HL Deb 11 May 1972 vol 330 cc1139-45

3.38 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 8 [Special provisions as to newspaper shareholdings in relation to local sound broadcasts]:

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 11, line 36, at end insert— ("() Provided that subsection (5) above shall not apply where a contract would permit or require the sound broadcasting of material which is composed mainly or solely of news and news comment for a particular locality and for distribution through other contractors.")

The noble Lord said: I think that the noble Viscount and those who took part in the Committee stage last Tuesday will agree that we had a constructive debate on the earlier aspects of this controversial Bill. We now come to Clause 8, and I would ask the Committee to consider this particular clause, not in relation to the controversy as to whether there should be commercial sound radio, but as to whether newspapers as such should participate in the provision of these services.

There is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about the economic position of many of our newspapers. Certainly a good number are faced with grave difficulties as a consequence of rising costs and a sort of stagnation in advertising revenue. And for some, I think, there is serious doubt whether they will survive. There were some noble Lords in a previous debate who thought that we had already too many newspapers. I personally would not accept that. I believe that although commercially there should be fewer, in the national interest we should seek to retain as many newspapers, national, evening and local, as is possible, in order that contrasting views can be made available to the public and to give opportunities for ordinary people, through the writing of letters, to put their minority views forward.

Local newspapers are perhaps in greater difficulties than the national newspapers. They have of course a smaller circulation; their costs are relatively higher; and the field from which they can draw advertising revenue is a good deal smaller. But their role is of considerable importance and, I suggest, will have greater importance as a consequence of local government reform when we move to larger local authorities with greater responsibilities. It is clearly to the local newspapers that the public will look for informataion about what is being done in the local field.

In a debate—I think it was last year—we considered the position of newspapers and examined various ways in which they could be assisted. If my memory is right, the House was united in the view that it would be wrong to give a kind of Government subsidy to keep newspapers in being, for fear that such a subsidy could well lead to an infringement of the liberty of the Press. I myself accept that view. Her Majesty's Government, in their White Paper, felt that commercial radio would have only a marginally adverse effect on local newspapers, but it seems to me from the Bill that they have now greater fears than they had earlier. The impact of commercial radio on local newspapers is hard to quantify. If these radio stations should have more of a regional aspect than the Government at the moment have in mind, clearly they will take what one might call "national advertising", in which case the national Press will be the sufferers; but clearly, if we do move to genuine local radio then local advertisements could well move to this new media.

The Government solution to this problem lies in Clause 8. It is that where a local newspaper can show to the Authority that it has a substantial proportion of its circulation in the locality of a local broadcasting station, and where there are clear adverse effects, then the Authority can use subsection (5), which provides that no contract shall be entered into by the Authority with a contractor unless that newspaper has become a shareholder through its own negotiations or the Authority has required the contractor to find room for that local newspaper as a shareholder in it. I must say that this principle to me is not a very happy one. It certainly leaves quite big areas where pressures may be made for similar treatment. But it seems to me, as in the case of television, that the Authority should judge the character of the contractor on the standing of those who are prepared to subscribe to that contractor, on the capability of that contractor, and on what proposals that contractor makes to the Authority for the provision of local sound radio.

If a newspaper was part of a consortium, then clearly that newspaper would be judged alongside the other applicants on its merits both in character and in the proposals it had in mind for local sound radio. I even wonder what will be the situation if a newspaper has been part of an unsuccessful application, where the Authority may have felt that the proposals of such a consortium were not good enough. It seems to me that where it has failed in its earlier application, under this Bill it will have a prescribed right to enter into the shareholding of the new and more successful contractor. I would ask the noble Viscount—because I appreciate that under Clause 9, on the question of public interest, the Authority can take into account whether or not a newspaper should be a shareholder—whether he could spell out the sort of criteria that the Authority should have in mind when considering public interest. If the House accepts that shareholding in a contractor is the least of the unpalatable solutions for dealing with newspapers who may be placed in an adverse position as a consequence of local radio, I think we are confronted with a serious position as a possible consequence of the Bill as now drafted.

Is it right that a newspaper should have a prescribed right to enter into a contractor that has been set up solely and specifically for the provision of news and news comment? Much was said in the other place about the Yorkshire Television Service to which the Yorkshire Post had been admitted, but I think one must recognise here that the substantial part of news and news comment on television is provided by an independent news service, I.T.N., to which tribute was passed on Second Reading. I spoke earlier of the great need for a multiplicity of views and comment. Therefore I need to pose this question: is it right that the Evening News and the Evening Standard—leaving aside any political overtones of either of these papers—should he in a position to influence, let alone provide news and comment to, a station that is broadcasting to the very area in Which those newspapers are at present circulating? So far as the evening papers are concerned, they are the main contributors to news and comment in the London area except for the morning daily papers. But both those papers are—and I recognise their economic difficulties—in fact subsidiaries of national newspapers. Is it right, therefore, that these two newspapers, through this Bill, should have a right of entry into a contractor where the contractor is not only providing news and news comment for London but is also the main purveyor and supplier of news and news comment for broadcasting through sound radio throughout the country?

May I pose this question? If to-day we were setting up national commercial radio, would this House or would another place ever dream of passing a Bill which permits a newspaper an automatic and prescribed right of entry which could allow it to affect the policy and the general slant of news and news comment? I do not believe that either House or any Government would ever suggest this. But, in practice, if a newspaper should become a shareholder and could influence the policy of the news contractor in London, it would in fact be in very much the same position as it would be in the case of national broadcasting, except that the sound radio stations would have a right not to take the programmes.

I say this not because I believe there is anything sinister in the operations of newspapers but because we all know that newspapers have a policy and that the editor and management of newspapers seek to find a niche for their newspaper within a particular readership. We have seen in the last two years the remarkable recovery of the Sun newspaper which directed itself towards a particular community who wanted something perhaps more lively than previously had been provided by the Daily Mirror. The journalists of these newspapers need to produce "copy" within the general policy of the editor and of the newspaper. So, as it was suggested in another place, if newspapers have a position of influence—I will not say "control"—within the broadcasting service that provides news and news comment, I think it will naturally follow that we may see the use of the same journalists who operate our newspapers during the morning providing the same sort of service to evening broadcasting. Journalists are normal, human—

LORD LEATHERLAND

Hear, hear!

LORD SHEPHERD

I have always accepted my noble friend Lord Leather-land as a normal person; but he will be the first to agree with me that if a journalist is required to write with a certain slant, with a certain degree of concentration for a particular point of view because it is the policy of the newspaper, it is conceivable that the same journalist, however normal he may he, will not be able to switch to producing—shall we say?—impartial copy for the radio broadcasting service. I do not believe that journalists can be as adept as that.

Therefore I am suggesting that, whether we like it or not, whether it be the intention or not, there is a real risk that if newspapers are providing the news and news comment for a contracting company and if those newspapers have an influence within a contractor who provides news and news comment we shall get a slant of news and news comment similar to that of the newspapers. In the use of our media, particularly in the case of radio news and news comment, I think that where it is meant to be news reporting it should seek to be clearly impartial; and where there is comment, one should be able to attribute that comment to some person with a recognised interest. I have no doubt at all that the I.T.N. and its subsidiary programmes provide this sort of service.

The Bill says that a newspaper must not have control of a contractor. Later the Bill says that the newspaper should have a shareholding which the Authority thinks right, commensurate with the "adverse" conditions. In my business life I have never known what size shareholding one requires in order to have control. Most people think one needs to have 51 per cent. to have control, to influence policy. I personally believe that the figure is a great deal less than that; that a great deal depends on how the other shareholding of the company is broken up. Therefore I should like to know from the noble Viscount what sort of figure the Government have in mind as an appropriate shareholding by a newspaper in a contracting company. I cannot help but feel that if a newspaper has a prescribed right of entry into a programme contractor which provides news and news comment not only for London but also for all the stations that are willing and able to take it, we are going to run counter to what I think Parliament has in mind: the idea of a multiplicity and divergence of views expressed through various media. The case of the Government for commercial radio is that it would provide an alternative service to the B.B.C. If it is accepted that the Evening News and the Evening Standard should have control of or a position of influence on the policy of a contractor which provides news and news comment within London and nationally, I think this would be running counter to the views that have been expressed by the noble Viscount and others in support of this Bill.

What does my Amendment do? It first says that if a newspaper is to have a prescribed right of shareholding in a contractor, that right should be limited to those contractors who provide general entertainment. Secondly, the Amendment says that newspapers as part of a consortium wishing to enter a contracting company which provided news and news comment should be judged on their own merits along with the other applicants of that consortia; that there should be no prescribed right and (speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 10) that newspapers, where they are shareholders in a contractor, should not be the body that provides the news and news comment for broadcasting by that contractor. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

There are, as your Lordships know, two Statements to be made. It would be convenient now for me to make the one on Northern Ireland. I do not know what the Committee thinks about that; but I suspect that this Amendment could take a little while. Therefore with the agreement of the Committee I suggest that the House do now resume.

House resumed.