When is the 70s on bbc

The Government know that this cannot be done, that there must be priorities. While sympathising with the B. A vast amount of money has to be spent by the B.

Gentleman referred. All this will make a demand for an increased licence fee without any question of local radio. Do not let us get away from the fact that if local radio disappears and service is provided by other sources there will be less pressure for some increase in the B.

There will be the payment which we shall be discussing later. It has rightly suggested that educational programmes should be paid for through the Department of Education and Science and not through the B. So the pressure will be there anyway. Charter does not require that the Corporation should put on pop and ceaseless sweet music, particularly when there are commercial companies which would like to satisfy these particularly contemporary tastes.

I want to approach this subject from an angle slightly different from anything mentioned so far today. Recently the International Chamber of Commerce put out a draft resolution on the availability of television and radio as advertising media, and I want to quote from it. Moreover, advertising makes it possible to familiarize the greatest possible number of consumers with the advantages of the technical inventions which have been made in all fields and thus contributes to the building of a happier world.

While respecting the rules designed to protect the consumer, as defined in the I. Consumers, similarly, should not be denied the facility of receiving news of products and services via all media. The resolution says: …the I. It invites the government of those countries to seek ways of putting those media to use which, while respecting the rights of the public and the laws and regulations in force at the national level, will enable advertisers to reach the greatest possible number of potential purchasers.

It also recommends that on the occasion of the introduction of radio and television advertising, due consideration be given to the interests of the other media, but recognising the need of the advertiser to be free to select the medium of his choice. I know that the Postmaster-General is aware of this, but I wonder whether hon. Members and people in the country are aware that we are the only English-speaking country that does not have commercial radio. As the immediate Past President of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, I say that we believe that the '70s are right for the introduction of commercial radio, and this is the view which is shared by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and by manufacturers.

Experience of commercial television has shown that its introduction does not lead to a decline of broadcasting standards. He said that as Deputy Chief Whip he had made sure that his political colleagues voted against commercial television, but he went on to say that today any Government looking for money for broadcasting could consider the use of advertisement revenue without the study being bedevilled by the fears of 14 years ago.

It has been demonstrated that recourse to advertising revenue and the introduction of competition do not mean the death of the public service tradition in broadcasting.

It has also been demonstrated that the opening of our television screens to advertising has in one way and another brought about a vast improvement in the quality of British advertising—a totally unexpected bonus to the consumer. Does my hon. Friend think that the noble Lord is a very good witness?

Is not a Chief Whip turned Chairman of the I. The evidence of the sinner who repenteth is worth a great deal more than that of the man who was right all the way through. The advertising agents do not necessarily advocate that the B.

I respect the view of Lord Hill that that may lead to pressures which he could not resist and that, therefore, it is not necessarily the right way to do it. But it is possible that there could be commercial radio stations under the umbrella of the I.

All these possibilities are open. The figure mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leyton Mr. Gordon Walker was wrong. He said that if the B. The next question is what effect local radio would have on other local media, a subject to which the Postmaster-General referred. The evidence from other countries with local Press and commercial radio side by side does not bear out the contention that the local Press would suffer. In point of fact, it flourishes, not in spite of, but because of local radio.

I will not go into detail, but hon. Members who do not agree with me should consider the position of the local Press in countries like Ireland or Australia where they will see that what I am saying is amply borne out. The provincial Press has not suffered since the coming of commercial television.

It still has, and for the last eight or ten years has had, 20 per cent. There is a genuine demand for a look at radio as we looked at television, for radio is a most important medium of communication. We hampered printing, saying that printing could be used only to print the Bible, and we taxed it and had licensed printers, but we cannot—and I assure the Postmaster-General that I know I am right here—any longer hide behind the lack of technical resources, the shortage of wavelengths and things like that and sustain the monopoly position of the B.

But do not let hon. Members doubt that the coming of v. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, still further technical advances are just around the corner and they will make it possible to have many stations in many towns.

That is the background to the debate. I hope that the B. After the speech of the right hon. Deedes , I thought that there would be a remarkable degree of agreement between the back bench Members on the two sides of the House. Unhappily, I do not find myself on the sane wavelength, if I may put it that way, as the hon.

Member for Sevenoaks Sir J. I begin by declaring a past interest in that I used to work for the B. As others have said, this is an important debate, for broadcasting clearly makes a tremendous impact on the lives of people and over the next weeks and months we shall be deciding the future of broadcasting for a period of some years.

I should like later to refer to the B. Those of us with views about new plans for broadcasting have a duty to face this problem of seeing that the B. I should like to make a proposal for meeting this need. Friend has already enumerated the traditional methods of raising revenue. The main methods are: first, by increasing the licence fee; secondly, by direct Government subsidy; thirdly, through advertisements on B. If no other way can be found, we must be prepared to face an increase in the licence fee.

As my right hon. Friend has said, it is less than that in most comparable countries. The radio licence has gone up from only 5s. There are obvious difficulties about increasing the licence fee, but we should be prepared to say that it may need to be increased if there is no other way. Secondly, there is the proposal that the B. The Corporation has always been reluctant—and I entirely agree with its view—because it fears that its independence would be jeopardised.

Thirdly, I fully share the view of the B. The Chairman of the B. My suggestion is that the Exchequer should indemnify the B. One can describe the licence dodgers as pirates who are depriving all other listeners and viewers of improved and continuing services.

Under my proposal, the Exchequer would provide the B. This indemnity proposal would undoubtedly meet the B. Gentleman began by saying that he was against a Government grant. His suggested scheme of covering the sums which people are not paying represents the payment of a Government grant.

Gentleman has anticipated my next words. It is clearly possible to calculate the amount of money because the loss from evasion has been worked out for many years. My proposal would enable the Government to provide money without any of the political pitfalls associated with a direct Government subsidy.

I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough Sir Harmar Nicholls. The calculation would be based on the amount the B. In addition, the Government would have a greater incentive to tighten up on licence dodgers because the more money they recouped from them the less the Exchequer would have to provide in in the indemnity amount.

There would also be greater moral blame attached to evaders because they would be seen to be imposing a burden on all taxpayers. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his plan virtually asks the Government to indemnify law breaking? If such a payment were made to the B. Is he not suggesting an open-ended commitment? Gentleman has missed the point. I do not want to go into the question of evading railway fares and so on, except to say that if we followed through his argument to its logical conclusion, the concerns which he mentioned would all be run down to the extent of the money that they are not receiving by the evasion of which he spoke.

My argument is that the B. My indemnity proposal would be a way of getting over the difficulty of a tied Government subsidy. In Broadcasting in the Seventies the B. For this reason it is important that the bulk of the proposals are based on decisions made by this House. While I am a member of the N. The Council represents about 1, journalists working in broadcasting and the Union's Executive Committee on Broadcasting Matters endorsed a proposal of the Federation of Broadcasting Unions that the B.

While I do not go along with the proposal that the B. The N. It would rescue the B. It would enable it to carry out some of its major proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and would provide that stability which would give precisely the time necessary for further consultations to take place about some of the B.

I said that there were two points in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" to which I particularly wished to refer. The first is the B. This proposal has caused one of the main outcries about the B. Concern about this service is seen partly by the fact that more than hon. Members have signed Motion No. One proposal which I find unacceptable is the B.

This would undoubtedly deprive many listeners of this service, notably those who do not have or cannot afford v. People who get their serious music mainly on Radio Four would have to rely on Radio Three, and without v.

It is said that a higher proportion of Radio Three music listeners have v. The argument, therefore, is that a smaller number would be affected by putting Radio Three on v. However, this is a misleading argument because the larger number and higher proportion of Radio Four music listeners without v. Further, the extent to which people use v. My wife mentioned to me the other day that many people with v.

Thus, if one is quoting figures in this connection one must quote not merely the bare proportions but the extent to which people are using their v. But by taking Radio Three off medium wave the B. Member for Warwick and Leamington Mr. Dudley Smith and I, who recently saw the Chairman of the B. This would be help. We agreed, however, that it would still not meet the need. The proposal to drop Radio Three from medium wave would represent a retrograde step.

After all, there is a duty on the B. There is no doubt that the B. There has been a steady growth in demand for this output over the years. This is clear from the increase in the B. In —64, the total of serious music hours was 3, In —68, the last year for which figures are available, the total was 5, hours. Far from reducing or even simply maintaining this coverage, it needs to be further developed to meet growing demand.

I should like to make a passing reference to the B. I was glad to hear the view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General today. Others will no doubt deal with this matter in greater detail. I should feel less justified in criticising the proposed orchestra cuts if I had not put forward a proposal for financing the B. Many of us have been distressed by the proposal to disband some of these fine orchestras and the B.

There is also the position of the devoted staff of these orchestras. I was particularly surprised by the proposal to disband the Training Orchestra, especially as the B. In describing the training orchestra, the latest B. Handbook for points out that it was set up at the beginning of for the specific purpose of training qualified young musicians aged 18 to 26 and to provide extensive orchestral experience immediately following an instrumentalist's course at a school of music.

It is hoped through the establishment of this orchestra to ensure a steady stream of experienced players of the standard required by the leading orchestras in the United Kingdom. What was worth putting in the B. C's Handbook which came out in January this year is worth repeating and continuing now.

I wish to mention the B. C's proposals for local radio stations and regions, particularly from the point of view of local radio, because this is the biggest single advance now open in radio. I am among those who feel that the existing regional set-up has been long outdated because it coincides neither with regional community interests nor with the new economic regions being created. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will allow the B. There is no doubt that the Corporation's local radio experiment begun in has been an outstanding success.

It is right for us to find out at first hand about these stations before passing judgment. It was with that thought in mind that I spent a whole day at B. Radio Leeds during the last Recess. This is a very lively station indeed. It is clear that when listeners are provided with the opportunity to have local radio there is a ready demand for it. The response from young people is particularly encouraging. I have been particularly disturbed at the level of some of the propaganda being put out by some of the commercial radio lobby, and in particular a statement put out by an organisation called Commercial Broadcasting Consultants Ltd.

It says of the B. C's local radio experiment that Local radio on v. C's local stations might not have excessive funds, at least at the moment, but their output has been tremendously varied, informative and entertaining. One has only to look at a brief resume of the past year's activities of Radio Leeds to see the extent of this variety.

It says: Radio Leeds, the walk-in-and-talk station, has given ear time to about 4, walk-in-and talkers during its first year of operation. In addition, recorded interviews, talks and musical programmes by local people have brought a huge number of Leeds people in front of the microphone.

In Teenage Week alone"— when over the whole week the station was operated by teenagers— there were 1, new broadcasters. The station's first year ends on Tuesday, 24th June, and by then the small team will have put out more than 3, hours of local material…News and current affairs account for about 1, hours: sport ; discussion ; light magazine ; children and women's programmes ; education ; serious music and minority programmes hours.

The rest is made up of council affairs, municipal elections, record programmes, outside broadcasts and other output difficult to classify. Since the hon. Gentleman is opposed to commercial broadcasting, why is he giving a commercial for the B. I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views on other matters. But we should take pride in the achievement of this public Corporation.

We should pay tribute to that. Without going into further detail, for reasons given in previous debates I am wholly against running local stations commercially, partly because of the adverse effects which they would have on the quality of output, but not least because of the adverse effects that they would have on local Press by syphoning off advertising revenue and endangering local papers, as has been made clear by the bulk of newspaper interests in their evidence, including the Newspaper Society, to the Pilkington Commission and repeated only recently.

I hope that we shall no longer hear the sort of humbug which we have heard previously that commercial radio can be set up free of charge to the public. I hope that those who have been trying to con the public with that grotesque distortion will have the grace to drop it. They must have a poor view of the British public if they think that they are as gullible as that.

Of course, people would have to pay for commercial local radio. Consumers would have to pay through the advertising included in the cost of the goods they buy.

Friend will allow local radio to be developed under a reputable body, the B. It is pleasant to hear someone speak, as the hen. Boston has, so very well of his former employers. I trust that he will not take too much exception to it if I say that I hope that after the next election he will be able to go back to them and get on with the job.

Looking round the Chamber, it is noticeable that a lot of people want to take part in this debate. As we all listen to sound radio, there are probably different "experts" on it in the House. I find it useful, in one's capacity as a Member of Parliament, to listen to the news, current affairs, "Today in Parliament" and "What the Papers Say". We are all "experts" in our own way, or claim to be, on the subject. I have some reservations about the method by which the B.

We had well-informed leaks of what was being considered, starting right back in January. Then we had considerable secrecy about what was happening. It was like the Ku Klux Klan.

There was a period of alarm among many responsible bodies and in the B. There was alarm among orchestras and about what would happen to the music programmes. Then we had the announcement. I believe that Mr. Kenneth Adams' remarks in the Daily Mirror were very fair comment.

He said: The B. It is unfortunate that the matter has been handled by the B. C's publication is deficient in that it was probably misconceived in aim. It asked the wrong question. To put it another way, it did not set out the range of alternative policies which might have been discussed in such a document so that the public would have the opportunity of considering the various alternatives.

The Sunday Times put this very well in an editorial headed, for some reason, "Doctoring radio". It said that the first choice might have been what the B. I believe the document which we are discussing was unduly narrow in concept. It would have helped public debate of these matters if a rather different type of document had been presented. I turn now to the question of serious music. Many have paid tribute to the B. One tends to take it very much for granted but it is well worth repeating.

I was very glad to hear what the Postmaster-General said about this today. He put it well and fairly. Now, however, we have the situation that the B. This is unfortunate. Obviously, the whole question is in the melting pot, but I hope that the B. Turning to Radio Three and the Third Programme, I join with what has been said about how unfortunate it would be if this programme were to be broadcast only on v.

The interest of the motorist, particularly, is important in relation to the music programme. I rather got the impression from some of the comments from the B. I certainly hope that a firm decision has not been taken. A part of the White Paper which I find pleasing is the references to Radio Three where it speaks about the extension of music during the evening.

I have always felt that during the evening the Third Programme missed a great potential audience for which it was not fully catering. It is in my opinion too high-brow and too narrow in character and, accordingly, it has much too small an audience.

I would have thought that Radio Three should have aimed at the rather wider audience which has grown up in the 25 years since the programme commenced—the audience who have stayed on at school until the age of 18, who have gone on to technical college and university, who read the serious weekly magazines and who read the heavy Sunday newspapers. If I have read correctly between the lines of the document.

I hope that that is the audience which the B. I think it is particularly significant that the section of the paper concerning finances is sandwiched in at the end between frequencies and music. I would have expected it to be right at the beginning of the document after setting out the problems, because it is obviously the key matter which arises for the B. I feel that the way that we are seeing a cut-down in minority programmes to maintain the mass programmes is particularly undesirable.

It was well put in the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July, which set out the matter very clearly when it said that there were three main questions to which hon. Members should be addressing their minds in these debates. The first question, which to me is the most important, is whether we accept that the B.

This is something on which there is a fairly clear division of opinion between the two sides of the House although, after hearing the speech of my right hon. Deedes , you might consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calling another hon. Member from this side to help balance the debate. Friend does not take that unkindly. The question of advertising is put by Lord Hill in his foreword when he says: The B. It is convinced that it will be the better able to remain truly comprehensive and securely independent if it continues to be financed by the licence fee method and is not exposed to the pressures which a commercial system cannot as easily resist.

When Lord Hill was at the I. I find it difficult to believe that a fundamental change in the character of Radio One would be brought about by a few minutes' advertising in every hour. Is it something so essentially British that we want to preserve intact? Would its whole fundamental character be so altered for the worse by advertising? I find this difficult to believe. It does not seem to me that Radio One is a vital part of public service broadcasting principles.

If, as in politics and as in broadcasting, one inevitably has to take choices, for my part I would rather see advertising on Radio One plus a continuation of the B. The Sunday Telegraph poses the second question of whether we are prepared to face an increase in the licence fee. Many hon. Members, in debates in this House, may say that the B.

Against that, however, one has to put into perspective the fact that for many people an increase in the B. Member for Faversham. Friend the Member for Acton Mr. Kenneth Baker put the objection to it very well. I find it astonishing that there should be over 10 per cent. I would have expected the Wireless Telegraphy Act to cover new television sets, and that the house to house cards and the detector vans would have made a substantial impact on the older sets, which are the most difficult problem.

By tightening up inside the Post Office, and by some such methods as I have referred to we should in this House be able to help the B. Gentleman has referred to the proposals which we are putting forward, may I ask him to bear in mind that, far from condoning criminal evasion, as his hon.

Friend was suggesting, this proposal will be a direct incentive to Governments to take tightening up action against licence dodgers. If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I thought his point was that this was a matter of wider principle —should it be extended for example to the railways, to gas bills and telephone accounts?

I would have thought it was a matter of wider principle on which objection could be taken to the scheme put forward by the hon. I come now to local radio. I tried to intervene during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as I found this the most astonishing part of his speech.

He said that he had read what the B. He paid tribute to the work of the B B. He did not set out the alternatives. He did not say how his mind was working. Although he said that none of the local authorities liked the commercial principle, he neglected to say that seven out of eight have already made it clear that they do not want to continue with the existing scheme.

The House is about to go into recess and the right hon. Gentleman appears to be running away from this decision. C's plans for local radio are the central matter of the debate. Are there or are there not to be B. Is the B. Will there be advertising? These are questions which could reasonably have been answered today by the right hon. Members will be disappointed if we do not get more information on the Government's thinking on this matter when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies tonight.

Several editorials have referred to the aim of the B. I do not know whether or not that is the aim of the B. I hope it is not, because the B. I was surprised to see chat the B. I recall the B. This indicates a certain hesitancy of memory on the part of the Corporation. I believe that there is still a great future for radio—radio at certain times of the day, car radio, serious music, news, current affairs, pop music for the young and local radio, but this can happen only if we endeavour to release broadcasting from the straitjacket of B.

One of the major accomplishments of the B. The time is long overdue for the reappraisal of sound broadcasting which the B. I am glad that in the proposals put forward the B. That is the old Reithian concept of introducing a little culture into frivolous programmes, and vice versa. The public are at last beginning to get the programmes which they want.

That is the reason why the B. I believe this is a right decision, and, on the same basis, it is a right decision to go ahead with local radio. The experiments conducted have, if not proved, certainly given a clear indication that there is a demand for local radio. People want programmes with local interest. In my constituency, Radio Stoke-on-Trent is a highly popular station and has now taken its place as an accepted and popular institution in the community, despite the limitations of v.

The critics of local radio tend to confuse local radio with the whole question of economics, and they tend to believe that local radio is a substitute for orchestral programmes and other types of national network radio.

This is nonsensical, because the B. It is regrettable that people should still confuse the economics of local radio and the national network; the two are entirely divorced. The economies which are being made by the B. The economies were inevitable because in a situation of a static income and rising costs the B. What it has done is to formulate principles in advance rather than detailed plans.

I believe that no conclusive judgment can be made until the full consequences of the detailed plans are known and until a number of questions are answered. It is unfortunate that the B. By that I mean that the B.

This was an entirely wrong decision and quite contrary to the normal methods of negotiation. I assure the House, after 14 years' experience as a sound radio and television producer, that the B. In fact, it is not only civilised; it is a paternal organisation. The House will note that I refer to it as paternal, not maternal, since it sometimes likes to wield the big stick. In all my negotiations with the B. Once it had decided what was best for the B. One was carefully listened to, given a cup of tea—and, if one was fortunate, a few biscuits—and ushered to the door, having gained not a single concession.

But the corporation did as it thought right because it was behaving in a paternalistic way and was concerned with the well-being of the B. But I believe that at Present it is creating dangers for itself by its refusal to negotiate with the trade unions.

I emphasise that it should be negotiation in a meaningful way. It is creating hostility, and there will be a backlash from the unions which may result in industrial unrest in the B. I hope that the corporation will think again about its attitude to the unions which are involved.

How many redundancies will there be? How many of the displaced staff will be reabsorbed in different jobs? What kind of effort will be made by the B. These are all questions which should be considered, I do not say considered in detail at this advanced stage but considered in such a manner as to win the confidence of the unions.

No other employer in. Britain, certainly no other monopolistic employer, could possibly present a plan of what it intends to do without full consultation and negotiation with the unions. I believe that the financial problems with which the B. In the next few years costs will inevitably rise as inflation continues, and the fact is that growth in the licence revenue has now stopped. On the matter of redundancies, as a former producer I hope that the B. It would be most unfortunate if the programme staff of the B.

If the corporation fails to do that, programmes themselves will suffer as will the standards of public service broadcascing as a whole. I am still not clear in my mind—I do not think that the B. But if the corporation needs an increased licence fee it should say so. It should say exactly how much it requires in order to present to the public the high level of programmes to which we are accustomed to receive from the B. If, on the other hand, it does not require an increase in licence fee, it should state what the consequences will be in the curtailment of serious programmes, in the cutting down of staff and the other economies which will necessarily follow.

Some people have suggested that the way in which economies can be made and the financial problems solved is by the introduction of commercial radio.

We have heard eloquent contributions—some of us have lip-read them—by right hon. Members opposite about the merits of commercial radio. It is interesting that these now fall into three separate and distinct categories. The first is to have a hundred or so local radio stations which have been described by some hon. Members opposite. The second is that the B. The third is that Radio One should be hived off completely, should be able to broadcast advertisements, and that the revenue should be put to beneficial broadcasting purposes.

This idea was advanced quite recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney Mr. Hugh Jenkins. I believe that commercial radio is the easy way out.

But every single committee of inquiry, from Crawford in , through Beveridge, to Pilkington in , has rejected the idea of commercial radio. The basic argument against it, without a shadow of doubt, is that commercial local radio is the thin end of the wedge. The House must decide the simple issue: the issue of public service broadcasting versus broadcasting for private profit.

If advertisements are accepted on Radio One, the B. Governments are dependent on votes, just as we all are. Inevitably, Governments will say to the B. I remember the debates about the establishment of I. I am prepared to admit now that I was wrong. I was against the establishment of I. Today I am glad that I. We were told distinctly that it was in order to have advertisements on I. That was a convincing argument to many, and Independent Television was accepted because public service broadcasting was provided by the B.

Now the argument is being deployed that the B. In view of that, the critics say, it ought to accept commercials on Radio One. The logic is clear and simple. In a mixed broadcasting economy, the public service principle is breached by introducing advertising to Radio One.

Once commercials are established on Radio One, because of the financial problems attention moves to Radio Two and Radio Three, and then to B. As a result, ultimately the whole of British broadcasting will be commercial, and the only difference between broadcasting in the United States and in Britain will be one of dialect.

Minority programmes will either be dropped in mid-Atlantic or draped around midnight. I do not want to contribute to the illusion that the argument against commercial radio is based solely on a concern for minority programmes.

One of the most powerful arguments against the introduction of commercials on B. If Radio One is hived off, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and commercials are given to the new Radio One, the B. It will be confining its programmes to a minority. Because the B. Once the argument is conceded that Radio One is to be hived off and given commercials, the B.

If hon. Members doubt that that demand would be made, I would ask them to remember that in the early 'sixties when I. That same argument can be advanced by the young once Radio One is hived off and turns commercial. Apart from that consideration, the historic independence of the B. I do not believe that those pressures would dominate, but they would influence.

I would regard that as a regrettable and dangerous situation. Far too few people in Britain appreciate what a magnificent concept public service broadcasting is and how greatly admired the B.

This House should cherish the independence of the B. Although we are all critical of it at some time or other, it would be a profound error of judgment to allow temporary financial difficulties to begin to erode that freedom. In my view, the licence fee is the only proper solution.

However, that provides a new problem, quite apart from the one which I mentioned earlier about the reluctance of Governments to increase the licence fee. The problem is not only that the Government are unwilling to increase the licence fee but that the number of licences is no longer increasing. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should hold annual or biennial reviews of the licence fee so that the cost of inflation can be taken into account automatically. If that is done, a major part of the problem will be solved.

Friend will reject the idea of a direct Government grant, because that can involve some kind of Government control, and I believe that most hon.

Members would be against that. This proposal for the licence fee being realistically assessed and automatically increased annually or biennially with living costs ought to solve the financial problems with which the corporation is confronted.

It is only by resisting the commercial pressures and providing adequate finance for the B. The House will have been struck by what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South Mr. Ashley said, with his great experience, about consultations with staff in the B. But I felt that his logic went sadly awry when he said that, having been wrong about commercial television, he was now against the introduction of commercial radio. Gentleman said that this would mean the commercialisation of the B.

But it would not mean that at all; it would merely mean that a competing service would be set up to compete with the B. Gentleman accused the B. I was prepared to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not making a statement before the debate. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should not criticise him for not having made a statement. It would have made no difference whether he made a statement before or after the debate.

He told us nothing at all. He made a non-speech. Gentleman was meant to be carrying out a review of local radio and was meant to tell us what the Government's decision was to be.

But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North Mr. Stratton Mills pointed out, all that he said was that he was to have discussions. This is non-government. Gentleman is refusing to make decisions which are incumbent upon him.

Since the Postmaster-General told us nothing, it means that the debate must go back to the B. I want to consider what the B.

The essence of its case is that the economies that it proposes should be separated from the expenditure proposed on local radio. It says that these two things are not connected because the economies were to be made anyway.

But that is absolute nonsense. One cannot have great retrenchment and great extravagance in the same statement and claim that they are not connected. Obviously, they are connected. In this statement the B. I have no money. I am badly overspent. I have told my wife that she cannot buy any more clothes.

I am cutting down on the children's food. I have sacked my secretaries whom I have been employing for years. I hope that you will be very much impressed by this financial economy. Any friend approached in that way would point out to the approacher that he had his priorities absolutely wrong, that great economy and extravagance did not go together, that he should concentrate on what he was set up to do, and did very well, and not indulge in luxuries which did not suit him.

It seems that the reason for what the B. We all know the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to monopolies. No nun ever looked at a cardinal with greater admiration and wonder than the right hon.

Gentleman looks at a monopoly. Indeed, it is not only the Post Office monopoly but also the B. What has not yet been sufficiently considered is what justification there is for a monopoly. That question can best be answered by examining the phrase "public service broadcasting" Everybody uses it a great deal. I thought that even my right hon.

Deedes used it a trifle more loosely than he usually uses words. The phrase "public service broadcasting" is a great favourite with the B. It occurs seven times in the first one and a half pages of the document which we are considering. It is a great mystical expression for the B.

To my mind, there are two legitimate and separate meanings of "public service broadcasting". The first is the Reithian concept that broadcasting should elevate and educate the public taste. This is what Lord Reith called a policy of "moral responsibility". While that policy can easily be criticised and ridiculed, it certainly lent reality to the idea of public service broadcasting. In its later manifestations it came to look on life as a sort of cultural obstacle course.

The listener started off listening to the Light Programme and, by assiduous application, he graduated to the Home Service and so up to the Third Programme. That concept was held by the B. When Radio Manx applied for increased needle time, the B. It introduced Radio One—and there is no balance about that programme—and in this document it goes over to the concept of specialised programmes and abandons the idea of balance.

The second meaning of "public service broadcasting" is simply a service financed by the public out of licences or taxes and not by advertising. In this sense the B. In this sense there is no reason why the public service should be a monopoly. For example, London Transport runs all the buses and underground trains in London, but it does not have a transport monopoly.

Although it is a public service, it allows the public a choice. The public can go by taxi or by private car if they wish. Obviously, once the B. It has thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Whether one agreed with the Reithian policy or not, its inevitable corollary was a monopoly. Once that policy goes, the inevitable corollary is choice. If one is trying to give people what they want, why should only one body be allowed to give them what they want? The phrase "public service broadcasting" in this sense does not seem to carry any implication that there should be a monopoly for the B. Indeed, the B. That new magic word is "comprehensive".

That word occurs three times in the first four sentences of Lord Hill's introduction. This is very much the new idea. With the abandonment of Reith, there is no more reason for the service to be comprehensive than for it to be a monopoly or for London Transport to have a monopoly of all transport in London.

With the new concept, the B. Therefore, I do not favour the B. One of the genuine choices that should be allowed is freedom from advertising on broadcasting for those people who do not want to have it.

Unfortunately, instead of attempting to do what it is uniquely fitted to do and leaving out what it is not, the B. The sacking of orchestras, which has been commented upon by many hon. Members, seems to be excessive. I have received the memorandum from the Musicians Union which I gather has been sent to the right hon. It says: The broadcasting organisation of France provides continuous employment in its own orchestras for musicians.

The organisation in the Federal Republic of Germany provides employment for when the figures were last obtained at least 1, musicians. If these figures are correct the B. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about patronage and the B. The logic of the B. The justification for a monopoly has disappeared. On the grounds of economy and freedom and on the ground of choice that monopoly should be broken, and I look forward to a system that will provide a choice for the listeners and a choice for the performers and that will also provide minority and cultural programmes of a high order.

That is the sort of system that we should aim for. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central Mr. Ian Gilmour should make a case for commercial radio apparently on grounds of choice. The comments made by some of my hon. Friends have clearly demonstrated that choice is precisely that commercial programmes do not provide, in all the experience of those countries who, unfortunately suffer under commercial systems. It is precisely the problem in the United States, where there are masses of precisely the same programmes on every channel at a certain time.

Friends made that devastatingly clear. If we want choice, that is the main argument for a public service system. I start from the belief that the major threat to our society comes from the danger of domination of narrow commercial values. That is why this debate is so important. If we are to preserve choice in the way we are to live in the 'seventies we must preserve a wide area of our lives where commercial advertising is not in control.

That is why it is desperately important that the field that has already been taken over by commercialism in one form or another should be halted at this point.

That is why it is desperately important that such a vital element in our lives—in education, in social matters and in every other way —as the B. We have all heard comments made by sociologists that many of our young people receive far more in the way of education from what they see and hear on television and radio than from their normal official schooling.

The influence of these main channels is of immense importance. That is why I strongly believe that it would be wrong for the B. We have gone too far along that road already. Much of the social disease that we fear and suffer from today is traceable to this origin.

Having said that, I agree that I face the same problem as that which other hon. Members have to face. That being so, if we are denying the B. We must face the problem frankly. We are deluding ourselves into considering the public rejection of paying an increased licence fee a danger. We are making this a bigger bogy than it need be. I am very conscious that many people are not paying the existing licence fee. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not say more about the problem of evasion, which is a grave one.

Various ideas have been put forward to remedy the situation. It has been suggested that the Government should guarantee that sum, whatever it is, to give the Government and the Postmaster-General or his successor some incentive to claim that money back.

This followed a desire to open up learning by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the s. The combination of early morning and late night broadcasts with written materials, became an international model for distance learning.

John Craven was chosen to present the programme, sitting in front of a desk, not behind, so as not to remind children of a teacher. Newsround was the first sustained attempt to give children a news service which they could call their own. It broke two major news stories: an assassination attempt on Pope John Paul, and the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in This ground-breaking programme captured the tensions and humour of ordinary family life in the Wilkins household. It raised controversial issues about class, race and manners in 70s England, and was the first time cameras had simply filmed daily life without direct interviews - the earliest example of 'reality TV'.