HL Deb 19 March 1958 vol 208 cc283-8

2.40 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government if they do not consider the programme "Get Ahead" at present included in the television programmes of the B.B.C., in which the News Chronicle is providing £7,500 in prize money, to be in breach of the licence and agreement between the B.B.C. and the Postmaster-General in which the B.B.C. is forbidden to broadcast commercial advertisements or sponsored programmes; if not, whether this is not a change in Government policy, and whether it will in future be open to the B.B.C. to accept programmes sponsored in the same manner from any other manufacturer or seller of any other article in commerce.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has in mind Clause 14 of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Licence and Agreement. My right honourable friend the Postmaster-General has been informed by the B.B.C. that their object in broadcasting the competition organised by the News Chronicle was to provide entertainment for viewers. They did not, in any sense, as suggested in the noble Lord's Question accept this programme as an advertisement of the News Chronicle. The B.B.C. paid a fee to the News Chronicle in return for facilities to broadcast their competition, and this series cannot therefore be regarded as sponsored programmes.

As regards the second part of the Question, I can assure noble Lords that there has been no change in Government policy with regard to sponsored programmes. As to future programmes, Her Majesty's Government will follow the policy endorsed by successive Governments of leaving, programme-making to the B.B.C. within the terms of their Charter and Licence.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, might I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 14 of the Licence and Agreement between the Postmaster General and the B.B.C.? It says: The Corporation shall not, without the consent in writing of the Postmaster General receive money or any valuable consideration from any person in respect of the sending or emitting, or the refraining from sending or emitting, any matter whatsoever by means of the stations or any of them, and shall not send or emit by means thereof any commercial advertisement or sponsored programme May I further draw the noble Lord's attention to statements made in this matter by the Director-General of the B.B.C. in the publication of the E.B.C. Handbook, in which the Director-General says this: Commercial advertisements may not be broadcast in any of the B.B.C.'s services. Like much else that is basic in the B.B.C.'s Constitution the policy of excluding advertisements goes hack to the first days of broadcasting by the British Broadcasting Company. The Licence granted to the Company by the Postmaster General in 1923 contained a clause to the effect that the Company must not receive money or other valuable consideration from any person in respect of the transmission of messages'. The intention of this clause has been maintained, with some variation of wording, in all subsequent licences and is embodied in Clause 14 of the B.B.C.'s current Licence and Agreement with the Postmaster General. The B.B.C. is forbidden under this Clause to broadcast commercial advertisements or sponsored programmes. Would the noble Lord not consider that £7,500 in prize money, without which the programme, puerile in any case, could never have come upon the screens, is sponsoring? Might I ask him this: if it is within the compass of the Licence, why, for thirty-three years, has the strict intention of Parliament not to allow the B.B.C. to put over commercial advertisements been maintained? And if what the noble Lord says is correct, would he agree with me that in future all you have to do is to substitute for the words News Chronicle the words "Daz", "Surf", or any detergent, "Lucozade" or anything else, and the B.B.C. is right into commercial advertising which is absolutely opposite to the intention of Parliament?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am sorry to say that I think the noble Lord has got it all wrong. I should not agree with any of his suppositions but, to begin with, I should like to assure him that I am perfectly well aware of the contents of Clause 14. I am also quite well aware of the B.B.C.'s policy in this matter. But in order to dispel the confusion I will, if I may, take just a moment or two of your Lordships' time to tell the noble Lord what is the position. He has inferred that £7,500 is some consideration that the B.B.C. have received for broadcasting this competition. May I just get the picture straight?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I did not say that.

LORD CHESHAM

The noble Lord certainly referred to it under the context of a "valuable consideration". This competition is something devised by the News Chronicle, is its own property and is something in which it has a copyright. That competition takes place in the columns of the News Chronicle, and I am informed by the B.B.C. that that competition would take place whether or not it was televised. It is a matter for the B.B.C. to decide their own programme content, and in this case they decided that the programme, which the noble Lord thinks is puerile—the contents of any programme must be a matter of opinion—was one which was quite suitable to be included for the entertainment of viewers. They therefore took steps and paid a fee to obtain facilities for broadcasting what was going to take place, and there the matter rests.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, the noble Lord is surely completely wrong. This programme does not take place in the columns of the News Chronicle; it takes place upon the television screens of the B.B.C., and the B.B.C. have a valuable consideration, because if they had wanted to put this programme on and provide £7,500 worth of prize money they would have to do it themselves. Somebody comes along, to wit the News Chronicle, and gives them the £7,500. That, I submit to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, is valuable consideration, and I think that the Government have departed from what is the intention of Parliament in regard to the acceptance by the B.B.C. of sponsored television.

LORD MOYNE

My Lords, may I put a point to the noble Lord for clarification, because I think there is obscurity in this matter? The firm to which I belong, who are advertisers, have promoted and given some poetry awards, and they recently organised a gathering at which the winning poems were read. It never occurred to any of us that the B.B.C. could have broadcast the proceedings. I should be interested to know whether it would have been in order for the B.B.C. to do so. I do not think it would have been, but I should be interested to know the noble Lord's view on that question.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think I can make that perfectly clear. It also refers to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about "Daz"—or, I understood him to say, "Lucasade". The position is this. Anything which is promoted in this country may or may not be a suitable subject to be included in a television programme. It is entirely a matter for the B.B.C. to decide whether it may be produced without breach of its Licence and Charter, and if the B.B.C. think it is worth producing it is up to them to go out and get the facilities. But I can assure your Lordships (and this is where the "Daz" comes in) that if the B.B.C. had any reason to suspect that someone had put on a programme with the object of getting it on to television by some means or other, so that they would get publicity from it, that would not be acceptable. I hope that that makes the matter plain.

I would repeat however that it is a matter for decision by the B.B.C. whether the items which they put on—whomsoever those items may be organised by—are of public interest. I would remind your Lordships that there are a number of events which take place in this country which are organised and arranged, particularly by newspapers, which are shown, and I do not think that in this case there is any transgression.

LORD ARCHIBALD

My Lords, may I ask a question for clarification? I am trying to follow this matter very carefully and am not expressing any view as to the merit of the programme, but is the noble Lord asking the House to accept as a fact that this programme does not provide any advertising for the News Chronicle? And is he offering, as proof of that, the fact that the B.B.C. are paying for the programme? Should it not be the other way round—that it is advertising and that the B.B.C. ought to be paid for showing it?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, that could be said to be so if that were the case. This argument is a little difficult to follow, but as regards publicity I suppose it could be argued that if a programme is announced as being put on by a newspaper, that newspaper must receive some form of publicity from it. The point is that the publicity which the newspaper receives is entirely incidental to the decision to put on this programme because of its television value; and I do not think there can be anything wrong with that because it has happened on a number of occasions. I suppose one could argue legal points about what constitutes an advertisement—not being a lawyer myself I could not do it—but I suppose it must be, and has for some time been, accepted as inherent to some degree that the mention of the name of an organiser must constitute some form of publicity, although not an advertisement as such.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister suggest that either the News Chronicle or the B.B.C. is entertaining?

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, may I ask whether it is not perfectly clear that the object of this competition is to sell the News Chronicle? That may be a very worthy object—I am not saying whether it is or not—but the more publicity the competition gets, presumably the more copies of the News Chronicle will be sold. Is that not advertising?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, if there is anything which is perfectly clear to noble Lords it is probably the fact that they have spent long enough on this question. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider whether he wants a debate in a wider sense later on rather than continuing this discussion now.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, because I know that the House objects to Question Time being turned into a debate, but would he accept from me the suggestion that the usual channels might consult to see whether the future policy of the B.B.C. in respect to advertising might not be a convenient subject for this House to debate after the Easter Recess?

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, that might be so. My noble friend has satisfied himself on this particular case and has told the House of the position, but if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wants to raise the matter later we will consider it.