HL Deb 11 May 1972 vol 330 cc1160-200

4.44 p.m.

Committee stage resumed.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I wondered whether any other noble Lord wanted to take part in the debate on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, before I say something from these Benches.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I should like to do so, with the permission of your Lordships' Committee. I must straight away declare a double interest. I am a director of the Daily Mail and General Trust, one of whose interests is the Evening News and it is eligible for a share in the equity of the London news station. Moreover, I write for the Evening News. It is my bread and butter and, far more important, the bread and butter of some 4,000 other co-workers. I stand before your Lordships naked and utterly unashamed. Your Lordships must judge my impartiality from what I am going to say. I am nobody's "stooge", and, incidentally, I am opposing my own Party's line. That is the joy, of course, of being a Liberal; you do not get whipped and you also do not get de-whipped.

I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill and I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech now. I will keep strictly to the point. The Amendment before us is about news stations, and that is what I am concerned with. In the news field the B.B.C. has a monopoly of radio news, national and regional, and to me a wholly odious monopoly. A correspondent writes to me suggesting that the B.B.C. should be called the "A.B.B.C."—the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation—and after listening to and watching its programmes I tend to agree. The recent British Empire series, which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, called intellectually contemptible, was perhaps the most disgraceful piece of anti-British propaganda since the broadcasts of Lord Haw-Haw. The B.B.C. news reports on Ulster have sickened our troops, or those I have spoken to, to the extent that on their return to barracks after some peacekeeping operation they listen to the B.B.C. and ask in amazement—

LORD SHEPHERD

May I ask the noble Earl whether he is referring to B.B.C. television or to B.B.C. sound news?

THE EARL OF ARRAN

In the world sense I was referring to B.B.C. television, but as regards Ulster I was referring to radio news and television. I was speaking about the situation in general. I was saying that soldiers, after perhaps having had some horrible experience, come back and listen—I repeat, listen—to the B.B.C., and ask in amazement: "Whose side are they on?" Admittedly, two swallows do not make a summer, but they are indicative.

I repeat that I hate monopolies of all kinds, but I am also a realist. Can we face this issue fairly and squarely. There are two London "Evenings": the Standard and the News—or should I say the News and the Standard? I assume, and do so from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that broadly speaking your Lordships would like the London evening papers to survive, if only because the loss of yet another newspaper would be a further disaster to Fleet Street. And please never forget that what we are engaged on here is a defensive, and not an offensive, operation. These Evenings "have to protect themselves. There is no money, or very little, to be made—I think that was made clear on Second Reading. No one is here for the beer. I ask your Lordships not to forget that we used to have three evening newspapers; and I weep no crocodile tears when I say that we have sadly and badly missed the Star. In addition to its traditional Liberal outlook it had the best racing tips. The suggestion in a subsequent Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Minister should compensate the papers for loss of revenue—

LORD SHEPHERD

No.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

In a subsequent Amendment. That is to me, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself, an unpleasant thought.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would the noble Earl say in which Amendment it is that I suggest that?

THE EARL OF ARRAN

An Amendment to Clause 9.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY)

This Amendment is No. 8: page 11, line 36.

TIIE EARL OF ARRAN

I stand corrected. But the noble Lord has said already that he would not agree with the suggestion that the State should subsidise newspapers in any form because that would be, as he said, the end of the freedom of the Press.

More positively, on what basis do the London "Evenings" base their claim to a participation in the equity?—on the plain fact that they are best qualified to do the job, and to do it well. Admittedly very few people in this country know much so far about commercial radio; the Americans do, but we do not. Admittedly, too, the B.B.C. are doing their best, but in this as in other fields they need competition to keep them on their toes. It would also deter them from partiality. I know that the Evening News has been working on plans for this eventuality for the past five years. According to their conception, if they are given a share in the equity the new news station should be an entirely separate supplier of news, using the official news agencies, and it would also appoint a number of reporters who were specially trained to obtain news for the radio medium. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is aware of it, but it would be in fact an entirely new set-up under its own management and absolutely independent of the newspaper itself, although of course it might have some expert know-how. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware of this most important fact. I should like to stress it and to say that the radio station would be in direct competition with the Evening News itself, just as one newspaper is in competition with another; just as, in fact, the Daily Sketch was in competition with the Daily Mail.

I am in a predicament. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the B.B.C. news monopoly, national or local, and I have made my reasons abundantly clear. I am in favour of what might be termed a "counter-irritant" in the shape of a rival news station. I am not convinced that any station can be entirely impartial, and on this point 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I defy anyone to be completely impartial. One of the reasons why I write for the Evening News is because I believe it to be one of the more impartial newspapers. I could prepare a news programme for your Lordships which was seemingly objective but was in fact violently prejudiced, like the favourite programme of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—" The World at One "—which glories in consciously undermining every British achievement and success and emphasises our difficulties in every available field. I once edited this programme for six months, albeit with complete impartiality, and perhaps that is why my contract was not renewed. It is a question of headlines and emphasis and interpretations. I could introduce a news programme which was seemingly objective but in fact was heavily biased. Some of your Lordships might not notice the purpose behind my programme but the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would notice it, because they work for newspapers. Perhaps we could draft such a programme together, but I doubt very much whether the slants would be in the same direction.

Admitting the impossibility of total impartiality I should be very disappointed—and I mean this sincerely—if the proposed news station were not at least as impartial as some of the B.B.C. programmes, and I hope a great deal more so. My conclusions are that a rival news service is desirable because of the B.B.C. monopoly, but if it is going to succeed it must be properly equipped to make it a success and it should be run by professional people. If you are going to take risks—and on Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made it clear that we are taking risks, as one always is in every new venture—let the professional newsmen "have a go". If they fail then give the responsibility to someone else.

I have had my say; I have tried to be reasonably impartial. I doubt whether I have been successful, but if there is a Division on this Amendment I shall naturally abstain.

LORD SAINSBURY

I rise to support my noble friend's Amendment. In the discussion on Second Reading we heard a good deal about regional broadcasting and local broadcasting.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

We have heard a good deal about it in Committee, too.

LORD SAINSBURY

If the intention of the Government in this Bill is really local commercial broadcasting, and if at the same time they want to help really local newspapers, then I believe that the London Evening News and the Evening Standard have no claim as local newspapers. They are regional newspapers, as we can all verify when we go East, North, South and West outside the Greater London area. I made a Second Reading speech and I am not going to make another now, but I strongly support this Amendment.

LORD AVEBURY

I was not going to say anything on this Amendment, but having listened to my noble friend I feel I must say one word in regard to the position in London, because it is important that we should get this right. However, before I come to that, may I say that with great regret I have to disagree with my noble friend in his strictures on the B.B.C. I personally think that their reporting is admirable, and it has not upset me in the slightest that they have had a monopoly for all these years. In my opinion the news broadcasts which one hears in the mornings are well prepared and, so far as they possibly can be, are impartial. I also think that in general the B.B.C. do a good job on local news. Some of the information that we get from them is useful. For example, we have been talking about the railway dispute. One can turn on the B.B.C. radio in the morning and get information about the trains, as to which ones have been cancelled. It might be said that the B.B.C. is already providing the sort of local news service that many people need in their programme immediately prior to the eight o'clock news in the mornings.

However, we are going to have these stations. In particular we are to have one in London. The question arises as to which, if any, of the newspapers operating in London should be entitled to participate in it under Clause 8. As my noble friend sat down I remarked to him that he had been speaking only in terms of the Evening News, but he told me that he was only able to speak for the Evening News and he did not in any way intend to imply that other newspapers were excluded.

The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has just pre-empted a point that I was going to make. The London Evening News and the Evening Standard are not the only local newspapers circulating in the area. As the noble Lord has said, they might more accurately be called regional newspapers because people who travel on the trains as far afield as Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Ashford normally carry a copy of one or other of these papers. What I would call a local newspaper is something like the Orpington and Kentish Times, which is an admirable newspaper circulating in my own area and is a member of a group which includes the Bromley and Kentish Times, the Chislehurst Times, and so on. I declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the company which owns these newspapers, and I occasionally write for them, although not for the newspaper circulating in my own area. Then there is the South London Press, which is a very popular newspaper circulating in the centre of London. As one goes northwards one also finds that each borough has its own local newspaper. I would have thought that if the major regional newspapers are to be allowed to come in, certainly these ought not to be excluded, but I am afraid they probably will be because they could not contend for stations covering the whole of London that their circulation represented a substantial proportion of the population of that area. I do not know what the word "substantial" means, but presumably it would be interpreted as including both the London Evening News and the Evening Standard.

I urge that if this machinery is to be effective and we are to have independence, with no influence brought to bear by the newspaper proprietors on the contents of the news broadcasts from local stations, you should not have one, or even two, coming in where they would be able to exert, even indirectly, a powerful influence on programme content. They would perhaps be called on to provide expert assistance from journalists with special knowledge of preparing news programmes for the radio. In my view if you had as many newspapers as possible within the area, all having a stake in the new enterprise, there is much less opportunity for any one of them to influence programme content.

I am not saying that the Amendment the noble Lord has put down is necessarily the ideal solution. It seems to me too drastic to say that where one has material which is news or news comment the Authority is automatically bound to exclude local newspapers from having an interest in it. My solution would be to bring in as many as possible, and if one looks at the situation in London I think that certainly would be a much better way of ensuring impartiality than excluding them altogether.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I have a certain sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in having to resume this debate after spending three-quarters of an hour on two Statements he has my fellow feeling if he forgot for the moment what we were talking about. I hope I may succeed in combining the much earlier speech of Lord Shepherd with what has been said since.

LORD SHEPHERD

I hope the noble Viscount does not want me to repeat it.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

If the noble Lord is like me he would find it impossible to remember what he said. I think in fact that this Amendment will apply only to the London news station. I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury made, that just as we may be dealing with an exceptional case in this Amendment, the London local radio may have rather more of a regional character than would apply elsewhere. I think that is inevitable because of the size of London, and it is no use blinking this fact. But you cannot then extrapolate from that situation and say, as noble Lords have tended to try to do in these debates, that the whole thing concerns regional radio.

Let us look aft the situation in London as it is. I very fully understand the anxiety that lies behind this Amendment, the idea that perhaps the Evening News and Evening Standard might have a right to buy into a specialist London news station. That, of course, is the essence of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd's, speech. I think I agreed with him on his general introductory background remarks about Clause 8; I think they were very helpful for the understanding of this Bill, and particularly this clause. I think that the heart of the noble Lord's objection relates to this question of control and influence: the editorial control that might arise over the content of the news. I should like to come back at the end of my speech to look at the safeguards in that connection. We have got to consider whether the safeguards in this Bill are sufficient to empower the I.B.A. to counter the risks that we have on news if we do not include this Amendment.

I indicated that this whole matter of Clause 8, not excluding the news station, had been carefully considered by the Government again since Report stage in another place, and we still think that on balance we have got the safeguards right. In the first place, there is the whole concept of awarding rights to newspapers to take part in programme contracting. Incidentally this is optional, they are not forced to. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, implied in his speech that they had to take part. That is not so; they only do it if they wish. But this option is that they should be able to do so, subject to Clause 9, where a station coincides with their circulation area and they would be adversely affected.

For all I know, when the I.B.A. comes to consider the applicants for the London news station they may come to the conclusion that that station's operations would adversely affect the two London evening newspapers. I have no idea whether they would or not, and I have no intention of trying to indicate what their judgment might be. That is nothing to do with the Government; it is for the Authority to say. But let us assume that it would consider those newspapers to be affected. Prima facie it would have to offer to let those two newspapers in. There is obviously a good deal of force in the view that an excessive concentration of newspaper ownership or control or influence in a station would carry the risk of too one-sided presentation of affairs and news and so on; indeed, perhaps a failure to present some of them at all. But I do not think that this means that the risk is so likely to materialise that we have got to keep those newspapers out altogether. That is really what this Amendment does; it keeps them right out. If we were to proceed on that basis we should really get to the stage, should we not, where we are beginning to deny the Press the opportunity to take part in this news station at all. If you specifically deny them the right when they are adversely affected, you are by implication suggesting to the I.B.A. that there might be something wrong in allowing a consortium which voluntarily included one of these newspapers.

LORD SHEPHERD

No.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am glad the noble Lord does not go as far as that, because obviously, quite apart from Clause 8, a consortium could come forward which would include one or both of those newspapers. Apparently that is a situation that the noble Lord contemplates, and he is not afraid of it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I said that to my mind it would be perfectly reasonable for those newspapers to come forward with other applicants, and then their applications are considered on merit. It seems to me that provided these newspapers are in a position to prove adverse effects, then unless this falls within Clause 9 the Authority must permit those newspapers to have a shareholding. That is the point.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

So they must, but it does not say how large a shareholding or what sort of shareholding. It does not say anything about voting rights or control, except that Clause 8(6) says there must not be control. Then we have Clause 9. I covered quite a lot of this ground on Second Reading. There is the overriding power under Clause 9 to deny them their right. We are to come to Clause 9.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me what were to be the criteria. I think it would be a disaster if I were to attempt to itemise the criteria that might come under Clause 9. There are similar powers under the existing Act for the Authority to operate, and they are in Section 12(1). To try to spell out what those criteria might be would be an exceedingly dangerous thing to do and might hamper very much the work of the Authority in the exercise of its judgment. I would much rather leave that kind of thing to the Authority when it has to deal with a specific point in a specific set of circumstances. Anyway, we have that control under Clause 9(1) and the general control in Section 12(1) of the Act. We have the on-going control if there is a change of character in Section 11(4) of the Act. All those operate, and there are the provisions under Clause 8 itself which enable the I.B.A., even if it does have compulsorily to offer shares to one of the newspapers in this station, to say how much and what sort, as I have just said. In those circumstances, is that all that the Act said? No, it is not, when we are dealing with things like control and influence—and that is the essence of what the noble Lord was talking about. First of all, may I deal with the question of control? Control is actually defined in Section 28(1) of the 1964 Television Act, but it is defined in a way which is not, I think, the only criterion on which the I.B.A. would work. It is probably much too rigid for the purposes of delineating the part that the newspapers would have to play.

Let us see what else they have in terms of what they could do to prevent undue editorialisation, undue influence, undue control even with a much smaller shareholding. I take the point that a smaller shareholding could involve a disproportionate amount of control. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be interested in this. In Section 3 of the parent Act, the principal Act, we have two powers. First of all, in relation to news Section 3(1)(b) says: … all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy and impartiality … I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has gone for the moment, because he is well acquainted with the art of journalism, and I should have thought that he probably also knew a good deal about the art of what the editor can do. I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of a journalist and an editor to produce news which fell within the criteria required under Section 3(1)(b). If they do not, it is part of the power of the I.B.A. to control the station to see that they fall into line.

LORD SHEPHERD

I fully accept that. I think the Minister in another place strongly suggested that he would welcome that editors and news writers of a newspaper should also be providing that same material for sound broadcasting. The point I was making is that an editor of a newspaper and a writer carry out a policy, and, let us face it, newspapers have definite slants. Therefore, is it practical to expect the same people, in the same day, to move away from producing an article with a slant directed to a policy to producing a programmes of impartiality? Let us leave out accuracy.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I tried to make it clear in the case that I was making that what is being thought of is a completely different organisation.

LORD SHEPHERD

The trouble is that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, speaks—and I accept this—at least with the knowledge of his newspaper organisation, but the speeches made in another place were clearly welcoming the fact that the Evening News and Evening Standard editors and writers would be fully involved in the production of news in a broadcasting service to London and to the nation as a whole.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

I can only tell your Lordships the situation as I understand it and honourably believe it to be.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Of course there is sitting in your Lordships' House the arbiter of all this.

LORD SHEPHERD

Why?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

The noble Lord sitting behind.

LORD SHEPHERD

But he is silent.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

This is one of the great misfortunes of the Addison Rules which I deplore so much in these circumstances. But there it is. The noble Lord will keep his own counsel and in due course I hope that he will be making some decisions. I have forgotten the passage in my right honourable friend's speech to which the noble Lord referred, but I should be extraordinarily surprised if the editor of the London news station was the same man as the editor of one of the evening newspapers. I would be astonished. You could knock me down with a feather if the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, appointed one of those gentleman in that dual capacity. Incidentally, I wonder whether he would have time to do it.

It may be that some of the sources of news, some of the journalists, provide material for both media. But is that not what editors are for? And is that not exactly what the station contract is going to ensure, that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his Authority are going to make perfectly certain, on pain of death for the station, that they stick to the rules that I began to read out, starting with Section 3(1)(b) and moving on to 3(1)(e), that, due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy". That is as "anti-slant" as anything in legislation can be described as anti-slant, and that is written into the contract. It is certainly written into the existing television contracts, and I should have thought that it was almost certain to be written into those of sound broadcasting.

What about Section 3(2), which, as I read it, is an absolute total prohibition on editorial expression of the people who own or control or have influence in the station? Again, I have seen this in practice in television. It is a perfectly well understood taboo that those who provide the news and current affairs programmes on television—that not only involves the other programmes; news is very important in this context—are not allowed in any circumstances to impose their own editorial views upon the programme. It is all in the Act, and that is the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his Authority will be controlling. I would strongly suggest to the Committee that even in the case of large, important evening newspapers such as those that we are discussing, and granted that it is a large area that is going to be covered, the Authority can be trusted to use the powers that it has in the Bill, and in the Act as it stands, to make sure that none of those dangers, which I accept as real fears, will materialise in the end.

It is for those reasons that I suggest to your Lordships that, first of all, it would be contrary to the whole policy of the Bill that these two newspapers should be picked out to be excluded statutorily, in effect, from participation in the London news station. The reason why they should be allowed to stay in is because their staying in will be under such rules and control and authority and supervision that the dangers that have been voiced in this House will never materialise at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has sought to deal with my Amendment. May I just pose one question to him? If it had been the proposal of the Government that we should have an alternative sound radio broadcasting system; that there should be a prescribed right for two newspapers to have a shareholding in it, and that the shareholding should be on a basis to be judged by the Authority but taking into account the adverse effects of that particular service on that newspaper's revenue, would the noble Viscount have got up and defended a situation that two newspapers, despite all their difficulties and all the things that they may in fact offer to the community of London, should have a prescribed right to enter into a national broadcasting service? I doubt whether he would. I suspect that this local service, from what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, is perhaps slightly beyond but basically the G.L.C. area, which is the basic coverage of these two newspapers. They will be providing a service of influence both through sound, and through their own Press. These programmes will be offered throughout the whole commercial network of this country, and I therefore suggest that we are largely providing, in terms of news and news comment, the material of a national service. Therefore, in principle, one could not defend two newspapers—because that is what this is—having a prescribed right of shareholding.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned other newspapers in London. I agree with him, and in a later Amendment I suggest a way of dealing with the problem. The fact is that many genuine local newspapers which provide a real service to the local community may be put in greater jeopardy than the Evening News and the Evening Standard, but, looking at the Bill, I do not see how they will ever have a right to be considered for even the minutest shareholding in these contracting companies. This clause has been drafted specifically to cover the position of two major London evening newspapers which are part of a national newspaper network. I cannot believe that that is right in principle. Whatever may be the protections which the noble Viscount has put forward, I cannot believe it is right to put this prescribed right into a Bill. I feel so strongly on the principle that I would certainly seek to test the opinion of your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Does the noble Lord wish me to answer the question or not?

LORD SHEPHERD

Certainly, if the noble Viscount wishes to do so.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I should like to say a word about it, because it is an important point. I think we are dealing—and I do not seek to escape from this—with a special case. Where I would differ from the noble Lord is on the matter of principle. I suggest that it is a matter of degree. Let me complete my argument. On the television side, which has now been going for some time, there are newspaper interests in some of the big five stations. I grant that they are not there as of right, but they got in—to take the case of Yorkshire—because I think the Yorkshire Post was considered to be a worthy partner in one of the consortia. They got in because they are a Yorkshire newspaper, but their programmes are networked throughout the British Isles—and very properly, too, because they are very good programmes. We have a very similar situation here, the only difference being that instead of getting in as part of a successful bid, the Evening Standard and the Evening News may get in to some extent as of right.

What I suggest to the Committee is that, having listened to this debate, as he has done, the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, will go away and, if the question of a London news station is brought up before him and applicants come in, he will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about this being a network news service. I should not be surprised if this affected his thinking on the extent of the shareholding which he thought it right for these newspapers to have, among many other things which I am sure he will consider with his colleagues at the same time. That is the type of consideration, the type of detailed point, which I suggest to your Lordships is so much better left to the Authority, than written into the Statute. That is my answer to the point of principle of the noble Lord.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not think the noble Viscount quite understands the point I was seeking to make. I am sorry to delay the Committee, but this is one of the cardinal parts of the Bill. May I say, so far as my noble friend Lord Aylestone is concerned, that I have no doubt that he will listen not only to what is said in this House but to what is said in the other place. Equally, he may forget or take less account of some of the speeches that have been made from the Government side and from the Opposition side, and will take a balanced view upon the matter. I have no doubt about that at all, and that is why I said that if there was to be an Authority I was pleased that it was to be the old I.T.A. The issue is surely this. So far as the Yorkshire Television and the Yorkshire Post are concerned, this is a service which provides some news, some comment of local interest, but, basically, what it networks is entertainment.

I have not in any way challenged the prescriptive right of newspapers to be part of a contractor who is providing entertainment. I have merely challenged the prescriptive right of entry into a contractor who provides news and news comment. I said in my first speech that I

would not object to either the Evening News or the Evening Standard being in a contractor who provided news and news comment, not as a prescriptive right but solely judged by the Authority with the other applicants when the matter goes before the Authority. In other words, a judgment is made of those newspapers in line with a judgment made of any other form of applicant. What I challenge is the prescriptive right that is being given to two newspapers to be able to enter a contracting company who provides what is, in the end, national news and news comment.

5.27 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS
Avebury, L. Gladwyn, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Balogh, L. Granville-West, L. Sainsbury, L.
Barrington, V. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. St. Davids, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Henderson, L. Seear, Bs.
Beswick, L. Henley, L. Segal, L.
Blyton, L. Hughes, L. Shackleton. L.
Brockway, L. Jacques, L. [Teller.] Shepherd, L.
Champion, L. Kahn, L. Stocks, Bs.
Chorley, L. Leatherland, L. Stow Hill, L.
Collison, L. Longford, E. Summerskill, Bs.
Diamond, L. McLeavy, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Moyle, L. White, Bs.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Nunburnholme, L. Winterbottom, L.
Gardiner, L. Ogmore, L. Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Garnsworthy, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.] Wynne-Jones, L.
George-Brown, L. Platt, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Ebbisham, L. Leathers, V.
Abinger, L. Eccles, V. Long, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Elgin and Kincardine, E. Lothian, M.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Auckland, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Mancroft, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Falkland. V. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Belstead, L. Ferrers, E. Merrivale, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Fortescue. E. Milverton, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Gainford, L. Monsell, V.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Goschen, V Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Gowrie, E
Caccia, L. Greenway, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Grenfell, L. Rankeillour, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Grimston of Westbury, L. Rhyl, L.
Colyton, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Sandford, L.
Conesford, L. Selkirk, E.
Courtown, E. Hanworth, V. Sempill, Ly.
Cowley, E. Hood, V. Somers, L.
Craigavon, V. Howard of Glossop, L. Sudeley, L.
Daventry, V. Hylton-Foster, Bs. Teviot, L.
Davidson, V. Ilford, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
de Clifford, L. Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Vivian, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lansdowne, M. Wynford, L.
Derwent, L. Latymer, L. Young, Bs.
Dudley, E. Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Provisions supplementary to section 8]:

5.35 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 12, line 26, at end insert— ("But the Minister may require the contractor to pay the proprietor such sums as he may think appropriate as compensation for the adverse effects to the newspaper.")

The noble Lord said: In our last debate we considered, under Clause 8, the position of a newspaper which met the conditions and could prove that it had been adversely affected as a consequence of, or because of the possibility of, commercial radio; and in this clause, as the noble Viscount has drawn to our attention, the Authority can decline to make use of subsection (5), which gives the prescriptive right, if it is their opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest for the proprietor of that newspaper to acquire a shareholding … I think your Lordships will have noticed that the noble Viscount felt it unwise to give us any definition of what the public interest is likely to be.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No. I think we know what the public interest is likely to be: what I did not want to define is what is contrary to it.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Viscount is more accurate in his phraseology: that comes from his professional training. I think, however, it will be accepted that in the case of the newspapers we have been discussing it would be very difficult for the Authority to feel that, in the public interest, these newspapers have in any way committed, or are likely to commit, any act in which public interest as we understand it may be involved. The Authority may, however, take the view, as I said in the earlier debate, that on the balance of advantage and disadvantage it would be better if these newspapers were not involved in the contracting company. However, when making what may be a difficult decision, a very finely balanced one, they will have to recognise that if they decline to let the newspaper become a shareholder that newspaper may be gravely affected adversely. My Amend- ment seeks to assist towards a solution of this matter.

The intention of my Amendment is that where the Authority feels that it would be contrary to the public interest, and where it may be finely balanced, as I have said, but where it is recognised that the economic consequences of a decision to debar particular newspapers, on perhaps a narrow ground, may affect them adversely, then the Minister may require the contractor to pay the proprietor such sums as he may think appropriate as compensation for the adverse effects to the newspaper. What I am seeking to ensure here is that where, on perhaps very marginal grounds, the Authority feels that the newspaper should not be part of a contract as a consequence of subsection (5), it should know that, if it decides that way, the Minister has power to see that compensation is paid to the newspaper concerned for any adverse effect as a consequence of commercial sound radio.

I put this Amendment forward, basically, on the basis of trying to ease the difficulty with which the Authority may be confronted where there is a delicate, finely balanced decision to be taken, for perhaps it would then be possible for the Authority to err on the cautious side by not letting the paper enter well knowing that if it maintained that decision the newspaper would at least have some form of compensation and that it would be paid for by the contractor. I beg to move.

5.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I want to do justice to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd's argument because I appreciate the spirit in which he moved his Amendment; but if he wishes to discuss something with his noble friend I will wait for a moment.

LORD SHEPHERD

It was a question of forthcoming business, but the noble Viscount can proceed.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

The noble Lord was good enough to give me some notice of why he was moving this Amendment and I accept the spirit of helpfulness in which lie puts it forward. I think that there are some practical difficulties which perhaps in my terminology are of degree, but it may be that in some people's view they are difficulties of principle. I would start with the point that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, made a little while ago, which was probably more apposite to this particular Amendment than in fact to the one he was speaking to at the time, that some newspapers would not like to have any sort of compensation or subsidy even if it came from the contractor rather than from Government. We might run into difficulty here.

The other practical difficulty here, as it seems to us, is the method of trying to assess the compensation. In entirely different fields I have had to deal with the assessment of compensation, a capitalised sum for loss of notional future profits. It is a simple enough task in some cases, where you have fairly solid sets of accounts covering two, three, four or five years, which show a comparatively unchanging position and you are attempting to capitalise the effect of closing down that business altogether. There you take the five years, or the three years, or whatever period it is, and you apply to it for the purposes of compensation the number of years' purchase which the cunning surveyors tell you it is right to take. That is a situation with which most specialists in the sort of field in which I operate are fairly familiar. It is a fairly common practice in surveying and the courts are quite used to dealing with it.

The difficulty here is that the I.B.A. or the Minister, or somebody, would have to assess a sum to be paid by way of capital compensation or notional future adverse effect on the revenue of the newspaper which might come about by virtue of the deprivation of some of the advertisements that it would carry, or loss of circulation, or something of that sort. As this Amendment stands, I should have thought that the exercise was virtually impossible because I do not know how you would begin to calculate it.

The noble Lord in the process of argument—because we have dealt with Clause 8—has accepted the concept that there should be a right to buy into the programme contractor if there is adverse consequence. From that it follows that we must assume that the situation in which this Amendment would arise is one where it is judged that an adverse consequence would occur. Then one has to think of what sort of adverse consequence—how big an adverse consequence? How much do we need to compensate the newspaper for it? How do we assess it? One is also faced with this problem: that whereas the point of Clause 8 is to allow the newspaper to offset on an income basis from its profits—from its shareholding—any loss of revenue that occurs as a result of the adverse effect of the local radio station, here we have a once and for all capital sum which does not seem to me to be quite the same thing as what is being considered and dealt with in Clause 8. So I think there are conceptual and practical difficulties which are not at all easy of solution, and of course the noble Lord has not attempted to try and draft the way in which it is assessed.

Furthermore, I think one has here squarely to face a situation where there will be the possibility that a newspaper, although adversely affected, for some reason of public policy is not considered suitable as a candidate for shares in the programme contractor. One does not know what those circumstances would be, but it may be that one has just to accept that, as in the case of a newspaper in a consortium that does not get a station and is not entitled to shares as of right, or, in the case of the television world, a newspaper in a consortium that does not get a television contract, there would be some loss. This has happened before. I think we must face up to the possibility that it will happen again, and I fear that I see arising out of the noble Lord's solution more difficulties and problems than there would be advantages—which I accept would be substantial. But on the whole I think that the balance is against even this most helpful suggestion. I could not be more sympathetic with what the noble Lord is trying to suggest. I think it is a good idea and helpful to put forward. But perhaps on further consideration he may think that these difficulties are overwhelming and will not want to press his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Viscount's sympathy does not get me very far. May I pose this question? Supposing the Evening Standard was part of a consortium that was successful with the Authority in getting a contract for London entertainment. Suppose the Evening News has been excluded from entertainment and applies to the Authority. Suppose the Authority, recognising the adverse effect that will have on the paper, then says: "Well, on balance we do not think it right that a newspaper of your size, importance and influence in the London locality—and the fact that you are part of a national combine and that your newspapers although they are basically London are also widely circulated—should be a participant in the contractor". It seems to be inconceivable that the Authority would then say: "Well, we will use Section 5"—I think it is (b)—"in order that you can now become a shareholder alongside the Evening Standard in the entertainment contractor". It may be that. I have sought to assist the Authority—and the noble Viscount recognised this—in that if it is confronted with this dilemma it will have the knowledge that if it makes a judgment of this sort it will not be spelling the death of a major London evening newspaper. The noble Lord said that this would be compensation. But what is Clause 8 but a system of compensation to certain local newspapers as a consequence of commercial television and the adverse effect upon them? Clause 8 stinks of compensation. That is why it is there. Therefore, the noble Lord's case for compensation as an issue in resisting my Amendment I do not think really stands up.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

The noble Lord has not followed me. The distinction I was trying to draw was between income compensation and capital compensation.

LORD SHEPHERD

I was coming to that. I must admit that when the noble Viscount was dealing with that, I realised the imperfection of my drafting. I certainly had not in mind one all-out capital payment, because I recognise that you may not do justice to the paper concerned. I accept to a certain extent—I think to the full extent—that it would be impossible to judge rightly between the paper or the contractor on a capital sum. When I drafted the Amendment I had an annual payment in mind. Then the noble Lord made what I thought appeared to be a good case about the difficulties of assessment. But what does Clause 8(6)(b) say? Subsection (6) reads: The number and description of shares to be approved for the purposes of any such arrangements … (b) in any other case, or (in a case falling within the preceding paragraph) to such extent as is consistent with that paragraph, shall be such as the Authority consider appropriate, having regard to the adverse effect which the broadcasting of the programmes to be provided under the contract in question is likely to have on the financial position of the newspapers. The Authority is required to make an assessment of the extent of the adverse effect on the newspaper. True, in the first year the newspapers may have difficulty in producing evidence of this, but in later years no doubt they will be able to do so. But the point is that the Authority is required to make an assessment: so that part of the noble Viscount's argument against my Amendment falls to the ground by virtue of the Bill itself.

I do not intend to press this Amendment, because I recognise the spirit of the noble Viscount's attitude throughout this Committee. I merely ask him to consider this point. In the light of what may be a difficult decision by the Authority—and the matter of the public interest may have nothing sinister or ulterior in it; the Authority may simply feel that it would not be right—I personally feel that the Authority ought to make that decision knowing that they are not spelling the death of the particular newspaper. Therefore I would ask the Government to look at this matter in the spirit in which I have put it forward. There is a further Amendment which deals with other newspapers. I appreciate the difficulty, but the assessment case is already dealt with. The Authority is required to make an assessment and Clause 8 is really a compensation clause. It is dressed up, but it is compensation. There is really no issue of principle between us on this point; it is a question of practicability. I am certain that if the noble Viscount and the Government accept the principle, the draftsmen can find a way in which it can be implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.52 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 12, line 26, at end insert— ("() Notwithstanding anything in section 8 of this Act, where it appears that the appropriate conditions are fulfilled by more than one newspaper in the locality and where it would be inequitable to approve acquisition for one newspaper and not others, the Authority shall not require arrangements to be made as mentioned in subsection (5) of section 8 of this Act provided the Minister concurs and the Minister may require the contractor to pay to trustees appointed by the Authority such sums as the Minister considers appropriate to compensate for the adverse effects to the said newspapers.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in a similar vein to the previous one. As the debate has proceeded it would appear that we are speaking solely of two local evening newspapers, the Evening News and the Evening Standard. In London there are many newspapers of great social and local importance and on the outskirts of the Greater London area there are a number of new papers that instead of selling their newspapers outwards are seeking to move their sales inwards. They, too, have a great contribution to make. This Amendment deals with the case where the Authority is satisfied that there is more than one newspaper that can clearly show that it is adversely affected as a consequence of local sound commercial radio. They may be affected to the point that they may well collapse. The Authority may say that it would be wrong to let in just one newspaper and to leave out all the others, to let one newspaper live and to let half a dozen or so die.

The practical problem here is that we cannot have too many newspapers as shareholders in a contracting company because the amount of "gravy" that would be then available to any newspaper clearly would not be sufficient to meet the adverse effects on its advertising revenue. But I think that there is a germ of an idea—and I put it forward merely on that basis—that where the Authority is satisfied (and where the Minister concurs) that more than one newspaper can show that they are adversely affected by a contracting company broadcasting in their locality—and here we have the problem of what is the definition of "locality"—then, instead of allowing only one newspaper to have a prescriptive right of shareholding in the company, the Minister should devise ways and means of raising money from that contractor as though all these newspapers were shareholding and so that such sums of money can be paid to a trustee (and so we get away from the problem of Ministerial distribution) for distribution to the various newspapers involved.

I recognise that this sum may not meet entirely the adverse consequences to all the newspapers, because I do not believe that these contractors are going to make very large profits. But, in equity, I should have thought it would be wrong to look at just one newspaper without at least providing a means for the Authority to help the other newspapers who have been adversely affected and who have as much contribution to make as the one major newspaper—and in some cases, because of the locality, even more. There should be some way in which a form of assistance from the contractor should be made available to all the papers concerned if the Minister and the Authority feel it right. I do not believe that my Amendment is perfectly drafted. It was an effort to meet the point that in equity we should not look solely at one newspaper likely to be adversely affected but look at all who can prove they have adverse effects; and that we should devise ways of assisting all the newspapers who are adversely affected as a consequence of this Bill. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Again the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as is his habit, has put a good deal of thought into this matter and has tried to work out a tenable solution—I am not going into the drafting—and has put forward the germ of a solution, as he called it, for what is certainly a possibility. Taken in conjunction with what he said on the previous Amendment, and now that the point he made has been explained a little more fully, probably it would be right for me to think about this matter a little further. But I must tell the noble Lord this: I do not at all know—in fact, I rather suspect that there may be some problem about this—whether the newspapers themselves would wish to have this subsidy. I heard what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. He may be speaking from his own personal point of view or he may be voicing something which is fairly common in Fleet Street as well as in the various places where the more truly local newspapers are produced. If the local newspapers do not want this sort of cash subsidy, then I think we are faced with an impossible situation. The first thing I must do is try to find out whether they do want it. I do not think the noble Lord has asked them. If that is not a starter, then I am afraid that these Amendments are doomed. We cannot offer money to people who would say that it took away their independence, and that sort of thing.

The other possible way of doing this is that the Authority may find—the noble Lord talked about "gravy"—that they can distribute "gravy" in the form of fairly small shareholdings. I think that this situation is most likely to be acute in London; this is probably a London problem more than anywhere else. But The Authority must have in mind the difficulties that the noble Lord is talking about when it is looking at the way they will work Clause 8. This has nothing to do with public interest; it is just the overwhelming number of newspapers. I hope that the Authority will prove ingenious enough—it has in the past proved to be ingenious in some fairly difficult circumstances—to see that there are no newspapers left out in the cold without proper compensation.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd wants to take this Amendment further than the exploratory stage. Perhaps I could make a few inquiries about it, and perhaps the noble Lord would do so himself. I foresee difficulties. It seems to me that there is a distinct possibility that the Authority can overcome the practical problem by allocating shares; inviting newspapers to come in even though they were not in the original consortium. It may want quite a deal of flexibility in putting together the consortium for what inevitably may be a most important station and I suspect that in practice the Authority will be able to ensure that equity prevails, which is what the noble Lord wants and what I want.

6.2 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his conciliatory approach on this matter. May I make absolutely clear that I would not in any way suggest that one should force a subsidy, or any assistance, on any newspaper? Clause 8 leaves it to the newspaper to come to the Authority and establish that it wishes to be considered in this matter, and to submit the degree in which it has been, or will be, adversely affected. In other words, the entire initiative lies with the newspaper. I have no newspaper interests, nor have I been involved in any of these media; and apart from answering difficult questions at London Airport during the Nigerian campaign on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I have never appeared on television. Therefore I have no interest there. I have not approached anybody to see what are their views but have looked only at the Bill as a whole. It seems to me—and this is the burden of my case—that newspapers can be adversely affected and some could have a prescriptive right.

The difficulty does not apply entirely to London. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Denham, about the Birmingham station and whether it would cover Wolverhampton and Coventry. If it does, there are notable local papers in Wolverhampton and Coventry that would be as adversely affected as a local paper in Birmingham. This is the point I was trying to meet by my Amendment. The newspaper would have to show that it was fully in accord with Clause 8 and that the appropriate conditions existed. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this matter not just in terms of the London Evening News or Evening Standard, and all the local London papers, but from the point of view of some of the provincial newspapers which could be just as gravely affected as a central paper, perhaps in Birmingham.

On the grounds of equality we should see, if we can devise a way, that one newspaper does not get away with a little bit of the "gravy" and others, because of drafting and other problems, are denied it. If we can do this we shall have done something very important for the cause of local newspapers.

LORD LEATHERLAND

I did not hear my noble friend say that he was asking leave to withdraw the Amendment—

LORD SHEPHERD

Not yet.

LORD LEATHERLAND

—so I will take the opportunity to utter three or four sentences to emphasise one aspect of the gravity of this matter. First, I should say that I have no interest to declare. I have no television or broadcasting interests, so far as I know. I am wondering whether the Committee are fully seized of the very grave severity with which some newspapers may be smitten. Let us take the case, not of the London Evening News or Evening Standard, but of a relatively small locality in which there are two or three local weekly newspapers. It is 50 years since I worked on a local newspaper, but I read them fairly assiduously and I find that at least half of the advertising space is taken up by motor car advertisements, sometimes in the form of a 4-, 6- or 8-page supplement. I find also that perhaps one-third or more of the advertising space is taken up by advertisements for houses for sale.

Visualise the situation in which those newspapers will find themselves if the local broadcasting station decides to have an advertising feature on Monday night in which it offers for sale cars from £100 to £400, and on Tuesday night cars from £400 to £800; on Wednesday, cars from £800 to £1,000 each, and so on. They might have an advertising feature grading houses for sale in the same way. Those advertisements would be far more topical and attractive than the advertisements which appeared in two or three days' time in the weekend edition of the local paper. I fear that the motor advertising might be completely killed for some of the local newspapers, and "house for sale" advertisements might be similarly killed. If that were done, on the basis of the present advertising space allotted to those types of advertisements many local newspapers would find it absolutely impossible, from a financial point of view, to continue publication. So the only message I would leave with your Lordships is this. We have perhaps been thinking in terms of some of the cream being skimmed off the milk, if we introduced broadcasting advertising. I am suggesting that in some cases not only the cream but also most of the milk will go.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

May I first say a word about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland? He must bear in mind of course that the advertisements he suggested would be inserted in the sound programmes of the radio station not by the programme contractor but by the advertisers. So it would be a policy decision on their part to switch to sound radio from the Press. There is no connection —there cannot be—between the programme contractor himself and the people who put in the advertisements; there is a statutory debarment of that.

LORD LEATHERLAND

I do not like to interrupt the noble Viscount, but if the programme contractor made it public knowledge in the locality that on Monday night there would be advertisements for cheap cars, on Tuesday night for medium-priced cars, and so on, all the people with cheap cars to sell would send in their advertisements on Monday night and all the people with slightly more expensive cars on Tuesday night and so on; and you would get what is called an advertising feature for five minutes during one hour and five minutes during another. I feel that the motor advertising and the housing advertising in local papers could be killed stone dead by that.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I think that a programme contractor who operated in that way would have to watch his step. I am not certain—I have not had time to look this up—to what extent it would be legitimate under the legislation for a programme contractor, of his own volition, to give advance knowledge of what the advertisements are going to be on a subsequent date. I should think he would get into trouble. But the noble Lord is on a much more substantial point than that: that is a technicality. The noble Lord has, I think, succeeded in producing a perfect example where Clause 8 would have come into effect, where a local newspaper would have good arguments to put up to the I.B.A. that it was likely to be adversely affected on its bread and butter advertisements by the arrival of the local broadcasting station. It is precisely that situation that Clause 8 is intended to meet, and precisely arguments of that sort that the I.B.A. are intended to have presented to them, will listen to and, one would hope if the situation is as serious as the noble Lord suggests, will put into effect by giving a proper allocation of the shares in the programme contractor to the newspapers so hard hit. That is the whole point of Clause 8. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has given us a good illustration, first of all of what might happen, and secondly, of the need for something like Clause 8 in the Bill. I am grateful to him.

To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, I do not think I can take this matter much further this afternoon. I know what the noble Lord is after. He knows that I am listening to him with sympathy and that if in the light of all that has been said we think that the system is likely to be unjust, and if there is anything that can be done within the bounds of possibility to remedy it, we will see whether we can do it. However, that is not intended to be a promise that I will be able to produce Amendments. I wish to respond to the noble Lord's constructive attitude on this matter. I am grateful to him, and hope that in the circumstances he will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Information as to programme contracts and applications for such contracts]:

On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHEPHERD

On Tuesday, in the course of the discussion on an earlier Amendment, I asked the noble Viscount whether he could give us an explanation of the words in Clause 10(1)(c) which read as follows: subject to the next following subsection, a copy of so much of that contractor's application for such a contract as related to the character of the local sound broadcasts which he proposed to provide … I wonder whether the noble Viscount can give some assistance to the Committee in regard to the words, "related to the character of the local sound broadcasts".

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of this point. I have done my homework on it. May I say that perhaps I made rather heavy weather of the Amendment about criteria. I see that as a result I got pilloried by Peter Simple this morning, and broadly it serves me right. The difficulty was that at that stage I did not know whose criteria it was that the noble Lord's Amendment had in mind. But here we are on Clause 10, and I promised to look into this matter. I can tell the Committee the degree to which we have succeeded in clarifying our thoughts so far. It is not, of course, a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the I.B.A., and therefore we have approached them to see how they are working on it at the moment. The likely approach would be that the Authority would specify in its invitation for applications for a programme contract the kind of information about programmes that it wanted to see that station produce. In addition to the information which was disclosed in the application as a result of that requirement, the Authority would examine the applicants when they went in for their interview, or perhaps on paper, to find out the further information the Authority needed to gauge whether the applicant was a suitable group or whether it was the best out of a number that were applying for the contract. In the end they would choose a programme contractor. I think that at that stage they would agree with the programme contractor in question what information out of the material that had been collected, presented and discussed was to be, as it were, on deposit under Clause 10(1)(c).

It would therefore be a joint exercise. I think it would be likely to consist of all the information about programmes, and it would leave out the matters that were concerning me very much when we were discussing this subject on Tuesday; namely, the finance, the type of confidential matter that the Authority must have in order to judge the merits of the programme contractors, which has nothing to do with local character. Therefore we should probably have the basis of programme material, or promises of programme material, on which the Authority had awarded the contract. I believe that that is precisely what the noble Lord was asking for on Tuesday.

I would say only one other word on this point. The clause says, the noble Lord will remember, that any person can go and get the information on payment—and I think "any person" includes a newspaper. The only problem that would then arise would be the question of copyright if they tried to publish it in full. They could take legal advice on that, and I think there are devices whereby the essence of the information could be produced in the Press and then be criticised by the public, if they were interested, without infringing copyright. It may well be that we have gone about as far as the noble Lord wants to go in practice in the wording of the Bill in this regard.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am sorry to say that the noble Viscount has not gone anywhere near as far as that. I accept that the noble Viscount made a great deal of heavy weather on the Amendment, and I also suspect that, because of other pressures of work, he may not have done as much homework as he ought to have done on this Bill before we started it on Tuesday. I have of course been in the same position. The best thing I can tell the noble Viscount is to hire a good carrier pigeon to operate between the Box and the Bench, so that he can get the information carried to him fairly rapidly.

The character of local sound broadcasting which is part of the contract it seems to me is now going to be made available to a person who makes an application, and meets the points we sought in an earlier Amendment to have issued in the form of a statement; that is, the question of a reasonable portion of time on local matters; the number of minutes within the hour for advertisements—broad sections of programmes of that sort. There was nothing in our Amendment that required the issuing of information of what might be called a confidential nature. The noble Viscount has said that this information is available, or will be available, to any person who goes to the Authority.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No.

LORD SHEPHERD

That is my understanding of it. It says: The Authority shall"— not "may"— on request made by any person or on payment by him of such sum as the Authority may reasonably require furnish to that person such one or more of the following as may be specified in the request … In other words, a person has a right, and the Authority "shall". The noble Viscount then said that newspapers could acquire it. The newspaper may wish to publish it. A local newspaper provides a service to its readers and to the community, and may well feel that this is the sort of material that should be made available. Then the noble Viscount said that there may be difficulties about copyright: in other words, the newspaper may acquire the particular information but may not feel in a position to publish it. But the question that I put to the noble Viscount, and which we put on Tuesday, is: have not the people in the locality a right to know the criteria under which these contracts have been awarded and the basis on which commercial sound radio is being provided? The only issue between us is whether it should be left to a person who wishes to go in and find out, taking the initiative, or whether this is a public service and it should be known widely as a consequence of a statement by the Authority. In my view, that should avoid the problem of copyright. So this is the only area of difference between us. I hope that between now and the Report stage. having overcome the difficulties as to what the public should or should not know, ways and means should be devised so that they can and will be informed as to the basis on which the contracts have been awarded.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Again, it is very easy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is not my carrier pigeons that were at fault but the fact that as the noble Lord had that Amendment down on Tuesday, I knew perfectly well that he would have read the Bill and have seen Clause 10. Therefore I suspected that his Amendment went a great deal wider. I think we have now cleared that up. If we are really down to a matter of copyright, I do not know of my own knowledge what the situation is, but I believe that so long as it is not the actual document which is printed but only the essence of it, it may be that the newspaper can do as the noble Lord wishes—publish the essence of it, according to the type, character and "localness" of the programmes which it is hoped to circulate round the locality. It may very easily be possible to do that. I will inquire about copyright, and if we need to do something about it then we shall. But I do not think that I can take this matter further at this stage of the Bill.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I say to the noble Viscount—and I do not want to pursue this point because time is getting on—that I would not myself like to leave it to the local newspaper to decide to go in, to get it and then publish it. I think it is for the Authority to issue a statement. You will thereby avoid a lot of difficulty. True, it may mean an Amendment to the Bill and it may mean a little difficulty in finding time at the other end. All I would say to the noble Viscount is that if it is accepted that the Authority shall inform the public as to the basic criteria under which these licences have been granted, then I am sure that the Government will encounter no difficulty in seeing the Bill expedited through the other place, because I believe that, certainly from my side in the other place, it will be welcomed.

Clause 10 agreed to.

6.24 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 13: After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:

Applications from sound broadcasting contractors

".—(1) The Authority shall during 1976 invite applications from contractors for the supply of sound broadcasting and any contract entered into prior to the 31st December 1975 shall terminate by the 31st December 1976.

(2) The Authority shall publish the criteria for sound broadcasting within each locality at least three months before inviting such applications."

The noble Lord said: In the Government White Paper An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting, paragraph 14 says: The Government believes that this system of 'rolling' three year contract periods is best suited to the needs of radio. It will afford the I.B.A. the opportunity to make a continuous assessment of the worth of the contractors in this new and untried field. The I.B.A.'s power to offer or withhold extension of the contracts will provide a warning system for the contractors. It will help them to keep their own performance under continual surveillance: it will also assure them of a year's grace after a first occasion of non-renewal in which to bring their standards up to the requirements of the Authority. I think I said on Second Reading that this particular aspect gives me concern. I believe I am right in saying, so far as commercial television is concerned, that contracts are issued for a fixed period. This means that the contractors know the terminal date. Alternative or potential contractors know that the Authority will be considering, and no doubt inviting, new proposals for service and for television broadcasts. In other words, there is a possibility of new contractors coming in and providing service.

I am bound to say that paragraph 14, as I read it, could well lead to a nearly permanent occupancy by one contractor of one frequency in one locality. It seems to me that under this system there is no definite break period in which the Authority will consider new contractors, and that if you have performed all right you get a renewal, and that if you continue to do well the following year you get another renewal. In other words, if you perform satisfactorily it looks to me as though you can have the permanent occupancy of that frequency, but that if you fail one year you get a warning. If you get back into good favour with the Authority, then it starts to roll forward again. I do not believe that that is right. I do not believe that any one contractor, having been successful in the initial stages, should have any feeling of permanency on that frequency within that locality. Therefore, I am unhappy because I think this will be a consequence of what is called the "rolling" three-year contract period.

My Amendment again may be imperfectly drafted, but at least the noble Lord, Lord Denham, cannot say that he does not understand it. It means that the Authority shall, in the year 1976—that is the year in which the I.B.A. Charter will come to an end and when there will need to be new contracts as a consequence of new legislation—invite applications from contractors for the supply of sound broadcasting, and that any contract entered into prior to December 31, 1975, shall terminate by December 31, 1976. What I am seeking here is that any contract which is issued as a consequence of this will come to an end in 1976 but that the Authority shall then issue new invitations in order that new companies, new consortia, can submit proposals to the Authority. In that way we may get better commercial sound radio. That is the purpose of my Amendment.

The object of subsection (2) of the Amendment is that the Authority shall let it be known what criteria it would expect to lay down for the new contracts in the light of any changes there may have been since the original ones. I hope that I have made myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Denham. He may be able to set my fears at rest. We shall hear what he has to say, but I hope that he can settle my fears that this "rolling" system will not mean in any way a permanence of any contractor on one frequency in one locality. I beg to move.

6.29 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

I will certainly do my best to set at rest the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I understand the noble Lord's Amendment and also the intention behind it. Of course, as I think he will appreciate, the difficulty is that his Amendment will not work at all, because the I.B.A. Licence comes to an end on July 31, 1976, and therefore any agreement with the I.B.A. must lapse before that date, whether or not it is made before December 31, 1975—and equally, of course, it would be impossible for the I.B.A. to invite new tenders in 1976, because nobody would ever have time to put them into effect and therefore nobody would ever apply. But I quite see the point here. This is a probing Amendment by the noble Lord, and on a hypothetical basis I will see whether I can set his mind at rest.

Of course the rolling three-year contracts will not operate until after 1976 because they will not have time to roll. It is very unlikely that the first squeak will come on the air until the latter part of next year—possibly even the year after. The Bill has to go through Parliament, the equipment has to be built and the companies set up. It is very unlikely that any company can start broadcasting three years before July 31, 1976 and so a company will not have even one extra day to roll on.

On a hypothetical basis the idea behind this is that obviously it is Her Majesty's Government's aim to get the best possible service. In getting the best possible service, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appreciates, it is important to decide what length of contract you are going to have. If your length of contract is too short you are not going to give the contractor enough time to plan a programme. You are not going to enable him to give enough security to his potential employees to get the best people working for him. On the other hand, if the contract is too long the I.B.A. have lost their control because the time for renewing the contract is so far ahead that they cannot keep in close touch.

It is very difficult to reconcile these things with a fixed contract. This new and rather ingenious plan will get the best of both worlds. Some of your Lordships may not understand the rolling three-year contract. The position is that, not this time, but should the I.B.A. go ahead in a similar form each programme contractor shall have three years given to him from the start. At the end of the first year consideration is given to whether the contractor should have a fourth year tacked on to the end. If the I.B.A. consider the programme contractor satisfactory the fourth year is added on to the end. If the programme contractor is not satisfactory the contract is not extended; so the programme contractor only has two years left. If that happens at the end of the second year, there are three choices for the I.B.A. They can either refuse to extend, in which case the contractor will have one more year to run, and that will be the finish, no matter what happens; whereas the I.B.A. will have one year in which to get together a new company which will go on the air at the end of that year. If the I.B.A. are still not quite sure whether or not to keep the contractor on, they can give him one more year and that will turn it, in effect, into a rolling two-year contract. On the other hand, if the I.B.A. are satisfied that the programme contractor is doing very well indeed they can give him two years and that will revert to the rolling three-year contract. The following year when the contract comes up for renewal the contractor may or may not get his fourth year, as the case may be. I hope that makes the situation clear. To our mind the great advantage in this is, first, that the I.B.A. can keep contractors up to the mark the whole time because their contracts are coming up for renewal every year; secondly, in a fixed contract you have only two choices: do you renew it or not? This system gives a third choice—you can give a warning. The warning lasts for one year.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd is worried that this rolling three-year contract, which will no doubt serve very well to get rid of what is definitely a bad company, will not, possibly, get rid of a mediocre company.

LORD SHEPHERD

Let us assume you are a good company, are you entitled to say that you shall have a permanent position on that frequency in that locality?

LORD DENHAM

No.

LORD SHEPHERD

This is the point I was seeking to make, and I thought that the noble Lord was going on to suggest that this was so.

LORD DENHAM

If you are going to make this invitation to attract programme contractors, and you are going to say to them that they have a contract of a certain length and at the end of that time however well they have done or however badly they have done they will be out and new people will be in, you are not going to attract very many people. The programme contractor is not going to have an easy time in getting good people to work for him because they will know that the programme contractor cannot give any security of tenure. I do not know quite what the noble Lord has just said—I think it was a noise of disapproval: but this is so, if you are going to demand that the I.B.A. invites new applications every time there is a possibility of renewal (I am not quite clear from the noble Lord whether he approves of the three-year rolling contract). If you did that tied to the three-year rolling contract, you would have to invite renewals at the end of the first year and ask people to make application two years ahead in order to give the choice that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wants the I.B.A. to have.

LORD SHEPHERD

Could the noble Lord help me? You have the rolling period three to four years. Is there a terminal date to that contract?

LORD DENHAM

There is in this Bill; but the idea is that if the company is good—and the company may be an extremely good one—the I.B.A. would see no reason to shut it down just because the contract had gone on for a certain length of time. Does that answer the noble Lord's point? Perhaps it does not satisfy him. The object in this Bill is to get the best possible service available. My point is that if you are going to say that one company has been going on for a certain amount of time and, whether it is good or bad, you are going to get rid of it and get somebody else, who may be worse or better, that is not the way to get the best service available.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord never ceases to astonish me; but I thank him very much for the careful explanation which he gave about the rolling contract—something which one sees in business on regular occasions. The reason for my astonishment is this. The noble Lord had one of the loudest voices, when he was on this side of the House, in favour of commercial sound radio. Why? First of all he thought it was wrong that there should be a monopoly—a State monopoly. He believes in competition. What he is now saying to your Lordships is that because you are a contractor, because you are subject to the profit motive, and providing you give a good service, you shall have the monopoly for that frequency and within that locality; that it would be wrong to take away that monopoly because you are providing a very good service. Do not let the noble Lord, Lord Denham, at Question Time or in debate, ever talk about the virtues of competition or the evils of monopoly, because if he does he will get "clobbered".

I must not get too furious—I have kept my temper very well through this Committee stage. The noble Lord says—and this is the matter which gives me the greatest confidence because I have looked at the Bill and it seems that the noble Lord is right—that it is impossible for these contracts to go beyond 1976. I am going to make certain that the noble Lord has his aspiration: that if we are to have an Act after 1976 for commercial local sound radio there will not be any monopoly for some privileged individual or individuals to make profit. And if there is to be competition, I hope that we on this side of the Committee shall ensure that it is genuine.

LORD DENHAM

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, as I am sure he will, I would make just one point. I certainly believe in competition, but if you are going to say that the one man or the one company you are going to exclude from doing the job is the one man or the one company who you know has been doing the job well for the last three years, then that to my mind is not competition.

LORD SHEPHERD

But is it not a monopoly? Does the noble Lord really say that a group of individuals should be able to have the undoubted, indefinite right, merely because they produce a good programme, to a scarce national asset; that they have an undoubted right to make profit and to deny others, who could produce equally good programmes, of the same opportunities of making profit? To my mind, that is a monopoly and not competition. I hope we shall seek to deal with this point when we have a new Act. But I think it will not be noble Lords opposite who will produce such an Act. We shall have a better Act than they could produce. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Short title, citation, interpretation, extent and commencement]:

LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14: Page 15, line 8, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 10 and insert ("on 30th July 1976.")

The noble Lord said: At this very late hour of twenty minutes to seven, and as it is Thursday evening when many noble Lords have departed to their estates and their crofts, this would not be the time to make a decision on what is an Amendment of great importance in principle. Therefore, I do not intend to move Amendment No. 14 this evening. But I give the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, notice that we shall move it on Report, and we shall seek, with the co-operation of the usual channels, which I am certain the noble Viscount will help us to obtain, to see whether we can have a debate on this important issue, and have a vote at a reasonable time, so that noble Lords may have an opportunity to vote having listened to the debate.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that on Report he would move Amendments. Of course, technically no Amendments have been made to this Bill, but we are conceding a separate Report stage.

LORD SHEPHERD

We certainly should have opposed this otherwise.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I just wanted to make quite sure that the noble Lord was aware of it.

Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment.