§ EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to move for a return of all publications of the British Broadcasting Corporation, with particulars of their cost and their revenue, distinguishing sales from advertising revenue and separate particulars of the expenditure, revenue and circulation of the Radio Times and World Radio. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation was being considered in this House in December, 1926, I called your Lordships' attention to the very great amount of liberty in the matter of publication that was being given to this new Corporation. I expressed some surprise that Lord Crawford's Committee had not thought fit to put any limitations on them. Since that time the publications of the British Broadcasting Corporation have been considerable and I think it would be of public interest to know exactly what those publications are; particularly, as I have asked in my Motion for a return, what the cost of those publications is and how much the receipts are.
§ The money that is expended on founding these publications is in a sense the money of listeners; that is to say, it is a proportion of the fee of ten shillings paid for a wireless receiving licence. I am not suggesting that these publications are run at a loss. The British Broadcasting Corporation have quite unusual facilities for advertising their publications and they use those facilities over the microphone, so that, willy nilly, listeners are frequently compelled to hear about them. I have no doubt that as a result the sales are considerable. But I think it would be a matter of public interest to know both what 834 the expenditure is and what the receipts are. After all, your Lordships will remember that any business is necessarily more or less speculative and it always may happen that some of these publications may result in a loss. Should that happen the loss falls in this sense upon the listeners—that there is less money available to provide for programmes of entertainment or for fresh engineering developments in the broadcasting system.
§ For some time there have been two weeklies published by the Corporation, the Radio Times and the World Radio. The Radio Times was originally very little more than a collection of the programmes which were coming on and, although it cost 2d. and did not contain more than that, it was convenient, except in one respect: for some reason they made the week begin on Sunday instead of Monday so that it was impossible to take a single Radio Times to cover the week end; you were bound to get two. That I think is still their practice. But that journal has developed now into quite a considerable one. Then the World Radio, which is also a weekly, gives the foreign programmes and I believe there is a good deal of other matter in it. Quite recently, as your Lordships will have noticed in the Press, a third weekly has been started, called the Listener. I do not quite understand what its function is, but I believe it is said to have something to do with education. I am not asking for a return of the cost of the Listener. It has been started too recently for any one to say yet what the circulation is and what the results will be. But I think it would be of public interest to have a return; indeed, I think the public are entitled to know how this money is being spent upon these publishing activities.
§ Since I placed this Motion upon the Paper I have received a communication which informs me that they also publish a thing called a Children's Christmas Annual. I do not quite know how that is related to the broadcasting service. It may be some development of the children's hour and of a thing which is called, I believe, "The Fairy Circle," of which I sometimes hear in the children's hour if I happen to be listening. As your Lordships know, there are a great many commercial Christmas annuals, in fact, almost too many, published. I do 835 not know whether this annual is supposed to have an educational value. If it deals with the children's hour I can understand that there may be some justification for it, because I believe—I do not know—that that feature is really a popular one and one which is appreciated. It would be interesting for us to know exactly what the position is with regard to these publications. The return should not be difficult to prepare because the Corporation themselves must be informed of what the position is. I do not say any more than that we should have the information. That is all I am asking for to-day. I do not know to what extent beyond what I have heard these activities go. There are certain little books published and I believe it is said that those are all either educational or directly connected with the matter that is broadcast. Therefore there would appear to be some justification for those; but certainly those things ought not to be run at a loss. I beg to move for the return.
§ Moved, That there be laid before this House a return of all publications of the British Broadcasting Corporation, with particulars of their cost and their revenue, distinguishing sales from advertising revenue and separate particulars of the expenditure, revenue and circulation of the Radio Times and World Radio.—(Earl Russell.)
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for not having been in my place when he began his speech; I was detained in another part of the building. With reference to his Question I think I can give him the information which he wants on most of the points he has mentioned. There are, as he has told us, these publications. There is the Radio Times, which, as he says, was originally published only in order that the programmes should be circulated, but it now contains other matter. The chief object of its publication is to publish the programmes transmitted from all British stations. There is also the World Radio. I fear that the Children's Christmas Annual has rather taken me unawares because I have not heard it mentioned by name. But I understand that besides the World Radio and the Radio Times, the Corporation have produced a handbook and a number of 836 pamphlets or aids to study, which are designed to assist the educational side of its programme. The noble Earl has told your Lordships that he does not ask for particulars of the Listener, which has only just begun to be published, because it is too early.
The average weekly circulation of the Radio Times is approximately a million and a quarter and of the World Radio one hundred and fifty thousand. The audited accounts of the Corporation are presented to the Postmaster-General, who, in turn, presents them to Parliament at the end of each year. The last published accounts only go up to December 31, 1927. The expenditure of the Corporation on publications in that year was £307,819, and the gross revenue was £401,505, which gives a net revenue of £93,686. The accounts for the year 1928 have not yet been completed.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANThe figures I have given are the total figures. I was going on to say that I hoped the noble Earl would not press for information as to the separate revenue from the advertisements and sales of each publication. The Corporation are of opinion that the disclosure of these details might be prejudicial to their interests, and I am sure that the noble Earl himself, and your Lordships also, would not wish that anything prejudicial to their interests should occur.
§ THE EARL of LUCANThe noble Earl the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation [the Earl of Clarendon] is here this afternoon and he would give any information of that kind. The noble Earl will remember that the Corporation is a body constituted by Royal Charter and is not a Government Department, and that the opinion was generally expressed when the Broadcasting Corporation was formed in December, 1926, to take over the work of the Broadcasting Company, that it was undesirable that broadcasting should be conducted by a Department of State. The noble Earl [Earl Russell] took part in the debate when I introduced that matter here and he will remember that one expression used by Lord Crawford's 837 Committee was that the Commissioners should be invested with the maximum of freedom that Parliament was prepared to concede. I recall in that connection that the noble Earl took exception at the time to the clauses in that agreement which give the Corporation power to compile and prepare, print, publish, etc. When the noble Earl spoke on that subject then, he stated that although it sounded a very innocent clause he rather had his doubts about it. Apparently, his doubts still exist, and he would like to have them dissolved. I have given him the best information that I can get so far as the revenue and expenditure of the publications are concerned, and I hope he will not press for further details with regard to advertisements, etc.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONMy Lords, I do not propose to cover the ground which has already been amply gone over by my noble friend Lord Lucan in reply to Lord Russell's Motion, but probably your Lordships would desire me, as Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation, to make one or two general observations before the debate concludes. I propose to address myself in what I have to say to two points—in the first place, to the idea which I think exists in the public mind to-day, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a sort of sub-department of the Post Office; and secondly, to the belief that the Corporation enjoys a somewhat highly privileged and subsidised position. On the first of those two points I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, in case any of you have that point of view, to this, that the Corporation is in no sense a sub-department of the Post Office. I think one might say quite truthfully that it is almost comparable to the Port of London Authority and to the new Imperial Cable Board. If reference is made to the instruments which set up those two organisations to which I have referred I think my point will be substantiated.
I would like in this connection to give one or two quotations, and first, if I may, to read to your Lordships a, very short extract from a statement which was made by the Postmaster-General, speaking in the House of Commons in Committee of Supply on November 15, 1926. This is what he said:—
I want to make this service"—838 your Lordships will remember that November 15, 1926, is about six weeks, before the present Corporation came into being; it came into being on January 1, 1927—not a Department of the State, and still less a creature of the Executive, and so far as is consistent with Ministerial responsibility, I wish to create an independent body of trustees operating the service in the interest of the public as a whole.Speaking at a later date, July 12, 1928, again on the subject of Supply in the House of Commons, he said:—That is to say that in the ordinary matters of detail and of day to day working, the governors are absolutely masters in their own house. I do not interfere and do not seek to interfere with their absolute freedom in those respects.Then, if I may, I want to quote two very short extracts from two leading organs of the Press which were published immediately after the Report by Lord Crawford's Committee, which sat, as your Lordships are aware, to look into the whole question of the future of the broadcasting service. This is what The Times said on March 6, 1926, in one of its leading articles:—… an organisation which shall be free from and above all interests, by constitution as well as in practice.The Morning Post of the same date used these words:—But as it is not to be expected that the State should successfully concern itself with a service which is mainly employed for entertainment, so it is equally essential to preserve independent initiative on the part of the managers of that service.I think that disposes of the idea that the Broadcasting Corporation is in any sense a sub-department of the Post Office and in this respect I would like to make one further observation. I desire to express the Corporation's gratitude not only to the Prime Minister but to the Postmaster-General for having, on more than one occasion, substantiated that point, and, bearing this in mind, I have very little doubt myself that in all probability these were the reasons which actuated the Postmaster-General, as being the responsible authority, in refusing to see the recent deputation of the Press which desired to wait upon him.On the second point, the question of a privileged and subsidised position, may I point out this? In theory I think it can be maintained that the British 839 Broadcasting Corporation has no monopoly. I am quite ready to admit that in practice at present it has, inasmuch as the Postmaster-General has not thought fit to license any other organisation to indulge in broadcasting service, but I want to make it clear that if the Broadcasting Corporation did not behave itself, or if in any way it exceeded the powers contained in its Charter—I do not suppose for a moment it will ever do so but supposing that it did—it would be perfectly competent for the Postmaster-General, or rather for the Government of the day, to withdraw, or even to revoke, the Charter under which the Corporation operates. With regard to the question of the Corporation being in a highly subsidised position, might I remind your Lordships that the Press is—I think it can be maintained—very highly subsidised? I would like to refer your Lordships in this connection to what is known as the Hardman Lever Report, from which it becomes quite apparent that in so far as special rates for telegrams and cables are concerned they resulted in a net loss to the State of something like £212,000. That applies, of course, to the year 1926–7. Your Lordships will find particulars in the Hardman Lever Report on page 23 and the paper is Command Paper No. 3058.
With regard to the B.B.C. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the B.B.C., so far from being subsidised by the State, has sacrificed a quarter of a million sterling in so far as its gross revenue is concerned. That is to say, in the second year of its existence, the year 1927–8, the gross revenue was something approaching £1,100,000, rather more as a matter of fact, and the revenue which the British Broadcasting Corporation received for its operations amounted to about £854,000. A point has been made, I believe, about the Corporation not paying any Income Tax. It is quite true that up to date no Income Tax has been paid by the Corporation, but the whole question of Income Tax is still sub judice, and nothing has yet been decided. The point I want to make is this. I do not think it can be argued with any truth or with any fairness that the Broadcasting Corporation occupies either a privileged or a subsidised position inasmuch as it has had to pay out of its 840 gross income the enormous sum of a quarter of a million sterling. I know of no commercial enterprise or business enterprise in this country which pays something in the nature of 5s. in the £ upon its gross income. If you add to that the fact that the Treasury itself is claiming Income Tax now, I think that the point I have endeavoured to make is strengthened.
I have only two further small points that I wish to make. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the income of this Corporation is not so much dependent upon a State grant as upon the successful development of the broadcasting service and its capability of interesting its vast body of listeners. Finally, there is this further point. The Press can always at any time express an editorial opinion upon any great subject which is interesting the general public of the day. The British Broadcasting Corporation is entirely precluded from doing so at the present time. I believe my noble friend Earl Russell, in the course of the remarks he made to your Lordships, mentioned the Children's Annual. That was so, was it not?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONI do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of it, but that publication has been abandoned. It is no longer in existence. The noble Earl asked whether it would be possible to publish something in the nature of further details in connection with receipts from advertisements, and the reply which my noble friend the Earl of Lucan gave was that to do so would be prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation. The noble Earl asked why. The answer, I think, which it is fair to make to a question of that kind is that the British Broadcasting Corporation is in very much the same position as an ordinary private company and those companies give no more than they think is necessary. Why, therefore, should the British Broadcasting Corporation do more than other companies do? In conclusion, I would only make this further observation in regard to the recent agitation which your Lordships will be aware took place in the Press. I need hardly say that the board of 841 governors of the Corporation, and indeed the entire Corporation, are extremely glad that an agreement has been reached and we hope that there will be no more differences of opinion in the future. All that the British Broadcasting Corporation are desirous of obtaining is a place in the sun. I can assure your Lordships and the Press of this country that we desire to work in a perfectly friendly spirit with the Press and to be regarded not as a foe but as an ally.
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, the noble Earl as Chairman of the Corporation has made a speech which I am sure has given a lot of interesting information both to your Lordships and to the general public. I think in a considerable part of his observations he was answering, not anything I said or anything I suggested, but apparently some criticisms outside to which he thought it desirable to reply. I can assure him that so far as I am concerned I never used the word "subsidised" in any observations I made, neither did I say a word about the Broadcasting Corporation not paying Income Tax.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONI hope I did not accuse the noble Earl of saying anything about subsidising.
EARL RUSSELLI only want to make it clear that I did not raise the point. At the first blush, so far as Income Tax is concerned, it seems rather ridiculous if not futile to charge Income Tax on what is more or less a Department of the State run with public money, but I said nothing about it. I suppose that the noble Earl, when he said the Corporation had to spend a quarter of a million, was referring to the deduction made by the Post Office. from the amount derived from the 10s. licences.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONThat is so, and the deduction made by the Treasury as well.
EARL RUSSELLI can only assure the noble Earl that so far as that is concerned my sympathies are entirely with him 5111(1 the Corporation. My view is, and always has been, that the whole of the proceeds of licences, less the reasonable cost of collection, should be handed to the Corporation, and any excess should either be used to develop 842 the service or reduce the cost of the licence, either the one or the other. Why the Post Office should incidentally make a profit out of it I have never understood. I hope lie will feel that on that point my sympathies are with him and his Corporation. But I am not sure whether the noble Earl was quite correct in saying that tie Corporation are really free from Government interference or from the control of the Postmaster-General. I think if you look at the Charter you will find that the Postmaster-General is the almost complete master of the. Corporation and can order them to do all sorts of things. That in practice he does not do so I fully admit, and I am quite with the noble Earl in thinking that that practice is a desirable one. I hope it will be continued. I never made any suggestion to the contrary. The Postmaster-General has the power, but he does not exercise it, and that I think is desirable.
What I have not learned, either from the noble Earl who replied for the Government or from the noble Earl the Chairman of the Corporation, is exactly what the object of these publications is. I am still left in doubt. Is the object of these publications to make additional income to the extent of some £100,000 a year, as apparently they do? Is it to educate the public and to provide cheap books on education? Is it to do something further to develop and popularise the broadcasting service and thereby to increase the number of licences? All those are possible objects, but what is the actual object of this flood of publications I still do not know. Both noble Earls have said that it would be prejudicial to disclose the amount of the advertisement revenue, and neither has told me or your Lordships the reason. If they say so, I am bound to say that at this stage I should prefer to accept the statement from them and not to press the point. I am willing to withdraw my request that these figures should be separated. I do not know why it should prejudice the Corporation to say what amount is received in advertisements and what in sales. After both noble Earls have spoken I do not know why it is prejudicial, but I prefer, at the moment at any rate, to accept their statement and not to press that point.
As the noble Earl opposite has given the other figures, although he has not 843 given a return of all the publications, which I should have liked to have, I propose, at any rate to-day, to withdraw the Motion. I should have liked to have a complete list of the publications, or at any rate an indication of their number, but the other figures will, of course, appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and in those circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.