FUTURE OF BROADCASTING

HL Deb 21 May 1969 vol 302 cc325-51

2.47 p.m.

LORD BYERS rose to call attention to the future of broadcasting in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the lack of consultation, if there has been such, with the shorthand writer's union does not result in a strike in the course of this debate, because if that were to happen I am sure that many important contributions would be lost to history.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper; namely, to call attention to the future of broadcasting in this country. I think that I could start best by saying that the Crawford Committee of 1926 laid down the constitution of the B.B.C. as a public corporation. About ten years after that, the Ullswater Committee was appointed and duly reported in 1935. Because of the war, no further review was taken until the Beveridge Committee reported in 1951. The next milestone was the Pilkington Committee of 1960, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. who has now joined us and who, I am delighted to know, is going to speak in this debate. In 1967 the present Minister of Education, then the Postmaster General, stated that in the spring of 1969 a long, cool look would be taken at the whole system of broadcasting in this country. That statement was made, I hope appropriately enough, on a Liberal Supply day in another place. It looks, therefore, as though a review of broadcasting is traditionally called for every 10 to 15 years and I would hope that this debate is not altogether ill-timed.

I believe that the next review could be the most important that has yet been held, partly because of the speed of technological development and partly because of the universality of television as a mass medium of communication. The generation which is now coming on to the electoral register has lived with television ever since it was born. That is one fact that points to the need to consider very carefully the form which the next review should take, and I hope that this is something we may discuss to-day during the course of this debate.

The background of technological development over the next 10 to 15 years is, I believe, from what I have been able to gather, really an exciting and challenging one. The television revolution is social. It is changing our ways of living and opening up new perspectives; it is stimulating new tastes and reorganising in many ways the relationships in politics between leaders and peoples in different parts of the world. Above all, television is becoming, almost has become, a world medium. Ten years ago, I believe there were 95 million sets in use; to-day there are 225 million. The advent of the satellite is carrying out another revolution. I am told that at this moment four satellites stationed over the oceans can transmit television to and from most of the inhabited world. I believe that by the end of this year there may be something like nine of them. By 1975, satellites may be able to beam signals directly into television sets without going through the medium of national broadcasting systems.

The implication of this on national sovereignty, on international law and on international practice can be imagined. I am told that there are other developments round the corner of which the most significant may turn out to be the new low-cost recording system which could well be a commercial proposition, I am told, within five years. Such a system provides a new dimension for television. It means that one will be able to record on to a cassette any programme one wants, even in one's absence. One can then play them back at leisure. In addition, it will be possible to buy, borrow or hire cassettes already recorded. This would be a boon to many of your Lordships who have missed some of the better programmes because of the other engagements that you have to undertake. I personally saw only two or three of the Mountbatten series; I saw very few of the Sir Kenneth Clark series. I have the feeling that there is a little man in the B.B.C. who knows where I am at any one moment who puts programmes on so that I cannot see them.

My Lords, if we get this review it could be a very important one indeed. Apart from the major problems of copyright and mass manufacture at economic prices (both of which I am convinced can be solved), it opens up new vistas for learning and entertainment which could cause a social revolution. That is why I say that against this background it is pretty clear that the next reviewing body, if it is a body, will have to be chosen with unusual skill and care. I am not suggesting that it must consist of technologists; but certainly those chosen must be able to appreciate the speed of technological advance which may be achieved over the next 15 or 20 years. I should have thought that it might be well to consider that a full study of likely technological developments should be undertaken before any review body is appointed. How to get agreement between technologists on what the development may be is an entirely different matter, but I should have thought that some attempt ought to be made to do this. I go further: I would suggest that if possible a series of public discussions should be organised on policy, on the alternative forms of organisations for the B.B.C. and I.T.V. which might be available and which might be considered, and that these public discussions should be mounted well in advance of the appointment of the body itself.

I believe that we are on the threshold of a most important era in mass communications and that we ought to take it as seriously as we can. If we did this, it would enable the terms of reference and the background against which the decisions have to be made to be clearly defined in advance. In addition, there is the whole question—much bigger than I want to touch on to-day—of international standards and possibility of the need for some international code of practice in communications. Before I leave the question of the next review of broadcasting I should like to say just this. In the course of my discussions with various people, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to appreciate the tremendous burden which appears to be put on an organisation like the B.B.C. by the almost constant review which takes place of its activities. It is, so far as I know, responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, to the Estimates Committee. It now has McKinsey going through the organisation and if, in two years' time, there is another reviewing body, we are going to find that we are pulling the plant up far too often to examine the roots to see whether it is still growing. The extra time which has to be devoted to these various activities by top management must be quite considerable. I think it is something that ought to be recognised as a problem in itself.

Next, my Lords, I should like to turn briefly to the structure of the B.B.C. itself. It is a vast organisation. It has a tremendous budget to dispose of. I believe I am right in saying that the operating expenditure is something like £68 million a year and that the total expenditure is more than that. It has a most peculiar accounting system which I do not understand. I do not know how they differentiate between capital and operating expenses; but that is a subject for an entirely different debate. It is difficult to know whether it gives value for money. Yet, when one considers the various alternatives which are open to us, I find it very difficult to see any other structure which would in fact be more appropriate to the job. I am willing to be convinced, but at the moment I cannot see it. It has been suggested that there could be different independent corporations for each service: one for sound, another for television. It has been suggested that one could go further and set up in competition with one another the actual channels themselves. It is possible that one could come to a system of autonomous broadcasting regions. I do not know. I am not persuaded that these choices are any better than what we have at the moment. While on the question of regionalism, I hope that every effort will be made to preserve in this country a proper regional system. I was extremely worried to hear the other day that, I think it was, the North Regional headquarters has suffered a cut of something just under £2 million a year. I hope that this does not mean that there is going to be a movement towards centralisation back to London, keeping only a skeleton organisation in the regions. This would be a very retrograde step. We want to develop the regions so that they can make a real contribution not only to regional affairs but to the network and, if necessary, to the international network, stemming from the regions.

As I have said, I am not persuaded of any changes at the present time. Although the B.B.C. is monolithic, its very size gives it the measure of strength which enables it to withstand pressures if it wants to do so. In fact, I think that the character, personality and integrity of the men and women who run the B.B.C. are much more important than the organisational structure which it adopts. I hope that we shall never lose the almost judicial approach which the B.B.C. has. I hope therefore that in any proposals for changing the organisation, for altering the relationships or control, the vital necessity of preserving the fundamental freedom of the B.B.C. will always be put as priority No. 1. We have experience of too many countries—by no means all of them behind the Iron Curtain—where the Governments have eroded the freedom of those charged with national mass media. We know that there are all sorts of pressures put on the B.B.C. and as this broadcasting, through new developments, becomes an even greater influence in our lives, so the tendency to want. to control could well increase.

I am not against pressure being exerted. I am all in favour of the freedom of any individual expressing his views about the B.B.C, in Parliamentary or even non Parliamentary language. I think that there is little danger in this, provided that the protest is open or at least that it is not secret, that it is not improper; and secondly, so long as we have men and women of integrity at the top working in an atmosphere of freedom which allows them to be the sole judges of how they ought to react to the protests and the pressures. If we ever lose that freedom, we are on the slippery slope. I am sure that we have all at times protested to the B.B.C. about one thing or another. I certainly have. I have always had a reasonable reaction, even if it has not always been satisfactory; and it certainly has not. But I think this is healthy. What can be unhealthy is when pressure mounts up against experiment and pioneering; when the pressure gets so great that those in the B.B.C, or in the I.T.V. for that matter, come to prefer a much quieter life. Then we lose the impetus which every creative organisation needs if it is to be adaptable and courageous.

Having said that, and having made it clear that I believe in freedom for the broadcasting authorities to make their own decisions, I think one is entitled to express a view on some of the problems which both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. have to face on an almost daily basis, and for which they are quite often criticised. First, there is the treatment of news. I think this is a tremendously difficult problem. I do not think there is much doubt that an underlying hysteria (perhaps that is too strong a word) can be set up in an audience if worse news is heaped on bad news. I have no doubt that some news events, like militant student demonstrations, induce more news events about militant student demonstrations. I understand that in America there is a programme going out now which concentrates entirely on good news. I think it would be a good thing if one could tune in to good news. I am sure that the Prime Minister would appreciate a programme of that nature, as I am sure from time to time we all should. No one of us would wish to smother these events which we do not like, or pretend that they never take place. I think the danger is minimised so long as the authorities are aware of the problem and treat it as a serious social phenomenon.

A good case in point was the way in which the B.B.C. covered the Grosvenor Square demonstrations. We have already praised the police for what they did in a remarkable contribution to crowd control. It was quite remarkable. But I think the B.B.C. television coverage showed what a first-class balance could be achieved by intelligent anticipation, by planning and by editorial control. I think this is where a great deal of hard work and thought goes on which is never appreciated by the public: and I am delighted to know how much effort went into that particular event.

I think that one of the most important vehicles for maintaining balance in broadcasting, in addition to intelligent news reports, and one which can damp down the temper of the people, is proper and adequate current affairs programmes. This is where one can get a much deeper understanding over to people of what the true background is to the news. But I still think there is much research which could usefully be done into the way in which news is treated, and the effect that the treatment of news can have over a long period. It is possible that the very act of reporting an event dramatically with a camera can in fact give it a different characteristic than would be the case if somebody is just talking to the reporter, who has his pad and pencil out before him. I do not think that nearly enough work has been done on this and I think it is a fruitful field for research.

This brings me to the almost more intractable problem of violence on television. I have no answer to suggest, but I think this is something which ought to be discussed deeply and continuously. What is important, I think, is that the broadcasting authorities themselves are seriously concerned about it. That is all to the good. But among the various problems associated with violence, one of the most difficult, which does not yet seem to have been solved, is to get a proper definition of what we mean when we refer to violence in this context. There are bound to be different views as to what constitutes violence, and it is surely important that an attempt at an agreed definition should be made before we can get any satisfactory statistical analysis. Otherwise, we do not know what we are talking about.

As to the frequency of violence—undefined violence—on television, the Christian Science Monitor some time ago viewed several weeks of American network television and found over 200 incidents with 70 or 80 killings in each 80 hours of output. These figures were completely disputed by the television companies, and I think this was almost certainly because there was no definition of what in fact constitutes violence on the screen—although I should have thought that the killings were not likely to be in dispute as being violence. I am told that "The Avengers" was the most violent programme on the American network. "High Chapparal" came tenth, and "The Virginian" was very low indeed. There seems so far to have been no check (there may well have been, but I cannot find it) on British programmes over a similar period. This surely is something that should be done: there ought to be constant monitoring of this. First I think we need the definition of violence and then we need the count of how many incidents of violence take place.

There seems to be relatively little research into the effect of violence on television, and I believe that such violence must have some effect on the society in which we live. I think it must be clear that television reinforces existing tendencies, whether they are good or bad; and one would expect violence on the screen at least to have an undesirable effect on the weaker-minded and less stable members of our society. But—and this is the point—we do not know. I should have thought that far more time and money should be devoted not only to the repercussions of screen violence, but to the effect of television on society in all its aspects.

I was interested to read the Progress Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in the United States. The Commission dealt specifically with mass media, and I was interested to see that they have set up what they call a "mass media task force" to inquire into the effect of television. Perhaps I may quote one part of the Report. They said: Concern over the effects of media portrayals of violence is not new. It was aroused against the motion picture industry in the 1930s: in the 1940s and 1950s private and public attention was given to portrayals of violence in comics, and to-day the concern is directed primarily at the television industry. They then went on to say: The assumption that media portrayals of violence cause real acts of violence is common to all these concerns. It is easy to be concerned when an expert points to an incident in which an individual shoots someone immediately after he has watched media violence. It is easy because it then seems as though media violence was the single and most direct cause of that individual's violence against others. The Commission's Report went on: We are learning, however, that the problem of effects of media violence is not this simple. Most persons will not kill after seeing a single violent television programme. However, it is possible that many persons learn some of the attitudes and values about violence after years of exposure to television, and that they might be more likely to engage in violence as a direct result of that learning. We need to learn the probable effect of daily exposure to media portrayals of violence from infancy to and through adulthood. Just as the family is not the only factor which shapes the attitudes and behaviour of children, but instead contributes to the moulding of individuals, along with the churches, schools, friends and other sources of learning and socialisation, so the effects of years of exposure to media violence may be more important than the short-run effects of exposure to one or twenty violent media programmes. My Lords, I believe that there is a lot of sense in that statement. As I say, the generation now going on to the electoral roll is one which to our knowledge has been exposed for about twenty years, and I should have thought that there was a strong case for doing a good deal more research in this country against our own social background, and not relying only on the work being done in the United States.

I should like now to turn for a few minutes to the I.T.V. I think it is generally accepted that commercial television has a role to play in our society. The main danger, it seems to me, is that it may become a political milch cow, constantly squeezed by an impecunious Chancellor—and, so far as I can see, all Chancellors in the future are going to be impecunious. Much has happened to the Road Fund over many years. I think this squeezing of the profits, the squeezing of the revenues, was inevitable because of the vast fortunes which were made in the early days of commercial television; and also, if I may say so, because of Lord Thomson of Fleet's very graphic, very honest, but, for the industry, very unfortunate phrase about "a licence to print money".

To-day, commercial television should surely be regarded as a business, like any other, and ought to be treated accordingly. In fact, it is even more vulnerable than other businesses, in that its licence is subject to renewal, or cancellation, after a period of six years. In addition, it faces a punitive bill for selective employment tax, even though some hold that it could be classed as a manufacturing industry. It now has this massive advertising levy. The object ought to be to encourage a high standard of performance and high capital investment, together with reasonable profits. The business, surely, should be capable of a risk type of return, because it is producing an end product, particularly in the export field, which one is never quite sure one will be able to sell. That is certainly the case with some of these expensive television film series, which, when they are sold, bring a tremendous amount of money into this country, particularly from North America.

I believe that against this background the whole principle of a levy on advertising revenue was the wrong one to adopt. If I may mention my own industry—which is mining—this advertising levy is comparable to levying a fixed percentage on the revenue of the mines without any relation to their profitability. That is the sort of thinking which in the old days, in many parts of the world, drove mines into liquidation. The right answer, surely, should be for the Government to take a share of the profits. In any other business I would suggest that they should take a minority interest in the equity, but there might be an outcry by people who felt that this was the thin edge of the wedge, the thin end of Government control. However, it is surely to profits and not to revenue, that the Government must look. The fact is that companies like A.T.V.—which twice earned the Queen's Award for Exports—are making a substantial contribution to the balance of payments. To do this they need to take risks, and to take risks they need to have a big enough base of operations, a big enough base of profitability to minimise those risks when their efforts do not succeed.

I have no interest to declare in this matter, but, on the face of it, it seems to me that the independent companies; are at the moment not getting a fair deal. In the course of my discussions in preparation for this debate I discovered that one of the things which most worries the commercial television companies is a remark which Mr. Short made in the debate in another place on June 28, 1967. He said that nine years onward (that is, from 1967) an opportunity would arise for a fundamental review of the whole system, because I.T.A. and B.B.C. and the relay companies' licences would all terminate at the same time. That has been interpreted, rightly or wrongly, in some quarters as meaning that the companies have only another six years to run, and therefore they have not a hope of indulging in real long-term planning. That could have a deleterious effect on the standard of programmes, which might be sacrificed to the making of quick profits. I do not know that this would in fact happen, but I think it is something which we ought to think about very seriously indeed.

My Lords, I have not dealt with a number of other subjects because I hope that noble Lords will themselves raise them in the course of the debate. I am quite conscious of the fact that my speech is an inadequate survey. I can only plead that I hope it is the right sort of speech to open a wide-ranging debate, as I hope this will be. I have not dealt with the external services of the B.B.C. If I had, I should have stressed their vital importance and, in my view, their worthiness of Government support. I have not dealt with educational, or religious, broadcasting, and I know that other Lords will do so. I have not dealt with Party political broadcasts; if I had, I should have argued that at election times we politicians tend to overdo it, and at the very least we should avoid monopolising all three channels at the same time. Nor have I dealt with the exciting developments of local radio. This, I am pleased to say, will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Finally, I have not said anything about the fourth channel, although I intended to do so. I would only ask the Government whether they have any views as to how this fourth channel could and should be used. I am sure the House will be grateful to hear them. I beg to move for Papers.

3.16 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers (we always say this, but I certainly mean it on this occasion), for having raised this broad question of the future of broadcasting, which I might describe as "instant global" and indeed now "instant spacial" communications. That is a feature of our world to-day. It is indeed some time since we had a full debate on the subject. I need hardly say that I agree with him very much indeed, and especially with his remarks about violence. Of course, that question goes beyond the problems of broadcasting, and matters relating to it have already been discussed lately in your Lordships' House in connection with student unrest and on other occasions. I am, however, glad to note that Independent Television have spent a quarter of a million pounds on research into this subject. The B.B.C. have done excellent jobs in many spheres, but I am not quite certain whether they have conducted the same kind of research as Independent Television has done into this subject.

While, undoubtedly, some programming leaves something to be desired, we are none the less sometimes blessed with superlative, triumphant series, such as one of those mentioned by the noble Lord. I refer to Sir Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation", which, in my view, if there were no other television programmes at all, would make television worth while. It is to the credit of A.T.V.—my old company with which I used to be connected over five years ago—that they started Sir Kenneth on this kind of arts programme, although in a more modest, less elaborate way. But, of course, we all have different tastes, and we must not be intolerant of those who prefer other kinds of programmes. It takes all sorts to make a world. Nor should we, for example, reject out of hand claims that creative "pop" music is "the classical music of now", as it was described only the other night on B.B.C.2. Of course we could go on discussing programming for weeks in your Lordships' House, but I do not propose to do so. No doubt we shall soon be receiving a series with "Snoopy and the Astronauts" from the Moon, if not immediately from Venus, Mars, or that more promising king-sized planet—Jupiter.

My Lords, many questions regarding broadcasting remain to be resolved. I propose to deal with only three of them: the Open University; the levies and taxes on Independent Television; and a few words on commercial radio. They all revolve mainly around the allocation of wavelengths. This, we must remember, is not in the hands of the B.B.C. Some people may question whether the Postmaster General is the right person to deal with this matter, especially when one considers the wavelengths which must be allocated for defence purposes. I wonder whether we should not have a Minister for Telecommunications who would be responsible for allocation over the whole field. At all events, the next Postmaster General—and I do not want to be Party political to-day—may be a member of a Government with very different views from the present one.

The Conservative Party are of course already pledged to commercial radio, and it may therefore be unwise for the B.B.C. to pursue its present plans regarding the expansion of local radio. But I will return very briefly to this subject later, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Denham will deal with it in greater detail. Personally, I am more interested in the use of broadcasting for the purposes of education. In this connection I was very interested to read the Report of the Planning Committee on the Open University—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is here this afternoon because he is an expert on this subject—and I see that an eminent Vice-Chancellor and a very distinguished staff have already been appointed.

Speaking entirely personally, I am in principle well disposed to this plan, but first of all I would ask: will it be a success; and secondly, can we afford it? Is it really wise to begin national operations without the benefit of experience from the kind of local university experiments which have taken place in the United States? I believe in independent local university television and radio stations which can be run, I would hope, bearing in mind the principle, I think now widely accepted, that universities should become centres of excellence in specific disciplines. It seems to me that a national network, such as the National Educational Television Network in the United States, can logically grow out of such a system of independent stations. We must remember that some universities believe in the use of television and radio, while others do not. Some are a little cool, and I am doubtful whether it is wise to impose a national system in one fell swoop over the whole country. However, I should like to see whether this Open University is in fact a success before condemning it before it has even begun.

As was pointed out in a timely feature article in The Times last Saturday, American experiments with degree courses taken by television go back over 13 years, but they remain at a low level, and the lessons for Britain are not encouraging. During its 13 years of operation the Chicago television experiment has, it seems, made little mark on Chicago's 3 million inhabitants and the average Chicagoan, I read in this article, has never heard of Chicago's Junior College of the Air. In the last two or three years, I gather, enrolment has fallen by 10 per cent. despite the fact that television mixing with on-campus courses is becoming more popular. It also appears that neither New York's nor Boston's television degree courses have made much impact. The drop-out rate in New York is reported to be as high as 40 per cent. and in Chicago 20 per cent. I do not doubt that there may be a need for middle-aged housewives in America to take such courses. They, it seems, arc the largest: single group of television students to take them, while 20 per cent. of the students appear to be teachers already. Even in Boston, which has a long experience in this connection, the director of the educational television station says you cannot teach entirely by television although that is what many of the television students would like.

It is true, as I say (and I have seen this myself), that these experiments are conducted most economically, some would say on a shoestring, Chicago having an annual budget of only some 900,000 dollars, and New York 175,000 dollars, compared with a tentative projection for Britain's Open University of around 10 million dollars. But if in the United States they cannot afford to finance adequate degree courses by television, I wonder how in this country we can do so in our truly parlous enonomic situation. None the less, as The Times article says, those committed to degrees by television in the United States look enviously at our proposed University of the Air as maybe a visionary but possibly attainable proposition. Certainly in America television has provided some important fringe education, as indeed it has done here. Certainly both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. have made good contributions in their own enrichment programmes. The I.L.E.A.'s closed-circuit television system in London, which now serves 300 to 400 schools, I think, in the London area and is steadily expanding under the direction of my old friend Mr. James Wykes, is performing a very important function. But, operating as it does on a closed-circuit system, the problem of the allocation of wavelengths does not arise.

In America all television students, except I gather State prisoners, pay their own fees, which, again according to the article I have mentioned, vary from as little as 5 dollars to 40 dollars a course. I wonder whether there should not also be a fee-paying element in our own Open University—I believe that there will be to a certain extent—in order to relieve to some extent the burden on the taxpayer. I might add that I do not think that such a principle should be forgotten in university education as a whole. There is now a body of opinion that believes students should be granted loans to cover the cost of their university education and that these loans should be repayable in instalments by students themselves when they enter employment, or by their firms.

In regard to radio, it seems certain that there are sufficient V.H.F. wavelengths to provide at least 100 local radio stations, and while some might be "pop" stations—the "pirate" radio stations certainly showed there was a big demand for them—some of these wavelengths could well be set aside for local university use. This would bring a true and deeper meaning to extra-mural studies. But Vice-Chancellors are not all agreed about this, and that is why I believe in the first place in local experiments at those universities which wish to have their own stations.

I think it is impossible any longer to separate radio and television in this context. Speaking of broadcasting as a whole, I have often wondered—the point I am going to make may be controversial and it is a purely personal thought—whether the system of gathering licence revenue is in fact the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, implied that it was. But when I look at it I see that the cost of collecting licence money is considerable, as also is the cost of detecting vans to track down those who default. I sometimes wonder whether it would not be better for the B.B.C. to be financed by Government grant, as is the cost of education and of overseas broadcasting at present. If the B.B.C. were so financed, I see no reason why they should lose their vital independence. Do Judges, noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, lose their independence because they are paid by Government? Personally, I am satisfied that the terms of the B.B.C. Charter adequately protect the B.B.C. from this kind of political interference which has existed in France where no such statutory protection exists; they have not a Charter as the B.B.C. have. But I should say here how glad we must all be that the new interim French President, Monsieur Poher, has now freed French radio and television from such interference.

I am equally unhappy and uncertain about the financing of Independent Television, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is. What disturbs me most is the levy on turnover which the present Government imposed and which they have now extended. This levy is damaging to all the companies—especially the smaller ones. I see, for example, that Ulster have just had to cancel a £1½ million new studio, and that Yorkshire, which recently came on the air and are more or less breaking even, have none the less to pay a swingeing levy of £2 million. No wonder nothing is left for the shareholders! Perhaps the Government are not interested in them. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that levies on turnover, rather than taxation on profits, have always seemed to be wrong in principle, for under such a system a company can in fact be making losses and still have to pay a substantial levy. Such a levy certainly restricts the production of good programmes and particularly locally originated ones. Do we really want to drive regional companies to depend more and more on nationally produced London based programmes?

This is the very negation of independent television, which was originally set up to encourage more regional and independent programmes. Would to God truly competitive independent television had been introduced at the outset, and not only single companies in each region with a virtual monopoly of television advertising in their areas! Even now it would surely be better to abolish the levy altogether and let the Government recoup from a corporation tax on competing companies. I am shocked to learn that as a result of the levy the return on capital from the I.T.V. companies as a whole will be as low as 8 per cent., thereby rendering experimental programming out of the question. From this, one thing is certain: the present levy is damaging Independent Television to the detriment of the viewer.

Then there is the large Exchequer appropriation from the surplus of the Independent Television Authority itself—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Byers mentioned this—the Authority which builds and owns the stations. Monies which should go to the building of the new 625-line U.H.F. stations in colour are halved as a result of this appropriation, from, I think, some £12 million to £6 million. Thirdly there is the pernicious selective employment tax. Film studios are relieved of this tax while television companies are not; newspapers are relieved of this tax, yet Independent Television News is not.

What with the levy on companies' turnover, the Exchequer appropriation and the iniquitous S.E.T., the B.B.C., with much greater funds available for new equipment from colour licence revenue, are bound to forge ahead faster than I.T.V., even if the two do start together on November 15. In the long run the I.T.A. simply will not have the money to build U.H.F. colour transmitters as rapidly as the B.B.C. This is taxation gone mad, and I do not wonder that the chairman of the I.T.V. Contractors' Association was forced to say yesterday that the Chancellor had shown a complete lack of understanding of the economics of Independent Television. The so-called "licence to print money" mentioned by the noble Lord—although it was a licence to lose it at the start—hasbecome a purely historical oddity. And in the circumstances, I consider the I.T.V. companies are being most courageous in expanding, as many of them are doing. But all this, coupled with some uncertainty about the renewal of contracts, has a bad effect on recruiting for I.T.V. Those who wish to make their careers in broadcasting naturally turn to the B.B.C. as the most solid, long-term bet.

Then, in so far as radio is concerned, what does the B.B.C. propose to ask the Postmaster General to do about those medium wavelengths which are at present allocated to it? The B.B.C. local stations are not, I think, allowed general subvention from rates. Action in this matter of local broadcasting is required now. There is a certain absurdity in the suggested contributions by the B.B.C. to local radio. It seems that the present system of no advertising has failed, and I cannot believe it would be wise for the Postmaster General to announce the extension of the experiment to 40 or 50 B.B.C. stations. Should the B.B.C. now draw a local advertising revenue at the expense of the local Press? From what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said yesterday, I gather not. Would it not be preferable for local advertising to flow into local radio stations in which the local Press, including the smaller local weekly newspapers—and I think they should be protected—would participate? These stations need not be purely 'pop" stations but could include. as I remember we said to the Pilkington Committee at the time, a wide range of local public service programmes, too. I think we are fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is with us to-day to present his arguments in this respect.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? He said "evidence we presented to the Pilkington Committee". I am just wondering whom the "we" referred to.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am sorry; I was speaking away from my brief at that moment. "We", of course, referred—as I was going to say later—to a few friends who registered some companies in the South of England at that time, some six or seven years ago, and we went to see the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to present our case. I have no interest now in these matters but I thought I would mention it as I happened to catch the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I am sorry to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, by saying "we".

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble Earl did not mislead me at all. I merely wished your Lordships to know who "we" were.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that. He is very friendly and when he says "we" next time I may jump up, too.

The B.B.C., I find, operate no fewer than 293 transmitters in the long, medium and V.H.F. wavebands, purely for their domestic services, apart from 68 short wave for external services. No other single broadcasting corporation in the world comes anywhere near that number. The B.B.C. really are very big. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Postmaster General should not authorise the setting up of a few pilot commercial radio stations, licensed, perhaps, by the Independent Television Authority, which for this purpose might be renamed the "Independent Broadcasting Authority". In particular, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should be so much against this. Everyone agrees—even those not much in favour of commercial broadcasting—that I.T.V. has had a good effect on the B.B.C, and my own impression is that Labour voters favour commercial radio perhaps more than some Conservatives. The Prime Minister seems to have put his foot a little wrong on this, as he has perhaps on certain other issues, from the point of view of his own Party as well as the country. It is, I suppose, the result of a certain doctrinaire Socialist approach which still emerges from time to time and which shows the Government to be basically against private enterprise, even if, for political expediency, they pay occasional lip service to it.

Presumably in 1972, or thereabouts, a new Committee, not under the chairmanship, perhaps, of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, but possibly of another noble Lord—will be set up before the major reorganisation of all radio and television. I only hope that that Committee will arrive at rational conclusions regarding the allocation of wavelengths and other matters which I have raised to-day—conclusions which will be acceptable to the Party which will then, I believe, constitute the Government of the day.

3.39 p.m.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for raising this subject, and perhaps especially for introducing it in such a stimulating way. I cannot, like the noble Lord, deal with all the aspects of such a vast subject, but it is important that your Lordships should consider it, since the impact of broadcasting on our daily lives is now tremendous. These new forms of communication are creating new forms of communities. We are no longer burdened by physical or geographical ties; we can and do identify ourselves with totally different cultures and peoples.

In the past our feeling of belonging depended on whom we were near—first in a village, then in a town, and ultimately in a country. Now, largely because of our closeness through communication by radio and television, we can participate in an almost bewildering variety of experiences. We can have a sense of community with people far beyond our normal point of contact. My Lords, without irreverence I think it is true to say that the whole nation went to Sir Winston Churchill's funeral. Most of the nation watched the Olympic Games in Tokyo and in Mexico City, in colour, live. At this very moment millions of people feel close to the daily lives and domestic details of three men journeying to the moon. This is in a true sense a revolution, and an almost unrecognised revolution which takes place all around us. In the second half of this century man has begun to move from a society which was based on industrial production to a society which is based on knowledge, and on the interchange of knowledge and skills. For instance, in the United States next year more than half the population will be involved in disseminating knowledge or working with or through knowledge, not by their hands.

In this totally new situation broadcasting has made an historic change in the society in which we live; and, of course, because of this, it raises, as noble Lords have said, the whole question of public control. Broadcasting since the beginning has been recognised to have great social significance, and we in this country have therefore accepted that it must not be an instrument of Government. For this reason I welcome heartily what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about the freedom of our broadcasting authorities from the State, and Her Majesty's Government will always keep it that way. But equally we have accepted that it should not be exploited by the normal forms of commercialism, and I think the creation of the two bodies, first the B.B.C. and later the I.T.A., is a remarkably successful approach to this whole problem.

Perhaps we have to leave this country really to appreciate the quality of our broadcasting services, and particularly, if I may say so, to discover the enormous respect in which the B.B.C, in its news and so on, is held all over the world. People do believe in its truth and its impartiality. It plays an increasingly important part in the developing countries, both inside and outside the Commonwealth, and at the same time it presents an invaluable, true picture of British democracy at work. I do not think that this can be overrated. I have never forgotten the time when I was in Africa and learned that President Kennedy had been assassinated. It was a time of tremendous feeling of shock, somehow a feeling of being alone; and I was tremendously struck by the way in which people of all nationalities tuned in to the B.B.C. international news, not to their local nearer stations, but hour after hour to the B.B.C. That, I think, is a great lesson to us.

As the noble Lord said, if we are to consider the future of broadcasting we must take into account not only the programmes but the impact of technological advance, and I think that in this context it would be useful to consider the decisions already taken by the Government and those about to be taken. The noble Earl referred to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, whom we are indeed glad to see and whom we look forward to hearing; and noble Lords will know that the distinguished Committee of which he was Chairman produced the most far-reaching and penetrating Report. All its recommendations, with one very notable exception, were acted upon, and the Government have generally plotted our future in this pattern. The noble Earl wished us to have a Minister of Telecommunications. It is an extremely interesting idea, but I do not think that our Postmasters General have done too badly.

The Pilkington Report, if I may be technical for a moment, recommended that the line definition standard on which B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. are broadcast should be changed from 405 to 625 lines. If I can explain this, we can get on to the fourth new service. Once the decision was taken to change over it meant that we should have to duplicate B.B.C.1 and I.T.V. for some time. We shall stop duplication as soon as we can, but we must give adequate notice so that people can change their sets and all the rest of it. The total project is enormous: we shall need 60 high-powered transmitting stations, and hundreds of low-powered ones. It is in fact a tremendous achievement. It has been a tremendous technical issue which had to be tackled and has been tackled. It has improved the quality of television. It has made three television colour services possible soon; and, perhaps most important, it has provided a firm base for long-term planning not only of the corporations but of the manufacturing industry, which is in itself just as important.

There is, therefore, an ultimate plan of having six television services, two on V.H.F. and four on U.H.F. The two first are already in use by I.T.A. and B.B.C. 1, and one of the four U.H.F. channels is used by B.B.C. 2. The further two U.H.F. channels will be used by I.T.A. and B.B.C. in the new duplicated transmissions in November. This noble Lords will understand, leaves one free service. I must at once say to the noble Lord that no decision has yet been taken about the fourth channel, and I do not think he would have expected it—indeed, I am sure that noble Lords would have very different views about how it might be used. Claims to it will certainly come from educational broadcasting, from the Open University, and of course claims will probably be made by Independent Television, in order to equalise, as they put it, with the B.B.C. One of the main considerations, of course, will be financial and what the demands on resources will be. In the light of all this, as I said, no decision has yet been taken. But in two or three years, when the duplicated services will have reached most of the country, a decision will have to be taken on the fourth channel, and I am sure that important suggestions made by noble Lords to-day will be considered. Nevertheless, my Lords, at the moment, with three television services, this country is as well provided as any in Europe; and, indeed, much better than most.

The noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to the technical excitement of satellites. It is an almost dazzling prospect for the future. We all remember the initial excitement of Telstar I and Telstar II. But the progress which is now in front of us is almost infinite. The noble Lord described much more clearly than I could exactly how the different satellites work in the different transmitting stations, so I will not go into it deeply. But I should like the House also to remember that computers are of tremendous and increasing importance, not simply on the purely technical side but also on the actual production side. The noble Lord also referred to what is called electronic video recording. I think that many noble Lords may have something to say about that, because not only is it a simply fascinating development but it will also bring in its wake problems of copyright and all the usual kind of things. I am sure we shall hear later from many noble Lords about that subject.

Television perhaps monopolises the glamorous side of broadcasting, but in fact sound broadcasting is equally important. There has recently been a tendency to refer to it, in a rather affectionate, contemptuous manner, as "steam radio". But sound radio is rather like the railways in the United States. These became unfashionable and were allowed to decay; and now it is found that public transport is one of the only solutions to the traffic problem. I believe that sound radio is of enormous importance, particularly in relation to minority groups. I am sure that all noble Lords will have their favourite programmes. Perhaps they may be plays; perhaps they may be music on the Third; perhaps they may be "pop" or serious jazz—and, if I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I think he got his "pop" and his jazz mixed up. I can explain it to him afterwards.

When we are dealing with favourite programmes I must, if your Lordships will forgive me, and not because I am a female, mention Woman's Hour. It was once described to me as the only programme which was based on compassion. I think that is true, in spite of its great gaiety. In fact we listen to sound radio in our motor cars, in the kitchen, in the garden and in bed. It is quite impossible to consider modern life without it.

When we think of sound broadcasting, of course, we come to the most exciting of all new developments, local radio. I do not know whether your Lordships are familiar with the various stations. The Postmaster General set up eight local stations in different places and there is no question that they have been a tremendous success. He is now reviewing the experiment, and, of course, I cannot anticipate the outcome. There is no question, however, that particularly young people are immensely enthusiastic about the experiment. People like the local stations because they are uninhibited, free and easy—you can go in and protest, and in a minute or two, if you are willing, you will find yourself "on the air" explaining your views. People enjoy this, and I think it is extremely good for local democracy, for local group feelings, and indeed for local government. One particularly good feature, as I read in The Times the other day, is that all the local stations have a special service for blind listeners. They point out hazards such as new roadworks and new bus stops. This is of enormous importance. There is also on one station a programme for perhaps the smallest minority of all, 70 handicapped children who can scarcely leave their homes. This is the sort of service which a public service in radio can and does, fulfil.

I do not want to follow the noble Earl on the question of financing commercial radio—my noble friend the Leader of the House is going to deal with that point—but I should like to follow him about the Open University. I thought he took perhaps a slightly too gloomy view of that. Noble Lords will know that this is in fact a unique development. It is a new university for people who have not got the formal educational requirements, and it will lead, through every kind of course—radio, television, correspondence, tutorials, practicals—to a thorough-going degree equivalent to degrees from other universities.

On the question of cost, it will cost less than the cost of the other universities. It will be financed not through the I University Grants Committee but through the Department of Education and Science. If the noble Lord asks: can we afford it? I believe we can; that the answer should be, Yes. Expenditure next year will be less than £2 million. Of course that will increase; but when one looks at it in proportion, public spending on education this year is £2,000 million. So £2 million does not seem much for a country like ours to afford for adult education which is desperately needed. The university will also, to a certain extent, pay for itself by the sale of its programme material throughout the world, and already inquiries are coming in for this material.

The noble Lord referred to the article in The Times about American educational broadcasting. In fact, as I think he will agree, the conclusion was that the Americans look towards this experiment with envy. Their own experiments, which were locally based, partly because of the pattern of American education, were not, as he said, wholly successful. But in fact we can use their experience, and I think our method of having a national organisation which works through regional bodies, arranging the practicals, the libraries and the laboratories and so on, is a far better way of dealing with this particular subject. The noble Lord will not expect me to follow him into the tricky realm of loans for students, except to say that I personally am totally opposed to the idea. It is, indeed, not to be looked at in this context at all, although one has to keep an open mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Byers, discussed the question of the independent committee of inquiry. This, of course, is extremely important. The franchise of the B.B.C. and of I.T.A. runs out in 1976. By that time, or indeed long before that time, the Government will have had to decide their major policy. I think the suggestion that a full study of technology should be made beforehand is extremely interesting. I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of that suggestion, and I personally greatly like the idea of public discussions long before. The Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I think took something under two years to report—and perhaps he may tell us that he could have done with longer time. The broadcasting situation is infinitely more complex now, and there is no doubt that we shall have to get going with this fairly soon. As to the composition of the com mittee of inquiry, I would agree of course that it must have among its members technicians, representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and others—and I hope that there will be plenty of those odd objects, the statutory women. But I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lord when he says that we must not pull up the plant too often to look at the roots. I am quite sure that any idea of continuing inquiries is a bad idea.

I should like to remind the House of something that my right honourable friend Mr. Short, the Postmaster General, as he then was, said. It is My conception of a public corporation in this country is that we should either back it up or sack it, but not muck it about".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 28/6/67, col. 450.] I think that that is quite a good motto with which to consider this particular question.

On the question of violence, I am sure that nearly everybody is deeply worried. I will not go into it in the depth in which the noble Lord did, but I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to this problem. I quite agree that a great deal more research is necessary. But things like the wars in Vietnam and Nigeria, race riots and so on are a reality. There is also violence in drama. Much of the greatest drama involves extreme violence. One can think of all the corpses in Hamlet and in Macbeth and indeed in Romeo and Juliet. This is inevitable. But I chink that what we have to bear in mind here is that television comes straight into the home and that children are persistent viewers. There are, of course, general rules which the B.B.C. and IT.A. observe. The most notable one is what is called the 9 o'clock watershed. This assumes that up till that time children will be in the audience, and that after that the audience will be adult. This is an arbitrary assumption; indeed, those of us in this House who are parents will know only too well the difficulties. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable.

Both broadcasting authorities have tried to formulate rules to deal with constant brutality and things of that kind. There are from time to time lapses, but I think that is inevitable if we are to have lively and adventurous broadcast ing. It is a good thing that criticism such as is voiced in your Lordships' House should be brought to the broadcasting authorities' attention; but again we must emphasise that it is for those two authorities to consider that criticism and to take decisions on it. I do not think that reality on television is a bad thing. I think that McCarthyism would have gone on a lot longer in the United States if the McCarthy Committee had not been televised. When the viewers saw that evil face and watched the sadistic treatment of his victims, then the whole complex of McCarthyism began to collapse. That, I think, was a victory for television.

Communication is possibly the key to a peaceful and a productive world, and broadcasting has the major part to play in this. But whenever there has been a new advance in communication it has always been attacked as dangerous. When the printing press was invented the early authorities regarded it as a most dangerous thing. I remember even in the 1930s Orwell and Huxley thought that the popular Press and broadcasting would be used to indoctrinate and mislead people. In the end, I believe that the opposite has turned out to be the case, although danger always lurks in this respect, but that is why our system of keeping broadcasting independent of Government is so important. Standards are, of course, inevitably variable, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that we have serious and worthwhile television and radio in this country of which we can be proud. I think our technicians and producers, actors and administrators, are among the best in the world, and I think we should be proud of them. I think this debate will show that we are alive to the possible dangers, open to the new developments, and capable of making the best of a marvellous new means of communication.