TELEVISION BILL (Hansard, 9 July 1963)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, it is now my duty to move that your Lordships should give this Bill a Second Reading. I have to admit that it is a rather dull Bill, although it is a subject which is undoubtedly stimulating, and certainly controversial in some ways. I have my own views on many of these matters, and I am tempted to speak of such things as programme content, standards and future developments. This I must not do: I must resist that temptation, because I must explain the Bill to your Lordships and refer only to such matters as it is necessary to do. I shall therefore do no more than that.

As your Lordships know, the basic object of the Bill is to extend the period in which the I.T.A. shall provide television services, and lays down certain conditions in which it shall do so. I propose to divide my remarks into groups. I shall start with the extra powers and duties of the I.T.A. first in respect of programmes; secondly in respect of advertisements. Then, thirdly, I shall go on to financial provisions; fourthly, matters connected with the contracts with the programme companies. Finally, in so far as they have not already been covered, I shall deal with additional amendments to the existing Act the Television Act, 1954. I hope that that will be the best way to deal with the matter as we are mostly dealing with a Bill which amends that Act, and, to get 1297 the whole picture, it is necessary to have its provisions in mind. I fear that this probably means referring to clauses out of order, but if I stick to subjects in their order it should be possible to keep things clear.

I can at any rate start with Clause 1 which extends the life of the I.T.A. for a period of twelve years. This was the period recommended by the Pilkington Committee and accepted in the Government's first White Paper (Cmnd. 1770). Twelve years is the period that was thought reasonable to allow broadcasting organisations the kind of period in which to plan and develop their services properly. The same period will apply to the B.B.C. Clause 2 starts off by describing the I.T.A. 's services in the same way as those of the B.B.C. are described in its Charter, by referring to them as "public services" and stating their purpose as "disseminating information, education and entertainment." Until now the only reference to the purpose of the I.T.A.'s services was tucked away in the Second Schedule to the 1954 Act, among the rules for advertising, where it is laid down that the amount of time to be given to advertising must not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of "entertainment, instruction and information…" There was no significance in the difference between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. wordings, and it seems only logical to make quite clear that the purpose of both organisations is described in comparable terms and to give it the same kind of prominence in the basic documents on which both depend.

I should like to come now to one of the most important aspects of the Bill, the powers and duties given to the I.T.A. in respect of programmes. The first question some people have asked is: How does the Bill provide for the I.T.A.'s control of networking, as networking is not specifically mentioned in the Bill? Networking to-day is more than just the simultaneous showing all over the country of the same programme. The regional companies are continuing to exchange programmes between themselves, but more and more are fitting them in at times to suit their own local requirements, this development being made possible through the recording of programmes on video tape. So you might say that, in one sense, with fifteen companies we have 1298 fifteen different programmes. But, my Lords, the majority of the programmes shown by all fifteen are the same, although they are not necessarily shown at the same times. These programmes which are shown by all companies are called, for convenience, "network" programmes, and the vast majority of them are currently produced by the four largest companies which people often call the "Big Four". Until now the "Big Four" have agreed between themselves on the times at which their programmes should be shown, and so for anything which is networked live it is they who decide when these programmes shall be shown over the whole country. Even for the taped programmes, even though, as I said earlier, the regional companies can nowadays take them at times to suit themselves, they can of course do so only with the agreement of the company which produces them.

The background to this "Big Four" dominance has come about in a natural kind of way, because the programme companies started up not simultaneously but one after the other. It was that first group of four who had to provide all the programmes between themselves before the other companies came on to the scene. Then they went on to make financial arrangements with the other companies as they were set up; and, indeed, this was in the interest of the smaller regional companies as they were getting on to their feet. So there is not much ground for criticising the big companies, or their control of networking arrangements, or their dominant position, if one looks at it in the context and against the background of the early days of independent television. Now, however, Parliament is reviewing independent television as a working system and we believe that changes are necessary. The I.T.A. have long recognised the need to loosen up the network arrangements; and it is to the I.T.A., my Lords, that we look to do this. Our solution is now to put the I.T.A. in real charge of the system, and I should like to describe to your Lordships just how the Bill does it.

The first requirement under Clause 3 is that programme companies must submit their proposed programme schedules to the I.T.A. for approval, and the schedules themselves must also be drawn up in consultation with the Authority. 1299 In that way the Authority's rôle now becomes prospective, instead of largely retrospective, as it has been in the past. We have to remember that, in looking at these programme schedules the Authority have a plain duty, under Clause 2, to ensure a high standard in all things, including content and quality, a proper balance and wide range in subject matter. Moreover, they must look at all this not only in relation to the overall pattern, but also in relation to the daily pattern and to viewing times. In other words, the duty of the Authority is now spelt out, and they are given the specific duty, which they have not had before, of approving schedules. To help them in their task they are given power to exclude items from schedules, or to direct the inclusion of other items or categories of items. These powers enable the Authority among other things, to secure the "wide showing for programmes of merit" that is referred to in Clause 2(1)(c).

The I.T.A. could not be expected to hold the scales even in this way between the various companies, big and small ones, unless the arrangements for the buying and selling of programmes are equitable and fair; and so, under Clause 4, the Authority are given the power to control these arrangements. We have recognised that some are not carried out directly by the programme contractors, but by subsidiary or associated companies which are quite legitimately set up to handle them both in this country and abroad, and quite often in conjunction with foreign companies. These are activities which we do not want to restrict. Among other things they help the export trade. Because of this, under Clause 4(2) all arrangements where the supplier of a programme is another programme contractor require the approval of the Authority, but the Authority have discretion to decide in what other cases their approval is required.

Under Clause 21, to which I shall return a little later, the I.T.A. are specifically permitted to give their approval in general terms, so there will be no need for them to approve, unless they find it necessary, individual transactions. This, I think, meets some anxiety, the fear having been that each programme 1300 price would have to be individually blessed by the Authority, and that an impossible delay would result in business negotiations. But your Lordships will see that that is not in fact so.

I should like to draw attention to the new duty of the Authority under Clause 2(2), under which they are to draw up and review a code governing standards and practice to be observed in regard to the showing of violence, particularly when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching. The Authority are also free to include any other guidance that they may find necessary, and also to give directions as to standards and practices to be observed in matters which are not covered by or go beyond the code. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is important, because a written code does not necessarily wholely suffice of itself. It is rather the spirit with which it is carried out that really counts.

Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. already claim to recognise a "watershed"—perhaps I can call it that—in programmes, before which they should not, in general, be unsuitable for children. That is about 9 o'clock in the evening when on weekdays the news programmes begin. I know that many of your Lordships are worried about the amount of violence and crime that is shown. I hope that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will continue to give their serious consideration to this matter, not only to the showing of them but to the number of programmes of this kind. I think that what is important in what I have just said is that the I.T.A. now have powers to do something about just that.

Clause 10 provides formally that a sufficient amount of time in the programmes is given to news and news features. We do not think that their provision through the Independent Television News, which has done what can only be described as sterling work, should be in the hands of only the bigger companies; all those companies who wish to do so should be able to play a part. The I.T.A. have always been consulted, and have themselves evolved the system under which the editor of Independent Television News must be approved by the Authority. This is such an important function that 1301 the Government agreed with the Pilkington Committee that it should be regarded as a statutory requirement. The clause also recognises that the news company should, if need be, be in a position to supply their programmes in agreement with the programme companies; and the kind of programme that we have in mind is the informative documentary type that goes hand in hand with the collection and gathering of news.

Clause 16 makes clear that Section 3(1)(f) of the existing Television Act is not contravened if the basic requirement of impartiality in programmes relating to political or industrial controversy is obtained over a particular series. That is something which the B.B.C. are able to do already, and it needs to be made explicit so far as the I.T.A. are concerned. But it does not remove the obligations of the Authority under Section 3(1)(g) of the 1954 Act, except as is indicated in the provisos to that subsection, in regard to Party political matter. I think I ought to tell your Lordships that the Government have been looking at the wording of Section 3(1)(g) and of the provisos, and perhaps may wish to bring alternative proposals to your Lordships at the Committee stage, depending rather on the result of some discussions between the parties which I gather are going on at the present time.

My Lords, that is what I have to say about programme content matters, and I come on now to Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 of the Bill, which deal with advertising matters. What they do follows paragraphs 29 to 36 of the second White Paper. In brief, the Authority will amplify their present code, Principles for Television Advertising, to ensure that it gives guidance drawn from case-law as well as lays down general standards. They are given additional powers to ensure that advertisements comply with the code, and can now control how much advertising there is in each programme and the use of "natural breaks". Their Advertising Advisory Committee stays—that is in Clause 6—but the advice of that Committee will no longer be mandatory, because the I.T.A. now have their own powers and must be able to make the final decision.

1302 There has been, I believe, a good deal of concern expressed in the past about the composition of this Committee, and your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that the new Chairman, Mr. D. T. Jack, has no connection with advertising interests. The Government have undertaken to see if a form of words could be devised for inclusion in the Bill which would state that the Chairman should be independent. If it is possible, an Amendment will be tabled later on, but for the moment I can certainly convey to your Lordships an assurance that the I.T.A.'s intention is to make certain that the Chairman should be independent. The Authority also increased consumer representation by appointing Miss Ackroyd, who is a member and a director of the Board of Trade's Consumer Council, and they have also appointed Mrs. Pike, who is chairman of the Federation of Women's Institutes.

Clause 6 provides that they shall set up a medical advisory panel to advise in regard to medical and certain other advertisements, as was the Government's view in the first White Paper. All medical advertisements are at present referred to individual consultants by the programme contractors, but the Government feel that it is right to give statutory effect to this most important matter. Your Lordships may have noticed that Schedule 1 now combines, for ease of reference, Schedule 2 to the 1954 Act and Schedule 1 of the original Bill as it was introduced in another place. Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1 deal with the exclusion of advertising magazines as such. Sub-paragraph (4) provides that audible matter in advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident. This is a matter which has bothered many people, and has also bothered the Authority. They have, in fact, already produced a film intended for advertisers and agencies which shows how to avoid this kind of problem. Paragraph 2 places on the Authority the onus of determining the standards and practice which are to be observed in the carrying out of paragraph 1. Paragraph 5 gives the Postmaster General reserve powers to impose rules about the minimum interval which must elapse between any two periods of advertising. This is something which replaces the obligation laid on the Postmaster General under 1303 the 1954 Act to agree, or to make, such an interval rule.

Now, my Lords, I should like to come to finance and Clause 7, about which a very great deal has been spoken and written—and much of it, I may say, rather wide of the mark. The clause itself is entitled, "Rental payments by programme contractors". Its purpose is simple: to ensure that the programme contractors appointed by the I.T.A. as from July, 1964, pay adequate rentals for the public concessions which they will enjoy. With all the fuss that has been made about Clause 7 your Lordships might almost be forgiven for thinking that the idea of adequate rentals was something quite new. On the contrary, in the 1958–59 Session, in their Third Report, the Public Accounts Committee in another place were commenting that the rentals were not adequate; and in a debate on the Television Services which took place in this House on June 3, 1959, my noble and learned Leader intimated that when the present contracts run out, as they will do in July, 1964, the Government of the day would clearly have to review the terms on which the new contracts were to be let—and this, my Lords, is what the Bill now does.

The clause requires rental payments under two heads: head (a) is to cover the I.T.A.'s own costs—that is, the costs which they incur in providing the network of transmitting stations to broadcast the programmes and in controlling the whole system; the head (b) consists of additional payments based on the advertising receipts of the whole company, which are defined under subsection (11). In the Government's view, it is right in principle, as well as simple in practice, to base the head (b) rentals on advertising receipts, because they are a good measure of the value of the concession that each company enjoys. The important point to note is that flexibility of head (b) rentals according to changing circumstances is built into the clause in subsection (6) by way of the power that is there given to the Postmaster General to make regulations altering the scale of the additional payments. Those regulations will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. When the I.T.A. receive the head (b) payments, they are to pay them into the Exchequer, and each year they have to prepare an 1304 account of these payments which is to be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before both Houses.

My Lords, the Bill also deals in a number of clauses with provisions that are to be included in programme contracts. Clause 7 deals with the rental payments, with which I have just dealt. Clause 8 deals with newspaper holdings. The clause directs the Authority to see that contracts contain all such provisions as the Authority think necessary to ensure that if at any time there are newspaper shareholdings in the programme contractor, and it appears to the Authority that the existence of these shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest, the Authority can, with the Postmaster General's consent, determine or suspend the transmission of programmes from that contractor. My right honourable friend may also make an order, by means of a Statutory Instrument, with the approval of both Houses, to determine or suspend the Authority's obligation to transmit the programmes of the contractor concerned. The Government (have been well aware that this is a question which gives rise to a good many divergent views and to many shades of opinion, and I realise that the views and opinions are often strongly held and that some people consider that there are important matters of principle involved. In fact, that was the reason why the second White Paper devoted a good deal of space to the subject; and, even though the view set out therein might be called provisional, I think it is only fair to add that no better solution has so far been advanced that would appear to be more practicable.

Clause 11 provides that no contract shall be for a period of more than six years, but that they can be renewed. As your Lordships will know, the Government agreed that the original proposal of three years should be extended to a term of six years, in view, particularly, of the effect the short-term contract might be thought likely to have on the staff employed in the industry. There has been a good deal of comment, scoffing at even this period, and it has been said that renewal will be automatic. I think there has been set up the framework for a good relationship between the Authority 1305 and the contractors. Renewal of contract should certainly follow if a contractor faithfully carried out his duties, and there is no reason why it should not if he does. I think noble Lords will wish to note that under Clause 11 the Authority must also see that the contract contains any necessary provisions to ensure that if the contractor changes his nature or characteristics in such a way that the Authority would not have granted the contract in the first place, then they can determine the contract.

The provisions in regard to breach of contract, now covered in Section 6 of the 1954 Act are dealt with in Clause 12. Under the 1954 Act monetary penalties on three occasions are called for before a notice under Section 6(3) suspending the transmission of programmes can be given. The penalties have been termed "derisory" and none has, in fact, been imposed. The Government have therefore thought it best to delete monetary penalties, which are now felt not to be in any way the best means of proceeding in this matter; though the provision in regard to three breaches of termination or suspension of the contract remains. Of course it must be remembered that breaches can be minor or major, and that in the event of a fundamental contract breach the Authority still have their powers under Section 6(4) of the existing Act, which stays. There is, of course, also the ultimate sanction that if the Authority have chosen a contractor unwisely his contract need not be renewed at the end of six years. There is no reason to expect any fundamental breach of contract, but we must provide for such eventualities; and they are formidable powers for the purpose.

Clause 9 contains a definition of "advertising agent" for the purposes of Section 5 of the 1954 Act. Your Lordships had some discussion some little while ago about the need for such a definition. Further concern has, however, been expressed about the effect of the present declaratory provision, and this may need looking at again in Committee. The purpose of Clause 13 is to make certain provisions in the event of the I.T.A. having their second television service. My right honourable friend, the Postmaster General, forecast in another place the other day that this might possibly begin in 1966. If the 1306 Authority are going to broadcast more than one programme for reception in any area, they have to ensure that, so far as possible, the subject matter of the broadcasts is different. If, for example, there was a variety show on one of the services, there should be something more solid on the other. In a word, we should expect the two independent programmes to give a real choice to the viewer, just as we expect the two programmes of the B.B.C. to do, and as indeed the B.B.C. have already given an assurance so far as their two programmes are concerned. Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill are important because they make explicit my right honourable friend's powers in the technical sphere and are designed to ensure the technical co-operation of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. A similar provision, laying obligations on the B.B.C., will be included in the Licence of the Corporation later on.

I will now turn briefly to the remaining clauses of the Bill and to the amendments to the Television Act listed in Schedule 2. First, the remaining Clauses 20 to 25. These are in general, self-explanatory, but I should like to explain a little more clearly what we have in mind in Clause 21. The I.T.A. are having a number of new controls to operate and in many of them, once they have set the pattern, listed the rules, and so on, they will then not need, or indeed wish, to be consulted about every item in detail. When they have done that, provided that arrangements conform to these rules, we should not expect the I.T.A. formally to have to approve individual transactions, unless they considered it, for any particular reason, desirable so to do. I think this is a point of some importance. We do not want the Authority to lose sight of their objectives through trying to control a mass of detail, or not to see the wood for the trees.

I will turn now to Schedule 2. The intention of paragraph 5 is to recognise explicitly in the Bill the need for, in particular, Welsh language programmes. As we all know, Welsh language programmes are broadcast at present; but the Government think it right that the Bill should contain this recognition of the need for such programmes—of course, not necessarily confined to the Welsh language but, in order to make it a 1307 comprehensive service, including any other language. Paragraph 11 deals with the advisory councils of the I.T.A. First of all, the I.T.A. are able to appoint a General Advisory Council. Second, there is placed on the I.T.A. the duty to appoint or to arrange for the assistance of an educational committee to advise them generally and, in particular, on broadcasts intended for schools and other educational establishments. As education plays an increasing part in television—as, for instance, the additional hours to be allowed for adult education programmes—so it is necessary for the I.T.A. to have expert advice. The I.T.A. have already, voluntarily, created such an advisory body.

Third, the Children's Committee ceases to be a statutory requirement. This does not mean that the Committee will necessarily cease to exist; that will be for the I.T.A. themselves to decide. But now that they have more specific duties and powers the I.T.A. themselves must also take an active part in considering the effect of programmes on children and the programmes to be shown when children are watching. The Authority cannot delegate their responsibility in this respect; they may seek advice, but they must make up their own mind and take their own decisions. For the same reason—that the Authority must be master in their own house—all the advisory committees will, in future, only tender advice to the Authority; it will no longer be a statutory requirement for the I.T.A. to accept it. The Pilkington Committee pointed out that it was wrong in principle and contradictory in terms that advice offered by advisory committees should be binding on the Authority; and that the I.T.A. could not, in principle, surrender any part of their responsibility for the whole programme of Independent Television. I do not think there are many people who would dissent from that view.

I come now to paragraph 13. At first glance this may seem more than just an amendment, but it is, in fact, a clarification of the rule on hours that the Postmaster General may make. The existing Section 9(3) is not sufficiently widely drawn to allow the Postmaster General to make the necessary rules to meet all the needs that may arise, as for instance, the exclusion of Welsh language broad- 1308 casts from counting against the specified maximum; or to agree that outside broadcasts up to a specified amount may be permitted in addition to the basic hours. The clarification relates to arrangements which up to now have been made by agreement.

But with the increasing number of programmes and the development of different facets of broadcasting, such as adult education, it is important that the Postmaster General should be free to make different rules to meet changing circumstances. When the first Television Bill was being considered in 1954, the then Home Secretary said that the number of hours that the day television should function was a social matter over which the Government ought to keep control; that it was a matter of social interest to Government; and something that could not be divorced from Government. To-day, we know even more of the impact of television than we did then, and these words apply to even a greater degree.

I realise that in what I have been putting to your Lordships there are probably a good many shortcomings and deficiencies, but I have tried to cover the bones of the matter as best as I could. I feel that your Lordships will probably have queries, as well as views, to put forward, but I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Dundee, who is going to have his turn in due course, will do his best, no doubt successfully, to satisfy your Lordships in this matter. I beg to move the Bill be now read a second time.