HL Deb 31 January 1961 vol 228 cc110-8

3.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I wonder whether, with the permission of the House, I might revert to the Question put to me by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and which by his courtesy I was permitted to defer. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has answered a number of somewhat similar Questions in another place, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I gave that Answer in his words. It will, I think, also by implication answer the noble Viscount's Question, but the House may wish to know the whole statement and not only so much of it as would answer the particular Question. The Prime Minister's statement was as follows:

"The position of a free Press in a free society has always presented a certain problem. Readers of 19th century history will recall many instances in which the editors of great newspapers exercised a commanding and sometimes decisive influence. During and after the First War, this authority passed from the editors to the proprietors. This phase seems now to be passing, partly no doubt owing to the coming of television and other methods of influencing public opinion. Nor should we forget Mr. Baldwin's successful stand, at a vital moment of his career, against this form of pressure.

"Nowadays, when their shares are more widely held, most newspaper organisations are concerned, not so much with power, as with profit. Even so, it seems wrong to many people that too many media of mass communication should be concentrated under a single control. Yet, paradoxically, the same people are concerned, not at the success, but at the failure of certain papers to command sufficient public support to enable them to pay their way. The costs of newspaper production have risen in a most spectacular manner; and in spite of the increase of advertising revenue, what would previously have been considered to be large circulations are not now enough to sustain a profitable enterprise. Thus, we have recently seen the disappearance of three national newspapers—two Sunday newspapers and one daily.

"But we must take a balanced view of all this. After all, we still have something like 150 daily and Sunday newspapers, with considerable diversity of ownership, and there is now the prospect of a new national Sunday newspaper. But the Daily Herald is now again in jeopardy. We should all be sorry, on all sides of the House, if it were unable to carry on—just as we regretted the disappearance of the News Chronicle. Yet, paradoxically again, if a newspaper cannot live on its own profits, its only hope is to be sustained either by the profits of some wholly different business or by being associated in a larger publishing group.

"What should the Government do in the light of these developments? What should be their attitude towards the various suggestions which are being made? First, I think that they should not undertake with public money to set up a trust or any other form of holding in order to run a newspaper which the public are not prepared to buy. I do not see—

says my right honourable friend—

"why the taxpayer should subsidise a journal which cannot stand on its own feet. Secondly, I have seen it suggested that the Government should intervene in order to prevent any of the current negotiations being brought to a conclusion. I cannot find that the Government has any effective power to do this. Thirdly, it is suggested that there should be an inquiry into these financial negotiations. I do not think we need any inquiry into the facts. They are well known. And as regards the techniques of these operations, I would remind the House that these are within the terms of reference of the Jenkins Committee on Company Law and are already under consideration.

"Even so, there are some things that the Government could do. First, I am advised that the amalgamations now in prospect might have the result of establishing a monopoly control over a very large number of magazines and periodical publications. We shall watch this position. If a large proportion of these periodicals came under a single control there would be opportunities for increase of price or reduction of choice and circumstances might arise which would justify a reference to the Monopolies Commission.

"Secondly, there is the question of contracts under the Television Act, 1954. The Independent Television Authority have issued contracts to a number of programme companies in which newspapers have substantial interests. In accordance with the spirit of Section 5 (2) of the Act, the Authority made sure, in issuing the original contracts, that no single company (newspaper or other) had a substantial interest in more than one programme company. They cannot, however, in general prevent dealings which involve changes in the ultimate control of the companies. The Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting could well be asked to pay special attention to the question whether, when new contracts are to be issued, they should be made subject to review if the effective control of the company undergoes a significant change. On this point an Interim Report might be made.

"Finally it has been suggested that a Royal Commission, or some other form of inquiry, should consider the difficulties affecting the newspaper and magazine industry, and printing generally. I am of course aware of the debate which we"—

that is the House of Commons—

"held some weeks ago. I would remind the House that at that time the Government—although they did not ask the House to reject the Motion—felt some doubts as to the efficacy of this procedure. I confess that I am still rather doubtful whether there is real scope here for governmental action. I am inclined to think that there might be more value, if as suggested in The Times this morning, the component pants of the industry itself were Ito undertake a review of its current problems and future development."

My Lords, that is the statement.

3.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving us that long and interesting statement. No one can say that the statement was not comprehensive in regard to the ground that it covered. But I should think that there are some points within it which, looking at it from different angles in politics, would be subject to some controversy. I should have thought that the general assumption made early on in the statement by the Prime Minister—which I have not had the opportunity of seeing before; I am speaking just from having listened to the statement—that editorial practice is once again beginning to resume its predominant freedom and power of a century ago, is a little doubtful. I think, in fact, that the growth of control in few hands in regard to the finance of these undertakings is just as likely to act in exactly the opposite direction. I think that matter would have to be debated with a greater knowledge by the House of the actual facts throughout the industry than is at present available.

With regard to the reference to the television industry, I can quite see that, both in regard to newspapers and perhaps in some other respects—it may not be now, but perhaps in the future—the question of contracts and the dike in the television industry may well have to be referred to a monopolies inquiry. But what I am more concerned about is the growing feeling in the public mind that the control of opinion in this country is becoming greatly affected by the changes which are taking place in the daily and weekly organs, and in the spreading of those opinions. That is most serious when it is also remembered that in television broadcasting a substantial interest in the programme companies is already held by the newspapers concerned.

It is not possible at such a moment as this—I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would agree—to debate this matter at any length at all, but I am satisfied of this in my own mind: that whether or not the Prime Minister feels persuaded this way at present, the public will nevertheless demand to be given much more of the facts than is at present available to them. I am not at all suggesting that there ought to be a long-term inquiry 'by a Royal Commission, but I think that, because of the general interest in the nature of the matters that are involved in this issue, it would be a wise thing for us to have a Parliamentary inquiry into the situation; and not the least helpful, I think, would be it that inquiry were in the form of a Joint Select Committee.

3.50 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to associate myself in general with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, particularly in respect of control of Public Opinion. After all, there are grave moral responsibilities in this field which I imagine hardly occur to such a degree in any other field. The impression I gained from the statement which the noble Leader was good enough to read out was that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister himself, and presumably his advisers, are not at all satisfied with the present position but do not hold out very much hope about what can be done.

I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that there are things behind the scenes which ought to be disclosed. My own feeling is that there are very strong and not always apparent interests involved—I will not call them vested interests; there is, of course, the political interest, the owners' interest and certainly the trade union interest. And, as the noble Viscount has said, while this is not the time for a debate, I believe that a good many people who have studied the subject are convinced that a great deal of the trouble, particularly over the high cost of newspapers, is in some degree due to out-of-date trade union arrangements of one kind and another. I do not condemn or criticise them now, but I think that these, among other things, ought to be investigated by some kind of machinery such as that suggested by the noble Viscount, or (as the Prime Minister himself suggested) even by machinery originating within the industry. It should be set up as soon as possible, because I am quite sure that the public are disturbed about the situation of things as they are to-day.

LORD LAWSON

My Lords, I do not often break in on matters of this kind, but I must say that the answer of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister and that given by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seems to me extremely academic in the face of this menacing situation; and I hope that my friends are going to put down a Motion and debate this matter.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I should be the last person to say anything which could in any way reflect on the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, for whom all of us on this side of the House have great personal respect, or the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal party, but I hope it will not be thought inappropriate to say that the growing habit of making what amount to speeches in Questions and Answers puts us on this side of the House in a rather difficult position, because there are many things which have been said which we should like to answer but, of course, cannot answer on this occasion. I rise only to say that the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views on this side of the House.

3.53 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, dealing with the supplementary questions in order, may I say that I do not think my right honourable friend was saying, or will be found to have said, that we are going back to an era of great editors like Delaney in the 19th century. I believe that what he said was that the shift of emphasis was away from the newspaper proprietor seeking great political power, of whom one reads in the spate of biographies dealing with the period of the First World War, and towards the individual shareholder of public companies, who is less concerned with the control of opinion than with the ownership of a profitable business.

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is really fair in describing the situation as "menacing". It obviously justifies a good deal of interest. I believe there are at the moment about nine daily newspapers of different degrees of quality and different types of opinion between which one can choose; and I would echo what my right honourable friend said about our regret of the demise of the News Chronicle. But I do not know that one can describe that as menacing.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It is a menace.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I can hardly believe, myself, that there are many facts which are not known to us. It seems to me that the newspapers nowadays tell us practically nothing except facts about the proposed take-over of one by another. They think we are interested, and perhaps we are. But it seems to me that the facts are fairly widely known and become daily more known. Nor does it follow that a Select Committee would necessarily elicit any more. I do not know what are the facts in relation to the alleged trade union restrictive practices, but I do not think my right honourable friend thought a case had been made out for a Select Committee on that alone. I would only say that I hope the House will study the Statement; and if any quarter desires to put down a Motion, we can have a more extensive debate.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, while wishing to keep within the Rules of Order to which my noble friend has referred, may I say that I do not quite agree with him? Speaking with equally long experience of this House, if not of another place, I do not agree that it has not always been common practice when a very important statement of this kind is made for a more comprehensive statement to be made by interested parties in the House. These things, if I may respectfully say so to him, have not here, at any rate, been treated at all in the same way as an ordinary Question.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, that was not my point. I do not care about what has happened in the past. I say it is unfair to those of us who want to make comprehensive statements on these subjects if a comprehensive statement which is made opposite cannot be answered; and obviously that is impossible.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I do not think it is in the least impossible. With great respect, I have often heard my noble friend make comprehensive statements at Question Time.

I wish to address myself to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, following up the suggestion made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Party opposite. While not at all accepting the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on the Prime Minister's statement, which appeared to me, if I may say so, to be comprehensive, balanced and informative, I would suggest that there would be considerable advantages in having in this House a debate in which we could consider whether there was material which use fully could go before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I believe that the facts are known to us. On the other hand, they may not be so well known to many members of the public. May I ask my noble friend whether he does not think that it would give a good deal of satisfaction to the general public, whom we and another place have to represent on these matters, if there were at any rate a discussion to consider whether some further inquiry was not desirable?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I certainly did not complain that the short comments which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, went outside the usual practice of the House in these matters. It is, of course, entirely for the House to judge these things, and in these cases a certain amount of latitude is given.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton, I should certainly not deprecate in any way a suitably phrased Motion. Before we accepted any idea of a Select Committee we should naturally wish to hear the views of both Houses, especially as the suggestion which was made was for a Joint Select Committee. I should not like to prejudge that, but my own feeling was that probably the case had not been made out. But certainly I should be much more strong in whatever opinions I might then hold if I had had the advantage of hearing a debate about it in this House.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I should like both the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party and myself to have an opportunity of further study of the print of the very long statement, and I am sure we shall hold ourselves in readiness to arrange a debate, through the usual channels, if we think that is necessary.