HL Deb 27 June 1967 vol 284 cc155-61

6.35 p.m.

LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations they had with the Commonwealth Secretariat before the decision to increase the Press rate on Commonwealth cables; and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to put the Question standing in my name. I can promise that I will not keep your Lordships for long, because the point is perfectly obvious. Nevertheless, I think it is of particular importance at the present time.

It is true to say that the Commonwealth was always a rather hypothetical union, but it was bound together in former times by three things—a common language, a common origin and, last, but by no means least, a common ideal. But, with the exception of the older Commonwealth countries, that is no longer the case, and there are signs that some of the links in the chain which binds the Commonwealth together are wearing dangerously thin. Therefore it is particularly important that we should keep one of the strongest influences which hold it together—that is, free and easy intercommunication between nations as regards news and the political scene. If there is anything calculated to kill that freedom of intercommunication, it is surely the Postmaster General's decision to raise the charge on Commonwealth Press cables from 1d. to 3d. a word—a 200 per cent. increase. It can have only one of two effects: it either means that we get much less news about the Commonwealth or it means that the price of papers will rise rapidly.

It seems that there was no consultation whatsoever with the Commonwealth Secretariat before this decision was taken. In connection with this, I should like to quote the Guardian of May 1 of this year. It said: There was no liaison and no consultation between Whitehall and the London Office of the Commonwealth Secretariat before the decision was taken to increase the present rate of cables to Commonwealth countries from 1d. to 3d. a word. That seems a very extraordinary thing. I should also like to quote a short leader from the Telegraph of April 24, which said: Little enough remains, goodness knows, of the old links which used to bind the Commonwealth together. It is commonly and justly said that what still gives the Commonwealth a tenuous unity is a certain community of ideas, institutions and good and frequent communications between the Commonwealth countries and on the close and continuous knowledge of one another that stems therefrom. For this reason deep regret at the Government's decision to abolish the Commonwealth Press rate for outward cables from the United Kingdom, thereby tripling the cost, should not be confined to newspapers. These special Press rates have been under threat for some time. It has been argued that the loss of revenue cannot be justified by the contribution made to keeping the frail fabric of the Commonwealth together. The inward rates, the responsibility of the other Commonwealth countries, are clearly threatened, too. The cable traffic concerned, however, falls largely within the hours when commercial traffic is idle and the service is underused. Press communications with the Commonwealth countries will certainly be reduced. Some correspondents are sure to be withdrawn from London. The risk of further casualties in the newspaper world will be increased. The major argument against the big increase in charges, however, remains the risk of losing faith. The Government are earning a rapidly spreading reputation for taking actions without ever consulting those whom those actions are going to affect most severely. I hope that the Government will think again before actually implementing this extra charge.

6.41 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lord Somers has said. We appreciate that the 1d. per word rate was instituted only as a war-time measure, and that the new rate of 3d. a word still constitutes a substantial concession on the normal rate, but when we are spending millions on overseas information services, is it really wise to try to save a comparatively small sum in this penny-pinching way? This increase may mean the difference between a Commonwealth country being able to keep a correspondent in this country or not. As my noble friend Lord Somers quoted from one of the newspapers, Press cables are usually sent out at a time when commercial traffic is idle and the service is under-used. So the cost to the country of the original penny concession may not have been quite as much as was originally thought.

I should particularly like to express regret at the timing of the annuncement. If your Lordships remember, round about April 20 it was announced that the Cabinet were coming to a decision on whether to join the Common Market or not, and it was said that an announcement would be made shortly. The announcement was, in fact, made on May 2. The Commonwealth countries were, somewhat naturally, awaiting this news with understandable apprehension. They did not know exactly how much the Commonwealth was going to be weakened by this approach to the Common Market. The Postmaster General chose exactly the middle of this waiting period to make this announcement. That, surely, was bound to inspire fears as to a further weakening of Commonwealth ties. This timing must be an absolute masterpiece of choosing the wrong moment to announce possibly the wrong news.

6.43 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK)

My Lords, let me say straight away that I agree with everything the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Denham, have said about the importance of communications within the Commonwealth. I cannot speak for other peoples, but certainly looking at the scene from London I am sure we could all profit from knowing much more about what goes on in our fellow countries of the Commonwealth. One thing one hears most and likes least from Commonwealth visitors to the United Kingdom is their remarks that, judging from our newspapers, we seem to have lost interest in the Commonwealth. They read the trivia which fill so much of the columns of so many of our journals and see no mention of the constructive efforts which they know are taking place back home.

The noble Lord, Lord Denham, mentioned the Common Market. I agree with him that it is surprising that our United Kingdom newspapers do not attempt to assess the real heartburn and anxiety which can be found in, say, the West Indies, Australia or New Zealand about our application to join the E.E.C. So that we are all agreed on this: that there is now inadequate coverage of Commonwealth news, and there ought to be much more coverage. But I cannot find any evidence that cable costs are the cause of this present inadequate coverage. In any case, we all agree that there should be a special Press rate for Commonwealth cables. There has been a special Press rate for the Commonwealth for years and there will be a special rate in the future, even after the proposed increase takes effect in September.

Possibly I ought to set out some of the facts. The pre-war rate was 2¼d. a word. In September, it will be 3d. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, that in 1941, for special and temporary reasons, the rate came down to the 1d. a word that has since been charged. But, even so, can anyone name any commodity or service which has the same relation to pre-war charges? It was 2¼d. a word before the war and the proposal now is that in September of this year it shall be 3d. a word. As I have said, charges have been kept low as a matter of Commonwealth policy, and at 3d. per word the Post Office subsidy, I am told, will be another 4d. per word; that is to say, the economic cost is 7d. a word, and the charge will be 3d. a word.

I asked for comparative charges for non-Commonwealth countries. There is no flat-rate charge for non-Commonwealth countries. These are rather comlicated. It may be that the following examples will be of some interest. The European scheme of charges provides for a 50 per cent. Press reduction on ordinary rates, and the ordinary rates range from 7d., for Belgium and France, to 1s. 3d. for the U.S.S.R., and 1s. 6d. in certain other European areas. So that, even compared with the short routes across to the Continent, the rates to all parts of the Commonwealth will be lower.

The extra-European scheme requires a two-thirds discount on public rates. There are no charge limits, but examples given to me include the United Arab Republic, with the ordinary rate of 1s. 4d. a word and a Press rate of 5¼d. per word; Ecuador, at 3s. 11d. ordinary rate and 1s. 3¾d. Press rate, and Chad, where for example the rate ordinarily is 4s. 1d. and 1s. 4¾d. for the Press. So no one can say against these figures that the Commonwealth Press is being overcharged. I should, in fairness, add that the U.S.A. rate is currently the same as the pre-war Commonwealth rate—that is to say, 2¼d. a word—but an increase is now under consideration.

So far as volume of traffic is concerned one interesting fact emerges from the information given to me: that traffic on Commonwealth cables, even at the 1d. rate, has been decreasing and not increasing in recent years. In the year up to March 31, 1961, 26.3 million words were sent over Commonwealth cables. In the year ended March 31, 1966, the comparative figure was only 16.4 million words. The explanation, in large part, is that messages are increasingly sent by more modern means—for example, by leased circuits and multi-destination Press broadcasts. So to a large extent these cables are not now used, even at 1d. a word. This, of course, is not a reason for increasing the cable rate, but it does indicate that this increase will not after all be so severe as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, seemed to indicate.

I was also asked what consultations had taken place on this important matter, and the noble Lord specifically asked about the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is quite wrong to say that we have not consulted anyone on this. The noble Lord really should not make a statement of that kind. There is a long history of consultation about this increase, stretching back, as a matter of fact, for eleven years. The question of increasing the rate from 1d. to 3d. a word was first considered in 1956 by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which is the advisory body to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Partnership. It has been considered by the Board on many occasions since, and recommendations have been made to Governments for an increase. It was discussed—that is to say, there was mutual consultation—at the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference in 1958; and in that year the Board's recommendation for an increase was endorsed.

In 1963 the then British Government decided to accept the recommendation of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board to increase the rate to 3d. After this intra-Commonwealth Conference, the specific increase to 3d. was put before all the Commonwealth Governments directly. The great majority were in favour of the increase. This consultation took over a year, but nothing further was then done until the beginning of this year, when it was decided to make the increase effective, as from the beginning of September. We again informed Commonwealth Governments of our intention to make this increase before it was announced here, and gave them time to comment, if they wished to do so. But none of them in fact did.

The Commonwealth Secretariat was not consulted. Of course, when the matter first became an issue, and the first recommendations were made, the Secretariat had not then been established. As I have already indicated, there is an established pattern of consultation in this field of telecommunications, and we also made direct contact with the Commonwealth Governments. Nevertheless, I do accept that, after the establishment of the Secretariat, and particularly when a date for the new charge was being decided, the Secretariat ought properly to have been informed of the existing position and what was in mind for the future. I am sorry that this was not done. No discourtesy was intended, and I am sure that the Secretary-General will accept this. I doubt very much whether the same difficulty will arise in the future, but there were special features about this, as I tried to indicate, going back over a period of eleven years.

Well, my Lords, that is the position; those are the facts. I would hope that, on the basis of those facts, it will be accepted that the proposed increase is not unreasonable, and that there was adequate consultation, either through the properly established consultative machinery, or directly with the Commonwealth Governments.