Oral Answers to Questions — Wireless and Television – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 17 December 1958.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that during a recent discussion programme broadcast by the Independent Television Authority between Mr. Gerald Gardiner, Q.C., and Mr. W. J. Brown on capital punishment an artificial break was made in the programme, Mr. Gardiner being interrupted in the middle of a sentence for the purpose of inserting advertisements; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he proposes to take against the Authority.
The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors comply with the Television Act, 1954, rests with the Independent Television Authority. They tell me that the matter has been taken up with the programme contractor concerned.
In the interests of the public, can the Authority or the contractor be prosecuted when they break the law? Secondly, as there is this tendency now—I want to be quite reasonable about it—for breaks to be manufactured in programmes and for the compere simply to say, "I must leave you now. We will be back in a few minutes", would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to discuss with those of us who take a serious view of this the possibility of altering the Regulations to get what was really in Parliament's mind when we discussed the Television Act?
The responsibility is that of the Independent Television Authority and not mine. If the hon. Member wishes to have conversations on this, I suggest they should be had with the I.T.A.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for his own rule? As these rules have been approved by him and placed in the Library as a result of his initiative, surely he ought to compel the I.T.A. to conform with the rules?
The right hon. Gentleman has over-stated the case. For example, at the most in a month there have been only one or two breaches of the rules and, as there are 600 advertisements a day, this is not a matter which should cause alarm to any reasonable person.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were very extended debates on this matter in the House? We were given assurances that natural breaks would be natural breaks. In view of those assurances, surely he must accept some responsibility in this matter?
It is the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority. 22. Mr. Mayhew asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Independent Television Authority recently approved the broadcasting of ten and a half minutes of advertisements within a period of 70 minutes; and whether he will issue regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, to prohibit the broadcasting of more than four minutes of advertisements in any hour.
The Authority tells me that arrangements have been introduced which broadly limit the amount of advertising in any one hour to eight minutes. This is subject always to the overall daily average of six minutes in the hour, which the Authority has imposed from the beginning, having regard to paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Television Act. I see no need to issue regulations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
Is the Minister aware that the Act plainly lays down that the amount of television advertising should not be such as to detract from the value of the programmes? Four minutes advertising in the hour would give more than ample profit to programme contractors, and ten and a half minutes in 70 is a gross abuse of the Act and creates profiteering as well.
The duty of defining that is on the Authority and not on me.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether I.T.A. has been receiving any of these complaints from the public, or are they coming only from a few hon. Members opposite who dislike independent television?
There is very little disturbance in the minds of the public. If these breaks were interfering with the programme the number of viewers on that channel would go down, whereas in fact it has been increasing.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will make regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, to prohibit the interruption of programmes by advertisements.
asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the large profits obtained by programme contractors, if he will use his powers under the Television Act, 1954, to confine advertisements to the beginnings and ends of programmes and prevent the intrusion of artificial breaks.
No, Sir, I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) last week.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent investigation into this matter published under the title of "Children's Television", in which a very great deal of comment was made about irritating interruptions in the middle of programmes? Now that the I.T.A. is sitting pretty, is it not about time the convenience of viewers was taken into consideration rather than the profits of programme contractors?
As I said in answer to the last Question, the number of viewers is increasing; therefore, they must be receiving what they want.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act puts responsibility on him to see that the Second Schedule is enforced. He has power thereunder to amend, withdraw and replace all these Regulations. What is gained by these constant illegal, profiteering, breaks in programmes about which many complaints are received from the public? I could send the right hon. Gentleman scores of them, if he wants them. Why are the breaks allowed, when all they do is to increase the already excessive profits of the contractors?
I cannot accept the assumption underlying the right hon Gentleman's supplementary questions.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gilbert Harding taking a lozenge or an advertisement for hair restorer can break into a boxing match? Is that what we pay for?
We are not paying for it. That is the point.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total proportion of advertising is not excessive in the hour? Is it not a fact that in a play which is particularly dramatic a break for advertising can be a relief?