HC Deb 17 November 1978 vol 958 cc876-86

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Thomas Cox.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East)

I want to start by reading the descriptions of two towns, Taunton and Luton. The first description is that of Taunton: county town, Somerset, England; on River Tone at west end of Vale of Taunton; old castle; clothing, engineering, plastics; population 37,373. The description of Luton is as follows: market town, Bedfordshire, England; important straw hat, bonnet and plait factories; population 32,400.

One might think that these are two comparable towns—both with a population of 30,000-odd, both county towns with some industry. But there is just one small difference. The description of Taunton comes from the Pears Cyclopaedia 1977–78 and that of Luton comes from Longman's Gazetteer of 1906.

Luton has grown somewhat since 1906, a fact which seems to have eluded the grasp of virtually every major official body in this country. It has grown enormously in population. It now has a population of more than 160,000 people. If we take the whole of the South Bedfordshire conurbation—only the locals know where Luton ends and Dunstable begins—the figure tops 200,000.

If we draw a modest circle of 10 to 15 miles around Luton, we include considerable towns such as Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. Not only have Luton and South Bedfordshire grown in population: they have grown in industrial and economic importance. Luton is no longer the small country town making straw hats. We have some of the largest and most important companies in this country. We have Vauxhall Motors, SKF, Chrysler, and Electrolux. We make more commercial vehicles in South Bedfordshire than are made anywhere else in the United Kingdom, yet these simple facts do not seem to have penetrated the inner sanctums of the august bodies which take so many of the decisions affecting our lives.

I must not digress, but I shall take one simple example. I have just discovered, as a result of a visit to one large factory in my constituency, that Luton is not linked to the international dialling system. How absurd, when companies such as Vauxhall want to ring Germany and have to wait 20 minutes for the operator. The same applies to other companies—they are all international.

Now the Home Office and the broadcasting authorities have confirmed that point. They are no different from the rest. Luton is bigger than Barrow, Cambridge, Lincoln, Northampton, Norwich, Shrewsbury, Taunton, Truro or York. It is bigger than any town that appears on the list of those getting new BBC local radio stations. It is also bigger than a number of towns on the IBA list as well.

Sheer size and importance may appear to be pretty compelling arguments, but they are not the major arguments on which I want to base the case for local radio in Luton.

Before I deal with the major arguments, I make a further point in order to lay, as it were, a further misconception. It appears to be entrenched in the minds of the broadcasting authorities—if I may say so, sadly, particularly in the minds of the BBC—that, somehow, Luton and South Bedfordshire are in the orbit of London and therefore, somehow, are served by it. To confirm that this is so, I quote a sentence from a letter I received a few days ago from Mr. Ian Trethowan, the director-general of the BBC. He said: "In the list that has now been published we have sought to achieve a good geographical balance while paying proper attention to the remoteness of the area concerned. I am sorry that for these reasons Luton, like other communities in the Home counties, has not been chosen. Luton and South Bedfordshire are not served by London. We are a freestanding community with our own life and our own needs. We are no more served by the various local radio stations in London than we are by, say, the London evening newspapers.

How can it be argued that we are not a free-standing community when the Medway towns apparently are? The Medway towns are no further from London than Luton is; neither are they bigger. Yet they have a local radio station. Again, Reading has its own radio station, although Reading is smaller than Luton and a comparable distance from the capital. What of Southend, which appears on the latest IBA list? It is a town of similar size to Luton and is a similar distance from London, and it has greater links with London than we have in South Bedfordshire. We are a freestanding community, yet in so many ways we arc in a no-man's-land. We are, at the best, on the fringes of everybody's regions.

For example, we are on the fringes of the Anglia Television region and of the region covered by the London commercial stations. With the BBC we are in an even worse case, because neither BBC East Anglia nor BBC London seems to recognise our existence at all. It is with something of a hollow laugh that we in Luton read the working party's report when it talks of development from a regional to a local service. We have neither.

As I have said, it is not on sheer size that I would base my major argument—it is upon need. I remind the House of what is said in paragraph 28 of the White Paper on broadcasting, published in July. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote at some length. It said: The Government agrees with the Annan Committee's concept of local radio—that each station should have a general duty to inform, entertain and educate, but that each should have a special obligation to celebrate the particular quality of life in its locality. Local radio can provide people with information and news about what is happening in their community and it can afford individuals and groups an opportunity to communicate with the communities to which they belong. In these ways local radio can bind a community together, nourish that which is distinctive about a community, and respond, in ways not open to the national networks, to the needs and wishes of the community, and of individuals and groups within the community it serves. For example, a local radio station can reflect the differing cultures of the ethnic minority groups in its area and respond to their special needs. It can also contribute towards bringing together the new communities which have been formed as a result of local government reorganisation. If ever an area fitted that description like a hand in a glove, surely it is Luton and South Bedfordshire.

The area has grown very rapidly this century. We are par excellence a town of the second Industrial Revolution. People have come to the area from all over the British Isles and beyond. My own father was a Geordie. Like thousands of others, he came south in the 1920s and 1930s from the depressed areas of the North, Scotland and Wales to seek work.

Other waves of immigration followed. Polish people came during the war. Irish people have come, and more recently people from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent have come. My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that we have in Luton a Welsh chapel. Two of the biggest social clubs in Luton are the Glasgow Rangers and the Glasgow Celtic supporters' clubs. We have a Polish club. We have all kinds of clubs and associations, of Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, West Indians and Irish.

What we lack above all is an overall sense of community. There is a great deal happening, but it happens in isolated pockets. It rarely comes together as a whole. Yes, we need to celebrate the particular quality of life in our locality. Yes, we need information and news about what is happening in the community. Yes, we need the community to be bound together. We need these things. There is not an area in the country that needs them more.

On Wednesday evening I met a number of representatives of the local com- munity. I quote just one or two of the ways in which they put the same point: Local radio could do so much to bring the town together. Luton needs a heart. Local radio gets the community together. We need all the help we can get to promote a sense of community, to bring all the separate elements of the community together, to share the various cultures of our community, to integrate the various parts of our community. I believe, as the Annan committee believed and as the Home Office professes to believe, that local radio could play an invaluable, indeed unique, role in helping to bring that about.

I do not want to become involved in the kind of squabble that Monday night's debate about Northampton was about—whether there should be a BBC or an IBA local radio station. Perhaps the people in Northampton can afford to have that kind of squabble. We cannot. We do not have local radio, and we are on nobody's list to get it.

We want local radio. We need local radio. When I say "we", I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the people of Luton and South Bedfordshire as a whole, for there is a broad consensus on the subject. The borough council wants local radio, the county council wants it, the Council of Churches wants it, the trade council wants it and the Arts Council wants it. I know of no one who does not want it.

In a press statement issued by the BBC on 14th April last year Luton appeared on a list of 26 "proposed stations already named". Yet, in its wisdom, the working party settled on a figure of 18 new stations, and said: In settling on a figure of 18, we paid particular regard to the need to preserve flexibility for the later development of local radio as a whole. What happened to Luton? Was it on the list of 18? No. We were regarded as dispensable, a place that could no doubt be dealt with flexibly at some time in the future. We have a simple message to the members of that working party. We should have been top of the list, not left off it altogether.

We want local radio, and we want it now. It is not good enough to pat us on our heads and say "Go away, there's good people, and we shall bear you in mind next time round." That is not good enough. We are big and we are important. Above all, we must have local radio in Luton and South Bedfordshire if the area is to develop into that integrated community that we so badly need to be.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)

Since this is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) reminded us, the second debate this week on local radio, there is obviously a great interest in the decision of my right hon. Friend which was announced recently sanctioning another 18 radio stations. As my hon. Friend said, it is an interest which spans both the inclusion and exclusion of certain towns and, apparently, in certain areas, the type of station which has been sanctioned. However, though a week in politics has been said to be a long time, I do not think that it is a long time in broadcasting politics. Therefore, my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that little if anything has changed since the debate four days ago and that what I say must be repetitious of what was said in answer to the debate on Monday night.

But it is important that I emphasise not only the general background but the way in which the decision has been taken. My hon. Friend quoted from the White Paper. I might point out to him that in paragraph 39 of the White Paper, in considering the history of local broadcasting and of the local stations already set up, it has been concluded by the Government that the experiment has been a success. Therefore, the Government are committed to the coverage of the large majority of the population as quickly as possible.

Paragraph 39 of the White Paper went on to say that both the BBC and the IBA should be permitted to expand their local broadcasting facilities. It was thought that eventually in some areas there would be room for both to coexist. I accept that there will not be until coverage by one or other of the networks covers the majority of the country. But there will always be a time when areas with lower populations might only have one of them.

Although it is a somewhat left-handed compliment to the success of local broad- casting to say this, I think a testimony to that success has been my hon. Friend's passionate desire for the expansion of local broadcasting to Luton.

On behalf of the Government, I do not resile from anything said in Annan or anything said about the importance of radio in helping to weld the community. However, a sense of community is not created by radio alone. If we believe that there is some magic formula whereby the granting of a contract will lead automatically to a greater sense of community, we delude ourselves.

Mr. Clemitson

I was not suggesting that it was some kind of panacea which would automatically and magically bring about a sense of community. I was suggesting that it could perform a particularly valuable function in helping to bring that about. That is what we need in South Bedfordshire.

Mr. John

I understand that, and basically I agree. But there were times during my hon. Friend's speech when he tended to give the impression that nothing but a local radio system would do that in his area. I accept it as an adjunct to a further welding and perhaps a source of understanding in that area, but I do not accept that it is the only way in which the community can be soldered together.

I was dealing with paragraph 33 of the White Paper. This lays down some of the considerations which are to be taken into account when local radio stations are being sited. Two of the criteria are, first, priority to those areas of the country which have no local coverage at the moment and, secondly, the most effective use of available frequencies.

My hon. Friend said that his argument was not on size alone. I am glad that he said that. Luton may be big and it may be important, but I am strongly of the view that size of itself—and even importance of itself—is not a sufficient criterion for devoting all the resources and all the energies into that area.

I share my hon. Friend's view that size of itself is not important. It is obvious that the bodies had to have a mixture of more and less populous areas in the contracts which they gave. The task was given to a working party. Before dealing with the composition of the working party I shall explain how it tackled its job.

First, it was charged with dealing with the proposals for the immediate expansion of the BBC and the IBA networks. The expansion had been held back during consideration of the Annan report. My right hon. Friend accepted the proposal for 18 stations in his statement on 24th October.

Secondly, it was charged with examining the longer-term expansion of the local broadcasting system, including the order in which the stations should be created. The Government will consider working party reports which will be issued a few at a time. Consideration will take place after the authorities have been consulted.

A representative from the 13ome Office chaired the working party and both the BBC and the IBA were represented. The Home Office cannot be said to be acting as a rubber stamp, but I urge my hon. Friend to accept that it would be extremely difficult for the Home Office to substitute its judgment for that of the practitioners in broadcasting. I can imagine the furore that there would be if the Home Office representative said that although the broadcasting authorities had suggested one course of action the Home Office in Whitehall insisted on another.

The working party report is in the Library, for the perusal of hon. Members. To fulfil the first of its roles the working party had to create 18 stations in a way that would both avoid duplication and not hinder or distort the long-term plans. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that in certain cases judgments could have been made in the short term which might have distorted the long-term pattern.

The Government set up the constitutional framework and the broadcasting authorities suggested the 18 stations which in their opinion should be accorded the highest priority. They did not act in isolation to each other but had knowledge of each other's plans. That knowledge, plus the criteria, led to the list of nine which represented the assessment of each body about where the need was greatest.

I accept what my hon. Friend has said on behalf of his constituency. His case could be made with varying degrees of emphasis by every hon. Member. When only 18 stations are to be created the Government are urged to adopt many priorities. In such circumstances an unenviable task falls upon any organisation that is asked to make the choice. Such a body can only do its best. It cannot avoid criticism.

Mr. Clemitson

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. John

I have given way to my hon. Friend before and I should like to develop my argument.

Obviously, the reasons for the choice or non-choice cannot be given, because that would lead to endless debate and would not assist the establishment of an organisation in any area. So I cannot speculate why Luton was not included in the list. The simple answer to my hon. Friend's basic query—perhaps it could be, in the words of the old First World War soldiers' song, "We're here because we're here"—is that Luton did not appear in either of the lists of first nine stations brought up by either broadcasting authority.

Mr. Clemitson

I wanted to clear up a factual point. I think that the Minister said that the working party had been asked to make a list of 18. My memory is—I may not have the figures right—that it was not, that it had a range of between 14 and 24, and that it settled on 18. As I said, Luton appeared on an earlier BBC list. If the number of stations had been greater than 18, as it could have been according to the remit of the working party, Luton might have appeared on the list.

Mr. John

What my hon. Friend said was that it appeared on a list of 26 issued by the BBC. If 24 was the number, who is to say whether Luton would have appeared in the first 12 or whether it was No. 25 in the 26 BBC stations? Hypothetical argument of that kind is sterile. We do not know.

All we know is that the working party, using its best judgment in this difficult area, thought that 18 was the realistically achievable target and that therefore each broadcasting authority put forward a list of nine and Luton did not appear in either.

Luton is not unique in that. My area, with a population slightly smaller than that of Luton, including the Rhondda and Pontypridd conurbation, is in much the same position. We can "eavesdrop" on Cardiff, as Luton eavesdrops on at least one of the London stations, but we shall be no more covered in interest than Luton is. So I have some fellow-feeling with my hon. Friend.

Both bodies will hear my hon. Friend's impassioned plea, if they have not already done so. I know that they have Luton in mind, but I undertake to draw to their attention what my hon. Friend said.

The central point of the debate is that it is our desire as a Government to cover as much of the population of the United Kingdom as possible as quickly as possible, but the manner in which services arc developed is and must inevitably be the responsibility almost entirely of the authorities themselves.

I note my hon. Friend's passionate and eloquent plea and I shall do what l can to see that the broadcasting authorities bear Luton in mind in their future plans.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.