere in the running order of an English television bulletin. If 10.000 people had marched through the streets of Belfast, it would probably have been the lead story. There was no coverage whatever, in Scotland or down south. To this extent the British public are being denied access to what is happening in Scotland.

The same is true to an extent of political broadcasting within this House. The IBA, through its agent ITN, has nominated one man, a good hard-working man, as regional correspondent for ITV News. How can one man possibly cover stories ranging from the clay industry in Cornwall and the Geordies on Tyneside to the Liverpool docker and at the same time be expected to have a working knowledge of what goes on in the Scottish Grand Committee or in the Highlands?

How does he have time to know what is relevant to the crofters of Scotland, the fishermen and the oil men? It is an impossible brief. Yet on several occasions both ITV companies in Scotland have made approaches with a view to getting their own Lobby man in the House.

Mr. Critchley

May I ask what has been the result of those approaches?

Mr. Reid

The result, to my knowledge, was that no place was currently available. Approaches were originally made which have resulted, to my knowledge, in the appointment of a regional correspondent. That is my information. Because Scots law is different, the Scottish Church is different and the administration is different, there is obviously a case for having separate coverage of Scottish politics.

If we look at a current ITV map of Scotland we see that almost half of the geographical area of the country is white. That means that no signals are getting in. I appreciate that there is only a small percentage of the Scottish population there. However, the IBA has not been quite so concerned about small rural communities in Scotland in times past, or about the Gaelic language, as have its confreres at the BBC.

Given devolution in Scotland, we shall clearly have a new focal point of national identity, a new centre of decision-making within our own country. That should be paralleled with the new focal point of television identity and television decision-making within Scotland. It is not for me to decide what model the Scottish broadcasting authority would be. That is for the members of a future Scottish House. There are two points which arise.

First, I concede the point that the population base of Scotland is small. It may be difficult in a country of 51 million people to generate the revenue needed to maintain a wide television service of three or four channels. There would therefore have to be some restructuring of existing broadcasting authorities within Scotland.

It is possible that within Scotland we may have to run together the existing BBC and ITV companies by slotting them into one. We may go back to some Reithian system. We may in Scotland choose to have a Home, Light and Third. That would be our privilege as Scots—within this shared island—to be different, and it is the whole point about devolution in the first place. If Norway can do it, if Iceland can do it, if Eire can do it through Telefis Eireann, clearly we in Scotland can do it as well.

I want broadcasting returned to the remit of a Scots Parliament. I hope to see some form of assembly established before this licence runs out in 1979. In the meantime I suggest that there may well be a case for pressing the IBA for network status for the present Scottish broadcasting contractors so that. at an important time in Scots history, at a time when the economy of the United Kingdom has shifted northwards, they can have access to the existing network as contractors. I know the reluctance of hon. Members to intervene in broadcasting affairs. Presumably that is because they respect the integrity of the journalists and their right to "comment".

Too often in our past we in Scotland have missed our television place in the world because Members have been denied the facts of broadcasting life in Scotland. As both a broadcaster and a Member of Parliament, I am not satisfied with the IBA. I want to see a Scottish broadcasting authority. I am sure that within not too many years we shall see not just that but a Scots Parliament too.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts (Conway)

The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has expressed something of the new spirit of regionalism, and I shall come to it later when I deal with my own country of Wales.

I welcome the Bill as providing for the continuation of the IBA and its services for five years from now. This is not a long time in broadcasting these days, when plans for production, programming and technical development have to be laid well in advance. As it is now our practice to declare past, present and future interests, I must tell the House that I was professionally engaged in ITV in Wales and the West Country from 1957 to 1969 and that I am still interested in the service, although not financially. I was also but am no longer a director of a company which may apply for the Cardiff commercial radio franchise when it becomes available.

I do not pretend that ITV is perfect. I know its imperfections as well as, if not better than, anyone. On the whole, however, it provides a good service and we must not forget that the majority of people in this country would feel very deprived if they were to lose it.

Clearly the Labour Party does not believe in leaving well alone. Many people were alarmed last month to read of the report prepared for the Labour Party's National Executive by a working party chaired by the Secretary of State for Industry and later, according to newspaper reports, by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman).

Basically the report proposed a national broadcasting commission—again, I rely on Press reports—which would be responsible for the financing of both the BBC and ITV. In other words, ITV contractors would simply he programme producers and their profits would be creamed off to give additional support to the BBC services or to finance new services. We are talking now not about excessive profits which can be creamed off under the present system but about profits as such.

The hon. Member for Basildon was quoted in The Guardian on 17th April as saying: I believe talks can begin with the industry even before the Annan Committee reports to show the television people that we know that we are talking about and that we are not in any sense opposed to them. The Guardian went on to say that the hon. Member thought that the central plan for the collection and distribution of advertising revenue could go into operation within a year.

It is on that statement that it would be in order, I believe, to refer to the working party's document.

Mr. Lyon

The hon. Member has already been told by a member of the committee that that report will have the status of evidence to be submitted to the Annan Committee; it will have no higher status than that. I do not want to disrupt his speech if he has prepared it, but is there any point in going on with it since the Annan Committee will have to consider that evidence just as it will have to consider all the other evidence?

Mr. Roberts

Whatever observations I make upon this document may also be evidence for the Annan Committee.

If changes can be made in the financing of ITV before the end of the present period—there is no reason why there should not be changes, since we have already heard from the Government that they are prepared to take the Crawford Committee recommendations into account and possibly act upon them before the Annan Committee reports—this will raise the question of why the Annan Committee has been set up in the first place.

We have heard about the difficulties of nominating that committee's membership but the reason for its creation mystifies me, as it has mystified Labour Members. If the intention is that the Annan Committee should simply set its seal of approval on the Labour Party's plan to concentrate financial control of the media, that is surely a gross misuse of such a committee. We can only hope that the public are already alerted about what is afoot. I suspect that we are about to see a massive anti-commercial television and radio exercise, all part of the nationalisation programme so beloved of the Secretary of State for Industry.

The essence of the scheme for ITV is to eliminate the profit motive, but I wonder whether Labour Members fully realise the extent to which the quality of the ITV service depends on the profit motive. It is the profit motive that inspires the keen competition in programming with the BBC. Although we may criticise this competition at its worst, we must agree that at its best it has been an excellent stimulus to both services and has ensured a first-class choice of programmes for the viewer.

Labour Members have also misunderstood the function of the profit motive in securing advertising revenue. From the reports I have seen of this document, one would think that advertising revenue grew on trees—

Mr. Whitehead

The hon. Member has not even read it.

Mr. Roberts

If one removes the profit motive, one kicks away one of the major props of popular programming. If there is something wrong with popular programming as such, let Labour Members come out and say it.

It is remarkable that we should be debating the future of ITV on the same day as it is reported that there has been a major shake-up in the French television and radio service, ORTF. I understand from today's Financial Times that the French President and some members of his Cabinet wanted to break up their troublesome State monopoly and create a commercial channel to provide competition. But they were opposed by an unholy alliance among the Gaullist UDR Party, the Socialists, the Communists and the trade unions. Therefore, all that the President has been able to do is to create seven independent regional services in competition with one another but all under State control and financed by licence fees. The French are desperately trying to get away from monopoly, while the Labour Party is trying to strengthen monopoly in this country.

There are far more interesting possibilities in television and radio than those which appear to have occupied the minds of the Labour Party. What we want in the media is more diversity, not more centralised control. There is much to be said for regionalism, and we have heard a Scottish view of it. I expect that the Crawford Committee will have something to say on that. I am particularly interested in a Welsh language service, which can, of course, be entirely financed by the IBA. I was glad to have the assurance from the Minister of State that if the Crawford Committee reports in favour of such a service for Wales, the Government will not put off their decision until the Annan Committee reports.

Then there are possibilities of community and group television. With the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) I attended a symposium on broadcasting in Munich last week. Clearly this kind of community and group broadcasting interests many Europeans as a possibility for the future. We have already established local radio, both BBC and commercial. There have been interesting experiments on television in this country—at Swindon and Greenwich, for example—and there is immense potential for social good in these experiments.

Local television can create a sense of community where there was little or none before. It can stimulate such a sense of community where it is fading due to the onslaught of the national networks with their common factor culture. I am not averse to group media concepts and timesharing between Methodists and Marxists, and so on. The vast passive audiences must be encouraged to activate themselves, to participate in the media and perhaps regenerate the media and themselves. We must try to give the people what they have not dreamed of, not just simply what we think they want or ought to have.

I think that people are prepared to pay for any television service which is really worth having. I believe that the ITV system, with its inbuilt tension between the programme contractors and the authority, is a good one. The BBC worries me very much at times because it is always on the defensive against the outside world. It is like the medieval church and the Holy Roman Empire—Imperium in imperio, a State within a State.

There is something to be said for the view propounded by Anthony Smith, the former editor of "24 Hours", that producers ought to be made directly accountable for their programmes just as newspaper editors are accountable publicly and at law, otherwise frustrations build up, with resentments against the system in which they are operating, be it the BBC or the IBA.

I would advise the Government to think in these terms of diversifying and providing a greater variety of programme services rather than in terms of the tighter, more centralised control of the existing services. I would also advise them to leave well alone—namely and basically, the existing BBC and ITV services. We have enough problems with the new services, with cable television and all its potentialities, with cassettes and so on. This area of potential television is as yet only a subject of experiment and exploration. The Government should leave what is working well alone and concentrate on this undecided area of television and radio.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

There has been no disposition in the debate to challenge the Government's right or responsibility to bring forward such a Bill at this time. There has been no general opposition to it. There has, however, been an indication of disquiet at the absence of a statement by the Government about their policy. We should not be in the position of being presented with a Bill to extend the powers of the IBA for a further period without having an indication of the Government's policy towards commercial radio.

A number of opinions have been expressed from different points of view. This makes it clear how great is the need for some indication of Government policy. There are those who think that the Government are quietly strangling commercial radio, a view which I do not share. The IBA is continuing to implement, though perhaps more slowly than it intended, the policy of the Conservative Government and not that of the present Government, who have not yet indicated whether they have a policy of their own or are simply allowing a slower pace of Conservative policy to continue.

Now that this Bill extends the power of the IBA, we cannot wait for Annan or for Crawford to do the Government's job for them and indicate the Government's policy. I make my plea not out of prejudice against commercial radio but because an issue of resources is involved. There have been references to the desire among Labour Members that public resources and generally increased financial resources should be spread out in ways which do not augur well for the future of broadcasting. One scarce resource which I could mention, however, is frequencies—the air waves—and the ability to use a commodity which is scarce internationally and is the subject of international agreement, which restricts the policy of the Government and of the broadcasting authorities to produce varying programmes. That scarce resource is being spent by the IBA. Perhaps the Government think that it is being spent in the proper way, but they have given no indication of what they think.

The significance of the continued handing-out of commercial contracts comes in the form of duplication and deprivation. It means duplication because in centre after centre we have created not only BBC local radio stations but also local commercial radio stations, while at the same time there usually exists along with them the vestigial regional service, which is not now operating throughout the whole country but continues to be provided in some centres.

In areas like London, for example, we have a multiplicity of local radio stations. Tyneside, Teesside and Clyde-side and other centres will be having at least two local radio stations plus the basic regional service on VHF. It is clear that the commercial companies are aiming for areas where they will get the best revenue—the cream areas. The result is first duplication and then deprivation—duplication in the cream areas and deprivation for those areas where it is not viable to set up commercial radio stations.

I do not blame the contractors. There is not much advertising revenue in large, scattered rural areas to provide the basis for a commercial radio station. I cannot even argue that there is the basis for a public BBC local radio station. There was the basis for a regional service but probably there is not a case for the provision of the local radio services which successive Governments have wished to provide. But areas like mine have no regional service, no BBC local radio service, certainly no commercial radio service and no prospect of getting any of them.

The Minister of State talked of the need not to prejudice future proposals and recommendations which might be made by the Annan Committee. What is happening on the commercial radio front is clearly prejudicing future decisions on sound broadcasting. It represents decisions to use up frequencies, and in specific instances frequencies have been taken away from the BBC, which was providing limited regional services, and have been given to commercial contractors. This has meant more duplication in populous centres, where the need was not so great because such centres have all kinds of entertainment which a scattered area does not have.

The Minister of State talked about waiting for Annan. I have had experience of waiting for Crawford. I think I must have had more Questions answered than any other hon. Member about waiting for Crawford. I expect that state of affairs to continue for a little while.

It is obvious that we need a clear decision on the commercial radio front if there is to be any hope for those areas for which commercial radio cannot provide. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) went in his remarks but I have considerable sympathy with him. I suggest to the Government that the line they must take in the present situation is this. I do not think they can tolerate the continued granting of franchises to commercial radio companies in areas where the result is duplication. The clear decision which should be made is that commercial radio contracts should be awarded only in those areas which do not have local radio services. There is clearly a strong case for allowing such operations to begin in the areas which are commercially viable and in which there is no alternative radio service. In those cases it is appropriate for contracts to be given.

It is time that the Government made their intentions clear. Far from continuing to pursue the policy of the previous Government, the present Government, who said many things about commercial radio when in opposition, should now indicate some continued belief in what they have said previously by not granting commercial radio contracts on a duplication basis when the use of frequencies causes massive deprivation in many parts of the country and prejudices many broadcasting decisions.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I apologise for my brief absence from the debate. Unfortunately I had to take part in a television programme.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who has left the Chamber, made a good point about the Lobby correspondents system in the House when he mentioned the absence of correspondents operating in the Palace of Westminster representing the Scottish television companies. That is a general criticism. I understand that the television companies have made representations about this matter. I hope that they will make further representations. It seems absolutely ludicrous that major television companies should be excluded from the Lobby under the policy which seems now to be pursued.

Unfortunately it seems that that particular absence reflects all too well the stubborn refusal of the House of Commons to come to terms with television. We have consistently refused over the years to allow the House of Commons to be televised. We have shown no interest in that. Even now, when the tide at last seems to be changing, this matter is not carried forward with any great enthusiasm. Indeed, perhaps the first point one should make in a debate of this kind is to regret how very little interest is shown in the House of Commons about broadcasting policy. During this debate some familiar faces have been present, but at no stage have there been more than a dozen hon. Members listening to what is taking place.

Politicians are very prone to lecture the broadcasting organisations on how they should behave. We are very quick to criticise faults in their programmes and quick to point out errors of taste which we think they have committed. We are very willing to issue statements—normally at the weekend, and from the comfort of our homes—telling the broadcasting companies what they have omitted or what they should never have put into programmes. When it comes to debates of this kind, however, we are fortunate if more than a dozen hon. Members attend.

Therefore, we should not be altogether surprised if the broadcasting organisations take the view that the interest of Members of Parliament in broadcasting is skin deep and of very little consequence in their reckoning. That is a point which the House should take to heart. It is also a pity, because this has been an interesting debate.

I support the extension of the IBA until 1979. My concern is not that the extension is too long but about whether it is necessary to put this kind of time limit on the extension of the life of the IBA at all. Like some of my hon. Friends I am concerned that the Annan Committee, when it is announced and finally gets down to work, should not interfere with the basic structure of broadcasting organisation in this country, which is a well-tried structure and is serving the public well at present.

I should like briefly to approach the question through the eyes of a journalist. Perhaps I should declare my interest, as a member of the National Union of Journalists who worked for nine years on Fleet Street, and mention in addition that I am also a consultant director of a subsidiary company of an advertising agency. But it is solely the journalistic aspect with which I am concerned.

Journalism is a trade which thrives on competition. Newspapers and, increasingly, broadcasting organisations want not only to get the story first but also to get the best story. There is no spur like the spur of knowing that a competitor is working on the same subject. Some might say that this can be a spur towards sensationalism, towards making the piece more dramatic than it intrinsically is. Clearly it would be naïve of me to pretend that in journalism this does not happen. More often, however, it is a spur to making a piece of journalism, whether written or television journalism, more thorough than it otherwise would be. There is an incentive for the journalist not to miss a vital point and an incentive to dig into a subject and, perhaps, reveal aspects of it which previously had lain unrevealed and unsuspected.

That is a general point of which not only the Minister but also some of my hon. Friends should take account—the benefits of competition. We have seen the benefits of the competition that we have now in this country. We have seen the benefits again in this journalistic field. "News at Ten", for example, has set a consistently high standard and introduced a new format into television journalism. It was paid the ultimate compliment of having that format followed by the BBC. Indeed, it is not going too far to say that "New at Ten" established for the first time in Britain that there was a serious audience for news and that viewers would stay with a programme not merely for a short while but for 30 minutes or perhaps longer. The previous assumption that the public were content with just a very brief newsreel-type programme was not justified. That was one benefit of competition.

The reverse is also true. BBC programmes such as "Panorama" have set consistently high standards and the independent television companies have sought to challenge these with their own programmes. Therefore, I suggest that the present structure of broadcasting, which provides competition between independent companies and between the BBC and independent companies, has provided benefits and, above all, benefits for the public.

We should also not forget that the IBA is now responsible for commercial radio. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) mentioned this in his very distinguished speech. Those stations are now showing their worth. There was a little criticism when they were started and there were many teething problems. It would have been remarkable had that not been so. Certainly LBC was trying a news format which had not been attempted in this country. It was pioneering new ground. It is now providing a valuable and thorough news service. Capital Radio, the other London station, has also pioneered new fields. For example, it produces two-hour discussions on particular aspects of policy. These are valuable, and they provide the answer to all of us as politicians who have said that there is never enough time to explore a particular point.

The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred to Nottingham and said that commercial radio was about to be introduced there but that there was no particular demand or necessity for it. Perhaps he will allow me, as someone who previously had a connection with Nottingham, to explain that the position there—which is probably not very different from the position in many other provincial cities—is basically that there is one monopoly evening newspaper and one monopoly broadcasting organisation, the BBC. In that kind of situation—I make no criticism of either of those monopolies—a new element of competition has everything to be said for it.

It is right for the Minister to have on record our concern about the Labour Party's plans on the question of competition. We are concerned that the Government will alter the structure of broadcasting and reduce competition, certainly on the national news-gathering front, and we want some assurance that independent commercial radio has a future. There is sufficient indecision and uncertainty for us to press the Government on this matter and to ask, particularly in respect of local radio, for a clear statement of policy. Uncertainty is, unfortunately, all to prevalent and it would be right for it to be removed tonight.

I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Derby, North on public consultation and participation. I hope that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West said will be noted by the Government. He raised the important question of the advisory council of the IBA. I hope that it will not he the Government's policy to wait for Annan on everything that is to take place. My right hon. Friend's comments about the advisory council touch on a subject on which progress could be made long before Annan is even set up. The advisory council's terms of reference are wide. They are to keep independent television programmes under review, and I suppose that its remit could hardly be wider. It can make comments to the authority and advise the authority on the content and pattern of programmes. That appears to be an exceptionally wide remit. We are indebted to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for its report on the effectiveness of the council which led to our debate last year.

The Select Committee raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the council. The report told us that the council, which has such an enomous remit, met four times a year and that the meetings lasted between two and three hours. The council chairman told the Committee the meetings began at 2 p.m. and continued until about 5 p.m. He was frank enough to admit that attendance lessened as the afternoon drew on and that by 4 p.m. attendance was getting a little sparse. The council has no full-time staff, but it has a secretary who is loaned to the council by the authority. That situation does not seem to me to fit the definition of a public watchdog with any great power or influence.

The chairman told the Select Committee that the council had contemplated making Press statements. One would have thought that there would have been many opportunities since its establishment in 1964 for it to have made Press statements on a range of subjects, but it has made not a single statement.

Therefore, let us not wait for Annan in this respect. Let us see whether we can devise a more effective consumer watchdog and improve the advisory council.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Once more it has been the Conservative Party which in the main has reflected in this House the hopes and fears of the great silent majority on the receiving end of radio and television. We have had the benefit of contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), who is deeply immersed in the industry and has had a long interest in it, and for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has had long experience and who is an articulate writer on the subject, and who refreshed the debate by cutting through a lot of the hocus pocus that surrounds the subject. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who has worked in the industry at programme level, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) who, while a journalist active in other spheres, has strong views about freedom in television. He was kind enough to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) as having made a distinguished speech.

The common theme in all this is that we should not miss opportunities in broadcasting through fear or timidity, and the Government's public face looks somewhat timid, though there seems something sinister behind the scenes. The Minister of State tried to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Conway not to pursue the question of Press reports on the Transport House document, if that is how I may refer to this mysterious publication. However, it cannot be ignored because there have been extensive reports about it in responsible newspapers. If the Press reports are correct it seems that the men behind the document would scrap the BBC and the IBA and would put in their place a national broadcasting commission, which would rely for programmes on small independent units, financed in a way which is not clear.

I have had many political contacts with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) over the years. He was chairman of the body which drew up the document. It would be interesting to know what he had in mind. The reports suggested that all advertising revenues—including Press revenues—would be pooled and shared out, possibly by Transport House nominees sitting on some board, presumably to ailing and uneconomic Left-Wing publications, or worse. All this seem dotty to me, but it is, none the less, highly dangerous, and one is tempted to ask why the Bill is based on the date of 1979. Perhaps we are preparing not just for Annan's conclusions but for the Transport House proposals which would fit very neatly into the time scale that has been set out before us in the event of a return of a strong Labour Government. The report has been pro- duced by the "rolling chairmen", and no doubt their proposals could be steamrollered into effect.

To return to reality, it is true that we live in difficult times and that scarce resources must be wisely used, but there can be no excuse for wasting those resources already committed to broadcasting and for not planning ahead so that, as circumstances improve, the medium is ready to play its part in a better future.

The Government have rightly said that they will endeavour to maintain the level of help which we when in Government gave to the arts. Although, this is for them a retreat from the brave words of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) before he took office, it is good to know that someone on the Government side of the House is still competing with other interests—sport is much in evidence here—for a modicum of public money for the subsidised arts which could, if they reach them, enrich the lives of millions of people. But there is one major obstacle to public enjoyment of all this, which must be obvious to all hon. Members—lack of communication.

More people could view our national opera through television in less than a week than could hope to get into Covent Garden between now and the end of the century. This is a stark example of our present failure to make the fullest use of television in a sector in which it could do nothing but good. There can be no argument about that. It is probably in this field that postponing indefinitely a fourth television channel is most damaging. There is ample spare capacity and talent in the television industry—I include the whole of television and not what some hon. Members think of as being the industry, the private sector—to fill another channel. The independent side could do a much better job if it had the same facilities on the air as the BBC. My own honorary position in one of the smaller companies has reinforced my view on that.

Both channels—both sectors, so to speak—would be much freer of union problems if there were more room for them in which to overate. Some of the protective attitudes of members of unions—which produce stoppages and even strikes—come as a result of fear of unemployment.

The cost of ITV 2 need not deter the Government from approaching the problem, because the cost would not be immediate. It would build up over a period, and then eventually be self-supporting. It would also have the advantage of getting money into the arts, which the Government might well consider, because there will never be enough money for the arts through straight Government subsidy. The BBC could do better than it does now if some of its Open University and other educational broadcasts were to become the responsibility of ITV 2. The BBC now says that it is stretched to the limit in this regard. Surely ITV should play its part in this—and it could play a much fuller part if it had more space.

The future of the fourth channel is not a choice between handing over another channel to the existing contractors to use entirely as they please or doing nothing. There are a number of options, though a second channel in the hands of ITV, in one form or another, would have considerable advantages.

There has been much reference in the debate to the Annan Committee which has been resuscitated, and the Minister has been teased about the lack of names of members of the Committee. If we are to have the Annan Committee we must have the right people on it, but there seems to be little agreement in the House about who are the right people, except that they should be real people. A particularly valid point made from this side of the House was the hope that if the Annan Committee were to be set up and flourish it would be a great advantage to have on it real people who watch television, people with real families. There would be wide public support for a committee so composed, and I hope that the Government take note of this.

We take the view, despite what the Minister tried to say at the start of the debate, that by resuscitating Annan he is, in effect, putting off all the important decisions for about three years, and decisions, even if made promptly after the Annan Committee reaches its conclusions—that is not likely if the corn-mince is to be taken seriously—could not take effect for perhaps a further two years. It is thanks to the Government's decision that we are in this position and that there is only the slimmest prospect of increased public enjoyment of television.

The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—who is not present at the moment—heralded what he described as another inquiry on top of Annan, which was in his view to be only a prelude to further examination. In this respect the Opposition differ considerably from the Government in that we believe in letting broadcasting get on with the job, and not continually pulling it up and examining it. The hon. Member for Derby. North, who is an influential member of his party, and will, no doubt, be a future occupant of the Front Bench, gave a depressing picture of endless inquiries stretching until the end of the century.

The Minister made a brief opening speech. I do not quarrel with him for being brief, if he can be comprehensive in his reply. He threw out a small sop to the Welsh in the context of the Crawford Committee. We should like to know more about the Minister's attitude on that and many other matters, and there is no shortage of time for him to reply.

The Minister should particularly address himself to the future of the cable television experiments. At present these experiments are being carried out in an altruistic public-spirited manner, but those involved in them cannot be expected to continue with them for ever unless they know what the future is to be.

I hope the Minister will also say something in his reply about standards in broadcasting. Lest he should seek to say that this is no business of his, I shall, while not quoting him at length, refer to a speech he made in the Standing Committee on the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, on 13th December 1973. It was an excellent speech. The Minister said that he was constantly amazed at the general youth of television producers. He went on to justify that slight slur upon them. I must not digress here, but surely there is no harm in young men having views. The Minister said that as these young men were controlling an enormously powerful medium such as television, it behoves them to have some concern for the general public disquiet, if that is what it is, about some of their offerings. They cannot simply shrug it off by saying, ' This is censorship and we object to it.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th December 1973; c. 305.] I will not digress over what is censorship and what is not, but the Minister said that people in television could not shrug off their responsibilities, and therefore implied that he also has some responsibility in this connection.

The debate would not be complete without a reference to Mrs. Whitehouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot mentioned her. Mrs. Whitehouse may be a figure of fun to some, and by others she is regarded as the personification of the worst aspect of prudish censorship. I am not expressing my personal views here. These things have been said about her, but I believe them to be quite unfair. Her association represents, however imperfectly, the point of view of millions of decent-minded people into whose lives, and into whose children's lives, much which is violent and tasteless would not have entered were it not for television. It is small wonder that there are many who now wish that the box had not become such an intrusive influence in our homes.

The Government, by their attitude in the debate, and by what they are doing in the Bill, and its implications, seem to regard television as a kind of Pandora's box which they wish had never been opened. From the box, as they will know from their classical learning, all manner of evils flew out all over the world. I remind the Government that Hope remained inside when the startled Pandora slammed down the lid.

We have three television channels. Will the Government keep the lid on indefinitely? Three channels cannot produce a balance. Under the present Government television is to drift listlessly along. There is nothing listless in the Opposition's attitude to the subject. As has been seen this afternoon, we believe in steady progress and grafting new branches on to the living system we have evolved, not the tearing up operation already referred to. Nor does the future lie in some of the wilder demolition activities which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East appears to have been about, and with which perhaps even the hon. Member for Derby, North has been concerned, although we await the publication of the report with interest.

We are left with uncertainty and even alarm among those who make our broadcasting, and the audience is denied a wider and richer choice, while Socialists squabble on, some with the best intentions and some with the worst. The one decision for which this Government can claim a doubtful credit is that the fourth button on the television set in practically every home in the land remains a dud, and will remain so indefinitely.

7.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)

With the permission of the House, I will reply to what has been an interesting debate, in which there have been a number of thoughtful contributions. The only one that strayed overtly into party political discussion was that of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), and I do not propose to pay much attention to that.

The most interesting and amusing speech was that of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). Unfortunately, he told us not to pay too much attention to him. Nevertheless, many of his criticisms of some of the stereotypes of the arguments that can be adduced in this area constituted a valuable exercise. he hon. Gentleman said that we as politicians appear on the box and never watch it. That may be true of him, but I find myself watching it frequently and very rarely appearing on it. I make no complaint about that. It seems to have dated from the time when I suggested that there should be a law of privacy. Since then I have been a very private person in the view of the television companies.

However, I believe that the lion. Gentleman has a point. We talk endlessly in the House about all the great things television should do, yet for most ordinary people it is a vehicle of entertainment. We neglect that part of it at our peril, but as many hon. Members have suggested today, it is not just a vehicle of entertainment; it is also a vehicle of education, of communication and of understanding.

When the hon. Gentleman suggested that the only choice for the fourth channel that could be accepted, when we had discounted all the others, on his logic, was a second channel for ITV, his argument was the sort that used to be put forward for the BBC's having a second channel. It is not clear to me that the hopes of the BBC second channel were properly fulfilled, largely because, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, the various channels are competing for audiences and there is a sense in which one must play to the audience, even if one's main requirement is not advertising revenue. That is the major Difficulty about the allocation of a fourth channel.

In closing the debate, I cannot say very much about the allocation. It would be silly to try to do so. The purpose of the Annan Committee is to consider the whole future of broadcasting, of which the allocation of the fourth channel is obviously a pertinent part.

There has been complaint tonight, mainly from the Opposition Front Bench, that the appointment of the committee postpones that important decision still further. The committee was to be in existence when we went out of office in 1970. If the Government that came into office then had maintained the committee, we should now be in a position to legislate on its recommendations. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir J. Eden) complains about delay, he has only himself to blame.

When the right hon. Gentleman complains about delay on the fourth channel, that is the unkindest cut of all, because when he tried to justify not continuing with the Annan Committee in the 1970 Government, one of the arguments was that the Government would look at specific problems and seek specific solutions rather than try to have a comprehensive picture of the future of broadcasting. One of the problems they were to look at was the allocation of the fourth channel, which was never allocated in their four years in power. Therefore, they cannot complain if we take a little time to make the right decision about that and a number of other matters that come within the general realm of broadcasting.

I still cannot understand why 1979 has been thought to have some relevance to the production of a document from Transport House about the future of broadcasting. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in that document that relates to 1979. It could be applied either in 1979 or in 1981, if in fact it became the Government's policy. But it is not the Government's policy, and the study group recognises that it is not. The group said that it was producing the document for the purpose of presenting it as evidence to the Annan Committee in order that the committee should consider the Labour Party's views and come to a conclusion on them. The document has that status.

I do not prejudge the committee, or what the study group will produce, or what the Government will decide about it in the end. However, I do not think that the present structures of the BBC and the IBA are sacrosanct. I see no reason why we should not look at the whole problem of how those structures emerged and whether they fit the pattern of broadcasting for the future, against a very different background. If the committee and a future Government take the view that we should have one broadcasting authority which channels all the income into its own preserves and then uses it to finance different kinds of broadcasting in different ways, so be it. That seems to me to be an interesting idea that should at any rate be considered.

When hon. Members constantly spurn Lord Reith and welcome a different type of regime at the BBC, why they think it wrong for people to think of overturning the present structure of the BBC and looking to something different, I do not know. I am not suggesting that that is the right way forward. All I am saying is that all options are open, and it is open to the Annan Committee to take whatever view it likes. We hope that in coming to its conclusion it will consider the Labour Party's views as well as other views.

I was asked about a more immediate and pressing problem—the future of commercial sound radio. I should like to be able to announce now what that decision is. I cannot do so, but I do not think that it will be long before the decision is announced. We have considered the matter with some care. A considerable number of alternatives have been aired today. As is well known, there are five areas in which commercial broadcasting has been instituted, contracts are out for another six and two applications have been invited. There could be a total of 13 contracts in existence. We hope to be able to announce shortly which view we shall take.

The five existing cable television experiments will continue. It is correct that in seeking to continue those experiments some of the companies are in some financial difficulty. There is some merit in looking to ways in which they could be helped, but that, again, is one of the major issues that Annan will have to consider. The committee will have to consider whether cable television is the right way forward and, if so, on what basis it should be financed and administered. We cannot now give any hint as to the way in which that might progress, or as to the way in which it might be possible to help -with finance in the interim before any decision is made as a result of the Annan recommendations. The matter is under consideration. That is as much as I can say tonight.

Sir J. Eden

At the very least will the Minister give further consideration to the suggestion that the basis on which the experiments are being conducted should be widened so as to enable Annan to have the benefit of the practical experience of the operation of a number of different factors which the present restricted licence terms preclude?

Mr. Lyon

That matter is under consideration as a way of assisting not only Annan but everyone else to evaluate cable television. We have not yet determined what we shall do in that area.

I was asked about violence on television and about standards generally. All that I can say is that such matters are for the broadcasting authorities themselves. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, an immense amount of research is being carried out on the relationship between violence and television. The difficulty is to evaluate what it means. In the end it is not entirely clear whether any further research will give us any greater indication. It is true that both the IBA and the BBC have been concerned about the problem and have issued codes of conduct to the producers about the coverage of violence on television. It is to be hoped that that will have some effect upon programmes.

Regarding other complaints about standards, I can only repeat that part of my speech to which reference has been made. I did not in that speech suggest that Government should have any kind of oversight of the standards of television. I said precisely the opposite, and I say so again tonight.

It is not for Government to determine the standards of television. Government, just like hon. Members, have the right to set the climate of opinion in which the broadcasting authorities take their decisions about standards of television. I have not the least doubt that the authorities will listen to all that has been said during the debate about standards. I know that they listen closely to what is said publicly about standards by all the various personalities who have been named today and that they are aware of their responsibility. It is ultimately a matter for them. That is the way in which the authorities were established. No doubt that is a matter that might come before the Annan Committee. It may be for the Annan Committee to consider whether any change is necessary, but I suspect that its view in the final analysis will be that, whatever the form of the broadcasting commission or commissions, it should be for the authorities to determine standards.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the interim period when the contracts for the programme contractors will be extended. The IBA announced—and it is a matter for the authority and not for Government—that it was proposing to extend the existing contracts until 1979. In that sense the contractors could say that they were safe until 1979 and they could, if they wished, sit on their haunches.

My hon. Friend suggested that the IBA should use a goad upon the contractors to ensure that they maintain their standards in the interim. The IBA has statutory powers, even within the lifetime of a contract, to vary or to withdraw a contract. It does not use the power because it is of such a Draconian nature.

Reference has been made to the kind of disruption that occurred when the last contracts were issued. There was fear for two years before the ending of the contracts that people would be out of jobs and that the contractors would not continue. If there were to be regular changes in the structure of the contracts that uncertainty would persist. The IBA is concerned with the day-to-day working of the contractors. It brings its influence to bear by trying to get them to change their programmes or their decisions.

Mr. Whitehead

This is all very well, but my hon. Friend will recollect that the Select Committee criticised the IBA for not using its powers in an emergency to call in a contract. Will my hon. Friend say whether the IBA will be retaining those powers and whether it will be expected to use them in the event of a television or radio company being at fault in the exercise of its contract or in the event of its own financial failure?

Mr. Lyon

It will retain its powers, and because a statutory duty is placed upon it to have oversight of the contractors it is for the authority to decide whether it will use them. It is not for me to decide that the authority should use its powers. I take the view that it should have much greater oversight of the contractors than perhaps it has exercised in the past. All I was saying is that it has not been so laggardly as has been suggested.

There has been a considerable amount of intervention by the IBA. We have the splendid "News at Ten", which has been praised by some Conservative hon. Members, because the IBA took an active interest in getting the programme started by the programme contractors. The wisdom of doing so is now appreciated. Equally, "Weekend World" continued as long as it did because of the pressure that the IBA put upon the programme contractor to keep it going. That kind of pressure is exerted day in and day out. There is constant communication between the contractors and the IBA. That is the job that we have riven to the IBA. If in the end it is not as good as it should be, it must be remembered that no human institution is perfect.

The IBA has done a considerable amount to improve the standards of programmes on the commercial network. I hope that it will go further because I believe that there is still a long way to go. I hope that it will carry out its duties in the same way until 1979 when the Bill will come to an end.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).